Major Breakthrough after Lesson with Pops

Discussion in 'Trumpet Discussion' started by afp, Jan 22, 2014.

  1. Sethoflagos

    Sethoflagos Utimate User

    5,331
    4,731
    Aug 7, 2013
    Lagos, Nigeria
    Thank Gzent. One of his comments reminded me of college days, and a boozy evening in a pub listening to a philosophy student explain the principles of Hegelian Dialectics:

    I sometimes wonder if this little gem of wisdom would have stuck in my head if she hadn't been so pretty. Glad it did.
     
  2. tjcombo

    tjcombo Forte User

    1,000
    749
    Nov 12, 2012
    Melbourne, Australia
    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y&desktop_uri=/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y#
     
  3. Sethoflagos

    Sethoflagos Utimate User

    5,331
    4,731
    Aug 7, 2013
    Lagos, Nigeria
    Does the approach have to be universal? My impression of the 'less buzzy' techniques is that they produce less partials and rob the lower ranges of the brighter colours. But they definitely seem to give valuable assistance in the higher registers. Is there potential for gradually transitioning between the the two as we ascend above the stave?
     
  4. shooter

    shooter Piano User

    Age:
    46
    314
    74
    Jan 12, 2007
    VA
    Ahh! So you're still buzzing, just a different part of your lips is doing the buzzing. I see now. I thought you had this crazy ability to make the air vibrate the mouthpiece to produce the sound.
     
  5. Ed Lee

    Ed Lee Utimate User

    8,040
    2,035
    Aug 16, 2009
    Jackson NC
    All I can say is, "Phooey! (Fu-eee)" My take on the philosophical approach of dialectics is an "adamant argument" exempting and denouncing all other approaches of life. I got stuck in that academic course for want of an elective and it was the only course available in a time slot I then had. I won't say it hasn't given me insight, but it led to where I didn't want to go, and I won't go there now.

    I hum in the back of my oral and nasal cavities and often move this forward to a lip vibration emitting the sounds of music. At this point, I'm also aware of the slight aperture ideal for playing these brass "things".
     
  6. Vulgano Brother

    Vulgano Brother Moderator Staff Member

    Age:
    60
    12,458
    7,035
    Mar 23, 2006
    Parts Unknown
    I'm really grateful for my time spent studying pseudoscience, because one of the things it led me to was Non-Aristotelian logic. Aristotle, in De Interpretatione, wrote that "it is not necessary that of every affirmation and opposite negation one should be true and the other false."

    Rather than 1 being true and 0 being false, there are some generally accepted interpretations of truth: Robert Anton Wilson codified some of the in-betweennesses (Hah! A new word!) as "being true, false, indeterminate, meaningless, self-referential, game rule, or a strange loop." I was wise not to delve too deeply into this, because that would lead to real science. When we encounter peeing contests here at TM, it usually is over indeterminate or meaningless truths.

    If no hands are allowed, women will win every time, but that's covered in another thread.
     
  7. gmonady

    gmonady Utimate User

    18,119
    9,278
    Jan 28, 2011
    Dayton, Ohio
    Buzzing no, vibrating, yes.

    No crazy ability... I'm just crazy!!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yYM4jIxCJ14
     
  8. Dr.Mark

    Dr.Mark Mezzo Forte User

    920
    704
    Apr 5, 2011
    Hi Gman,
    You stated:
    "Apparently Mendez did it the best, but he is no longer with us, and yes, he worked hours and hours a day to have the endurance he had. So the comparison made by Dr.Mark between Mr. Mendez and the phwooo is not a fair one. I only practice 1-2 hours a day"
    ---------
    You stated that the phwoo method positively effects your endurance. So now you're suggesting that if we bring Mendez back, limit him to 1-2 hour of practice a day, your endurance will best Mendez's endurance because of the use of a method most have not heard of? Really?
    Gman, you're using yourself in a poorly constucted single subject design and reporting that the results (based on you measuring yourself) as proof.
    You forgot one of the basics of science(the systematic investigation of something). Never EVER state things in a way that comes across as definative. In a study (as you know) the proper way is to say that what's has been found suggests or strongly suggests.
    For example:
    "When talking about buzzing, there's a little known method (phwooo) that seems to be a promising alternative or a possible addition to to buzzing"
    I also think you didn't read all my post. I said "Maybe in time" and I stick by that statement because you are a smart person and for you to be so strong on an idea says something. As I said, maybe in time, the pwhooo method will be accepted as reasonable when compared to buzzing.
    However, to say that buzzing is overrated and go on to say that a method that hardly anyone has heard of is positively better and using yourself as a single subject design to make this determination isn't very cricket now is it.
    Now go to your room young man and think about what you've done.
    Don't make us release the flying monkeys!!
    Dr.Mark
     
  9. gzent

    gzent Fortissimo User

    3,724
    758
    Nov 5, 2003
    Rochester, MN
    Funny how Monty Python skits can be applied to just about any topic under discussion.
     
  10. gzent

    gzent Fortissimo User

    3,724
    758
    Nov 5, 2003
    Rochester, MN
    But not as smart as a pilot, remember ?! ;-)
     

Share This Page