Eric,
You wrote:
Quote:
I doubt mouthpiece popping has any relevance…well, to anything.
http://www.grmouthpieces.com/questions4.htm
You can believe whatever you want, if thinking the moon is made of cheese will help change your sound and your playing for the better, more power to ya.
I wouldn’t worry about where the tuning slide is, either. Just put it where it needs to be. I see Michael Sachs play his Bb trumpet every 4 or 5 days. His tuning slide is pulled out pretty far, maybe ¾ of an inch, maybe as much 7/8. I don’t know exactly, I haven’t cared to bring a ruler with me and measure yet. Heh. Anyway it is out much farther than mine. Guess who sounds/plays better? Not me.
|
And Manny said,
Quote:
|
Playing to "the low side of the pitch" is essentially an antidote to the fact that the vast majority of trumpeters, amateur and professional, tend to play with tight bodies and with sharp intonation. One tends to lead to the other.
|
The point of my original message was to highlight what Manny mentioned above. I said “over 90 percent” of players and Manny said the “vast majority”. For those players, this popping test may well help them to experience that they are not in phase with their instruments and could benefit from a different approach to sound production.
I clearly understand that we all play differently. I didn’t know that Michael Sachs played with his slide out further than other players on his Bb, but his personal approach to sound production clearly is working great for him.
This is a post that Peter Bond wrote when we were talking about
Resonance and sound on TH:
Quote:
When David Krauss first joined the Met section, we had a joke about tuning visually using a credit card; Pandolfi (3rd tpt) played with his slide so far out that he would check it by holding the card lengthwise against the exposed tubing. Krauss would hold the card vertically against his slide, and I (2nd) would use the card on edge because I play with my slide nearly closed.
We all could blend, but played quite differently, and with a different concept of pitch center. Krauss' concept is close to Pandolfi's (having studied with "Dolf" as a youngster), but I am less so (although I agree with elements of it). Jim Ross is even further away in concept (probably closest to the Jacobs' school), yet he sounds great and we all seem to be able to make our sounds work together.
The upshot is that there is more to this resonance business than meets the eye (ear?), because of players' different approaches to the instrument. I've only illustrated one section of "legit" (ha-ha) players in one orchestra. There will be even more approaches in the jazz and commercial world.
Read, study, experiment, and learn, but realize that there are no rigid rules that apply to everyone.
Peter Bond
|
And in another post in that same thread, he wrote:
Quote:
Regarding blending and resonance among different players, Cichowicz often said that there were several "correct" trumpet sounds. I identify or interpret these to be "singing" sounds. Dolf has a beautiful singing sound, but he plays out on the very razor's edge of the sound (courting disaster if all of the physical elements don't line up just right). Jim Ross (and Cichowicz, for that matter) also has a singing sound, but he plays deep into the sound; you'd never mistake one player for the other, but they are both "correctly" produced sounds IMO.
I believe 'Dolf is working on a book, although every player/reader will interpret it differently (which brings the King James Bible briefly to mind, but that's a whole 'nother thread and newsgroup - I hope).
Neither Jacobs, Cichowicz or Schlossberg wrote method books (the "Schlossberg" book is just a pile of his exercises assembled by his son-in-law), but their philosophy of playing lives on in their students. Much of Jacob's teaching has been misinterpreted by well meaning teachers and players for years - even during his lifetime.
|
So what I take away from all of this is players with different “singing” approaches to sound production can rise to the highest levels of performance on the instrument. However, when I read that some approaches put a player on the “very razor's edge of the sound (courting disaster if all of the physical elements don't line up just right)”, I would say that very strong personal modeling would be required for a student to be successful with this approach. On the other hand, “playing deep into the sound” seems to be more forgiving, especially when it comes to providing “written suggestions” on the Internet.
I clearly am in line with what Manny advocates, but I also understand that sound production has many “right” answers. I’m not sure if you’ll ever be a teacher (I’m not a teacher), but I wouldn’t discount this idea of popping the mouthpiece to help someone that does not yet have a “singing approach” to sound production. It may be that for the large majority of your future students, this idea might be the stepping stone that they need to move to the next level.
Just a thought! Hope these additional posts add something to this conversation.
I like Peter Bond's final idea for this post:
Read, study, experiment, and learn, but realize that there are no rigid rules that apply to everyone.