Maynard Ferguson Range

Discussion in 'Trumpet Discussion' started by trumpettrax, Apr 25, 2012.

  1. Janet Lee

    Janet Lee New Friend

    22
    17
    May 1, 2011
    If what I posted is deemed objectionable,
    I will refrain from posting.

    I have no interest in being controversial.
     
  2. Satchmo Brecker

    Satchmo Brecker Piano User

    493
    78
    Jul 19, 2010
    No no, your post was excellent! I think there are some folks on TM who just always defer to Mr Rowuk as if he's the end all in Trumpet. He IS extremely knowledgeable for sure, but he's often very gruff and impatient. I just see him as an Archie Bunker type (minus any hint of racism of course)...hard gruff exterior who's really just a nice guy inside who'll give you the shirt off his back if he had to (shirt off back = answers the same old question hundreds of times, but still always answers them!)
     
  3. Local 357

    Local 357 Banned

    633
    240
    Jul 1, 2011

    ? Surely you overestimate his input.

    Rowuk does not speak of or appear to understand anything related to the differences between those who play receded jaw or forward jaw. To name just one matter of concern. This is like your mechanic not knowing the difference being an automatic and standard transmission. A seriously deficient view of brass playing.

    Rowuk does not DEBATE. His replies to thoughts he disagrees with using words that generally amount to "you're full of poop" or "most others believe the opposite of your ideas". In other words:

    The ad hom attack: Where you attack the man because you can not refute the idea.

    Of course he is not alone. Not the only one holding old ideas. This resistance to learning is the number one obstacle we face as we try and bring the understanding of playing the trumpet OUT of the 19th century.

    Surely Rowuk has a lot of information. Sometimes useful, more often inapplicable/false but does any of it include ideas relevant to what we trumpet players of the 21st century ought discuss?
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2012
  4. kingtrumpet

    kingtrumpet Utimate User

    8,612
    2,128
    Sep 20, 2009
    New York State USA
    I just want to add -- (at least in my opinion -- and Janet please keep posting your perspective -- IT REALLY IS IMPORTANT for the forum to succeed!).
    my concept is similiar in most respects -- except for the squeals -- my aim is to NOT jump over notes, and NOT squeal notes. (surely at points in increasing range, you might end up with squeals to dial the notes in, and I also admitted in one post here that it is "EASIER" in my opinion to slur from the high G directly to the Double C -- versus playing the A and B in there).
    and YES -- for me -- in order to get decent notes in the high G,A range, and small rifts -- it takes a "solid embouchure, at the corners -- while the aperture is held in place, and still letting the lips in the aperture be far enough apart to vibrate freely" ---- maybe it isn't weight lifting, and maybe I am using the "wrong" technique as many on TM suggest (it ain't weight lifting!!) -- but for me, it takes effort, and many years to get at that level - -- and I can't make it look easy -- unless I play notes at the pp level (((which has already been suggested)))) -- but I want FULL, HONEST, GOOD sounding notes --- and that takes effort

    -------------and the other big thing is to --have the whole range (low F# to the high G,A) without changing the embouchure in any appreciable way -----but to use air support, and some effort -- octave leaps (some double octave leaps), intervals and such have helped me get there ----
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2012
  5. rowuk

    rowuk Moderator Staff Member

    Age:
    61
    16,616
    7,960
    Jun 18, 2006
    Germany
    I think that trying to match range and embouchure/jaw position is risky. There are so few players that own those notes that no statistics can be interpreted. Fact is there aren't a whole lot of situations where you need it - especially for the players with "darker" sounds, so we have no real comparison.

    As far as Maynard goes, I personally have trouble with any one sided view of his playing. The mans greatness was not in the double or triple octave - ask anyone who has had the joy of playing with him or getting a lesson.

    The analysis of his embouchure is equally idiotic without knowing what his hernia operations did to his breathing, what his weight gain did (the heart works harder when you have many pounds more than necessary and that means a different supply of oxygen to the muscles), what the extreme use of his face over time did, what the mouthpiece and horn switches did and finally what maturity did to his concept. It would have been fascinating to travel with him over the 50 years+ that he was playing in the stratosphere and document what changed in the face geometry and brain.

    So, we have CDs and YouTubes with high notes. My advice is simply to listen to the context of his playing. THAT is what created the excitement.
     
  6. kingtrumpet

    kingtrumpet Utimate User

    8,612
    2,128
    Sep 20, 2009
    New York State USA
    well I don't know what happened in his face geometry over time -- or what adverse medical conditions result in the brain from excess exertion on playing high notes -----------but Maynard along with "high" range could produce an equally Awesome ballad below the staff -- that was harmonious, and flowing, and moving. there is speed and precision in his playing, as well as long enduring notes. NOT all was stratospheric --- and in the vids I have of him -- he took FREQUENT breaks during any songs that required "high" range -- at least in the late 70's and early 80's (the time of my vids)...

    nonetheless - I can't be Maynard, probably wont' come close to range, power, and definitely volume wise ---- but it still is cool to get a few decent riffs up to around the High G/A range ----- it still fascinates me ----- even if the music never calls for that -----in practice sessions ---- MYSELF calls for it, myself says -- that is way cool to do it!!!!!!!!!

    now I hope I just don't get a hernia, or a brain embolism ---
     
  7. rowuk

    rowuk Moderator Staff Member

    Age:
    61
    16,616
    7,960
    Jun 18, 2006
    Germany
    BS is a term that I use to describe thoughts with little substance, myths or outright lies. I use the term sparingly and make no claim to having the "key" to unlocking range, endurance and power regardless of the player. My views are all based on my personal experience. The links that I provide are almost all from people that I have worked with. In Locals case, I sorely miss many things that could make his claims credible.

    I don't worry about receded or forward jaw. Don't consider either to be a "basic" handicap or benefit. As to knowing the difference, let's say, that Local again has never asked - just accused. I have had the opportunity to "rescue" players that have messed their faces up by switching in both directions. There are enough players from both camps doing excellent jobs in jazz, classical and commercial work - in any of the necessary octaves.

    I provide facts. I do not argue against hot air. If a system works, there are plenty of players that represent it. One mans opinion is only that. I list my sources and the methodology to reach the conclusions that I do. There are college programs that have been turning out fine players for decades - North Texas State for instance

    The idea that only new is significant is pretty naive. Seems to me that every generation has had their share of high quality players - also those with high notes. And imagine this - long before either I or Local started posting. I do consider it significant that the top players have primarily received top training from traditional top players.

    So with Locals 21st century technology, WHERE ARE THE HUNDREDS OF "NEW SCHOOL" PLAYERS THAT HAVE THE CHOPS, STYLE, BODY USE, ATTITUDE AND READING ABILITY that are required to make a stamp in history? Where are the bands cranking out charts never before playable by the old school lead players? Hmm............. I can't think of any either. I think that maybe things weren't so bad up until now and all claims of spectacular be left to survive the test of time. Come on Local - debate. Where are the players? Where are the charts?

    To bring this back to earth: the ONLY issue with playing is the player, not the system. If the player has the talent, drive, health and is lucky enough to get proper support (whatever that means) the chance for success is great. Demotivation due to lack of loud, high and long are not problems that drive players away from the horn. Sure, we would all like to have more, but most are not willing or able to invest the TIME required to support or compensate their talent. THAT is the key to getting better long before the jaws take over.


    Janet,
    I think that you have done a fine job posting. I really enjoy your style and the links. Thank you
     
  8. Phil986

    Phil986 Forte User

    1,094
    329
    Nov 16, 2009
    Near Portland, OR.
    I see a lot of confusion on internet forums about what consitutes a logical fallacy, and especially about what is an ad-hominem argument. In the case of local357's post above, I am a little suprised that, in consecutive sentences, he lists examples of attitudes that are not ad-homs then proceeds on to accurately describe what an ad-hom is.

    So, just to clarify: an ad-hom is the logical fallacy that consists of using a personal flaw (real or invented for the occasion) of the person making an argument in order to attempt to invalidate the argument. It is a fallacy because the presence of said flaw, real or not, has no bearing whatsoever on the validity of the argument.

    Example: X eats little puppies for breakfast, without even cooking them, so his opinion on high register playing is wrong. It is plain that this falls short from a logical perspective: as despicable as X's breakfast habits may be, it does not prevent X to produce excellent opinions on high register playing. It simply has nothing to do with it.

    Arguing that someone is full of poop is not by itself a logical fallacy; it is quite possible that the person is indeed full of it. However, arguing that one is full of poop is also by itself insufficient and requires elaboration: how and why is the person full of poop on the topic considered must be presented, otherwise, it is just an empty statement.

    Arguing that most believe otherwise does not constitute ad-hom either. It does not even consitute an argument from authority (another logical fallacy). Argument from authority roughly consists of saying: I'm the expert and I know better and this is the way it is. That kind of attitude is almost always associated with individuals plagued by an oversized ego. It led to numerous aviation accidents, in which the chain of events included crewmembers who accurately understood the unsafe quality of a situation but failed to speak up, or spoke and were overruled by a superior ranking authoritative character. Unfortunately it also affects the medical field, as there are places where, no matter what the published evidence says, things are done the way the professor believes best, which is not to be challenged. Another version of this, much more insidious is argument from authority by proxy; in this case, one argues "so and so are experts and they say as I say so I'm right." It is equally flawed from a logical persective. However, caution must be taken to not disregard the opinion of experts; they normally know what they're talking about. It is just that being an expert is not enough to be right, you also have to make sense, put your ideas to the test, be opne to revision.

    Arguing that most believe otherwise is in fact a logically defensible argument. If the subject at hand is a technical one, in which most experts share a common interpretation, then it is perfectly appropriate to point that the dominant consensus differs from one's position. The consensus may be wrong but more likely than not (and way more often than not in actuality), it is closer to the truth than isolated individuals with radically different ideas. It is rare that such a consensus be entirely wrong, but in science for instance it is possible to find that it has a limited domain of application and was in fact a special case of a more general interpretation with a larger domain of application. The typical example is Newtonian physics vs relativity. Newton works fine within its domain of application. Beyond that, one needs Einstein. The GPS systems couldn't work only with Newton, the speeds involved exceed the domain of application in which results will be accurate enough. That does not make Newton and all the physicist after him wrong, only limited.

    End of logical fallacies soap box moment.
     
  9. kingtrumpet

    kingtrumpet Utimate User

    8,612
    2,128
    Sep 20, 2009
    New York State USA
    good post -- I especially liked Newton and Einstein in the same sentence --- 400 years apart -- but arguably 2 of the most intelligent people that were ever on this earth --- IMHO.
     
  10. Local 357

    Local 357 Banned

    633
    240
    Jul 1, 2011

    Take note here folks:

    Rowuk does NOT believe there is much significance in performance between trumpet players based upon whether they play with a forward or receded jaw. He states this explicitly which i suppose is at least a bit forthcoming. Never-the-less as I mentioned before this is a seriously DEFICIENT understanding of the way the trumpet gets played.

    With these kinds of attitudes expressed (presumably Rowuk is a TEACHER) we really can't expect the aspiring lead trumpet player who studies under such tutelage to make much predictable progress. There will be a few successes as this is the law of averages. However the lack of understanding in terms of what the receded jaw player and the forward jaw trumpet player needs is (again!) seriously deficient.

    And he spells it out for us! I suppose we can thank him for that. Kind of like that comedian who said that certain less inspirational people should "just wear a sign".

    "Here's your sign":


    JEFF FOXWORTHY COMEDY PT. 3 with BILL ENGVALL - YouTube
     
    Last edited: Apr 29, 2012

Share This Page