Modern Approach to Playing Trumpet

Discussion in 'Trumpet Pedagogy' started by gwood66, Sep 8, 2018.

  1. kehaulani

    kehaulani Fortissimo User

    May 14, 2011
    Hawaian homey
    Bflatman, I appreciate your comments so this is just a question because I'm interested in these things, not as a criticism at all.
    (And not that it matters. :-))

    You say "me and my mother" is correct English. I was taught that one way to find the correct form in a sentence that has two subjects, (me and my mother), is to eliminate one of the subjects and see if the results are stand-alone correct. Therefore:

    "My mother went to the store" stands alone and is the correct form.
    "Me went to the store" is not correct.
    "I went to the store" is correct.

    Therefore, the correct form of the words is, "I and my mother" and not "Me and my mother".

    Is there a difference between the "King's English" and "American English" in this case? Thanks.
    (And that question is based on my son's being an exchange student to England, where he was given three pages of words amd phrases that are the same words but have different meanings in English/American. I.e. "Knock me up". :-D )
  2. Bflatman

    Bflatman Forte User

    Nov 27, 2008
    Manchester, England
    I understand where you are coming from kehaulani, but english as in kings english has a lengthy heritage stretching back a thousand years. Often new rules have emerged that contradict traditional use and scholars are notoriously guilty of making up rules that appear correct and yet are not.

    I believe the motive is to make the language simpler to construct and use and to remove language traps that we keep falling into.

    One such example is of the collective noun where a spurious and incorrect collective noun for baboons is accepted by scholars now as a flange, whereas this is nonesense the correct collective noun for baboons is a congress. What seems to be correct unfortunately is often wrong in a language that gestated in saxon england matured with shakespear and came of age with Dickens.

    I would ask you to note that I did not say Me and my mother, instead I said my Mother and me. This is an old and long established way of expressing the first person as in myself or me

    As I understand it the correct form of identifying oneself in a sentence is by saying me and not I, although this is not a consistent rule, I believe the use of I instead on me derived from the Queens of england when expressing herself, she has commonly used the term my husband and I, and this sounds like it should be correct, rather than saying my husband and me, which sounds rather ungainly but in fact me is correct and I is not. Old english is just often ungainly.

    I guess the queen of england has the power as head of state to modify the language as she sees fit.

    I am I have to say no linguist and I defer to those who are and constitute my source on this, however I cite a few examples, the poem "my mother in me", which obeys the rule of using me, "my mother in I" does not.

    Another example is "Jill took Justin and me to the shop", which is correct english whereas "Jill took Justin and I" to the shop is incorrect.

    It has to be said however that there is some confusion over this question of usage of I and of me. and many traditional grammaticians disapprove of the use of me, however there are differences of opinion even in these hallowed halls, for example is it correct to use "jenny and me joined the chess club", or "jenny and I joined the chess club".

    The answer is actually and rather unpalatably both are correct depending upon where they are used. In speech it is usual to say "jenny and me", however in written english it is correct to say "jenny and I".

    The basic problem is that people love rules and they love consistency, and yet english is often neither consistent nor conforms to a single ruleset.

    Examples abound of this, the rule taught in schools is i before e except after c, this sounds good however the rule is just bunk, there are 44 words that obey that rule and 923 words that break that rule.

    Rules generally speaking do not work in english no matter how beloved they are of grammaticians.

    And this is really where I was heading with the post, your use of english was good and correct and any attempt to correct you based on a simplistic rule for what is an exceedingly complex language is in my opinion folly.

    I realise that this answer is both lengthy and as clear as mud but english resists rules no matter how much scholars and university dons like them, I hope, if you have survived to the end of this post that it goes some way to answering your question.
    Bachatit likes this.
  3. prinmancz52

    prinmancz52 New Friend

    Nov 28, 2007
    That depends on whether you are using it in the subject or predicate of the sentence.

    My mother and I like chicken.

    Do not make chicken for my mother and me.

    It is this situational depending on sentence construction.

    Anyway, I agree that grammatical correction is a waste of time on this site! Unless it is really egregious...

    Me done
    GeorgeB likes this.
  4. Bflatman

    Bflatman Forte User

    Nov 27, 2008
    Manchester, England
    That makes a lot of sense prinmancz52 thanks for that, I do think that there are loopholes and exceptions so that a scholar would need to interpret individual cases and I suspect there will always be disagreements.

    They tried to invent a simpler language with simple rules and called it esperanto, it was a total failure and is little used today.

    Interestingly the language is alive and changing every year, whereas german and japanese are dead languages and are largely unchanging, in the future it may be that english becomes simpler and full of rules that work.

    It is great to have a language that stays up to date and contemporary

    TYVM prinmanc52 MHOTY but now we have TMI IMHO - LMAO B4N
  5. stumac

    stumac Fortissimo User

    Oct 19, 2008
    Flinders Vic Australia
    We seem to have gone past George Orwell's "Newspeak" and now to "Txtspk".

    Regards, Stuart.
    Sethoflagos likes this.
  6. Sethoflagos

    Sethoflagos Utimate User

    Aug 7, 2013
    Lagos, Nigeria
    Your assumptions are correct: the rules for formal standard English are perfectly clear -

    Variations can quite reasonably be viewed as either casual, affected, or just plain illiterate.

    Less clear is your reference to 'The King's English'. That's actually a book that was in vogue before the Great War, but was superseded by Fowler's later Dictionary of Modern English Usage about a century ago. It's guidance is in some parts a tad antiquated these days :-).
  7. Bflatman

    Bflatman Forte User

    Nov 27, 2008
    Manchester, England
    Excellent contribution seth.

    I have only one thing to add, and that is, what is the point of expressing oneself, and using correct forms of expression. The point is to be understood and communicate thoughts. I think kehaulani made himself abundantly clear and cannot be faulted in either his content or in his grammar.

    What is more important rules of construction and grammar or communication. It must in my view be communication and not rules.

    I also think that so many sins are committed by others in using english incorrectly and some are guilty of making monumental errors. To correct a writer who is clear and understandable and moreover grammatically correct is to me odd and unreasonable behaviour.

    I think a wise man is more permissive no matter how much we strive for correctness in all things we never achieve that, we all make mistakes. A wise man sees fault in himself, a less wise man sees fault in others.
  8. kehaulani

    kehaulani Fortissimo User

    May 14, 2011
    Hawaian homey
    So, back to Gerard Presencer's book. Any further feedback?
  9. gwood66

    gwood66 Piano User

    Dec 21, 2015
    South of Chicago
    I received the book a couple of weeks ago and reviewed it cover to cover. Each exercise contains instruction that explains the what, how and why. The instruction emphasizes development of a soft single tongue, consistent air stream and coordination of the two in a jazz context. I would say that the method would be a logical progression for anyone who has already spent some time going through Clarke or the Vizzutti technical studies methods looking to develop from a jazz perspective. I am very pleased with the purchase.
  10. kehaulani

    kehaulani Fortissimo User

    May 14, 2011
    Hawaian homey

Share This Page