Most of these apply, and I'm a bit shocked to find someone who lives in Realville...

[bloke]

replace "overhaul/repad" with "chem-clean/replace valve springs"

[iiipopes]

Indeed. This applies to brass as well as woodwinds. I especially had to fight the "get a horn the same as the teacher." An anecdote, if I may:

In high school I took a few month's worth of lessons from the regional university trumpet professor. He was all about making Bud Herseth clones. He insisted that all his students purchase Bach 18037ML Bb trumpets, or better yet, a stock Selmer Bach C trumpet large bore, and 1 1/2 C mouthpieces. I wasn't about to give up my Dad's King Super 20, and I lost all endurance trying to switch from my Bach 3C mouthpiece. I sold the 1 1/2 C mouthpiece. It was mutually agreed to not continue lessons. I went back to my 3C. I did practice intensely out of the books he had me buy, and by my junior year I was co-lead trumpet in the jazz band section of the same regional university summer band camp, and qualified for a small stipend to play a horn in the concert band when I graduated high school and went to a different college for my undergrad degree. I have a naturally bright tone on trumpet, and a Bach 37 bell sounded thin and tinny when I played one. Maybe a 43 bell or 72 bell would have worked for me, but I essentially had the same thing on my Super 20.

Here are the fallacies that only decades later we now all know:
1) Bud Herseth's Bach C trumpet was not an off-the-shelf Strad. It was one of a special run of five, now called the "Chicago" model, with a large bore and other tweaks to deal with the horrible acoustics in the Chicago hall.
2) Bud Herseth played a Mt. Vernon era 1 1/2 C. The later Selmer 1 1/2 C mouthpieces have a larger cup. In fact, the cup of a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2 C is almost indistinguishable to my Selmer era 3C. The cup diameter and rim overlay are exactly the same. You can compare the digital traces here: https://trumpet.cloud/mpc/ . The MV is a hair deeper to tame a 37 bell, while the 3C is a hair shallower which matches the bell of my Super 20 better.
3) I did not want to be a Herseth clone or a trumpet major. I was going to, and did, go on to professional grad school after college. What I wanted to do is what I did: sit first chair, or at least first section, in high school. I accomplished that.

Folks, if you teach, please look to bring out and develop what the student is and has; please do not try to make him/her into something completely unreasonable and risk killing his/her interest in playing altogether.

[Pauvog1]

Indeed. This applies to brass as well as woodwinds. I especially had to fight the "get a horn the same as the teacher." An anecdote, if I may:

In high school I took a few month's worth of lessons from the regional university trumpet professor. He was all about making Bud Herseth clones. He insisted that all his students purchase Bach 18037ML Bb trumpets, or better yet, a stock Selmer Bach C trumpet large bore, and 1 1/2 C mouthpieces. I wasn't about to give up my Dad's King Super 20, and I lost all endurance trying to switch from my Bach 3C mouthpiece. I sold the 1 1/2 C mouthpiece. It was mutually agreed to not continue lessons. I went back to my 3C. I did practice intensely out of the books he had me buy, and by my junior year I was co-lead trumpet in the jazz band section of the same regional university summer band camp, and qualified for a small stipend to play a horn in the concert band when I graduated high school and went to a different college for my undergrad degree. I have a naturally bright tone on trumpet, and a Bach 37 bell sounded thin and tinny when I played one. Maybe a 43 bell or 72 bell would have worked for me, but I essentially had the same thing on my Super 20.

Here are the fallacies that only decades later we now all know:
1) Bud Herseth's Bach C trumpet was not an off-the-shelf Strad. It was one of a special run of five, now called the "Chicago" model, with a large bore and other tweaks to deal with the horrible acoustics in the Chicago hall.
2) Bud Herseth played a Mt. Vernon era 1 1/2 C. The later Selmer 1 1/2 C mouthpieces have a larger cup. In fact, the cup of a Mt. Vernon 1 1/2 C is almost indistinguishable to my Selmer era 3C. The cup diameter and rim overlay are exactly the same. You can compare the digital traces here: https://trumpet.cloud/mpc/ . The MV is a hair deeper to tame a 37 bell, while the 3C is a hair shallower which matches the bell of my Super 20 better.
3) I did not want to be a Herseth clone or a trumpet major. I was going to, and did, go on to professional grad school after college. What I wanted to do is what I did: sit first chair, or at least first section, in high school. I accomplished that.

Folks, if you teach, please look to bring out and develop what the student is and has; please do not try to make him/her into something completely unreasonable and risk killing his/her interest in playing altogether.

I really appreciate the story. I started out as a trumpet player and played in Jazz Bands in HS and undergrad. I never bought into the "you need an xyz mouthpiece to play XYZ style" Kool aid. I naturally have a slightly darker tone on trumpet, and likely due to my primarily being a tubist tend to not "compress" air enough to make the larger size trumpet mouthpieces work great in the upper register. I really enjoy the 10.5 (usually around .630 give or take) diameter size range, and have a different style cups/backbores to suit different styles. I really think too many trumpet students are going to bigger sizes at their detriment. (I also find most 18037's too stuffy without aftermarket tuning crooks - so I generally prefer something more open - even though many of my betters sound great on their bachs). Ultimately I am a tubist, so I spend more time / energy in that (it is definitely my primary), but the little shiney always has a special place for me.

As a teacher tend to keep a couple different mouthpieces for all my brass players to try out on stand by when it's time to look into upgrades. For example, I generally have younger tubist looking for the first "upgrade" and/or older non-equipment "junkies" try a Helleberg 120s and Bach 18, generally one or the other style works, then we can make recommendations from there based on their needs. I have an opinion of which works better for me, but not all my students have the same needs I do.

[Mary Ann]

Where we see this in horn playing is teachers who STILL try to force students into a "Farkas embouchure," because it's the "only right way to play the horn." Has ruined so many students whose natural working embouchure is NOT that. As soon as they see someone using more lower lip than upper, they freak out and say, no matter how accomplished the student, "Oh you would be SO much better if you would switch to doing it the RIGHT way."

[bloke]

Where we see this in horn playing is teachers who STILL try to force students into a "Farkas embouchure," because it's the "only right way to play the horn." Has ruined so many students whose natural working embouchure is NOT that. As soon as they see someone using more lower lip than upper, they freak out and say, no matter how accomplished the student, "Oh you would be SO much better if you would switch to doing it the RIGHT way."

I knew a very talented trumpet player who was an "upstreamer". His fesser ruined his trumpet playing, shoehorning him into a more typical embouchure.
I've reconnected with him on fb...He talks about band directing a lot, but not a whole lot about playing the trumpet...
I did enough detective work to ascertain that he's still playing with a community band, but he was one of those who could have probably played for decent dough (particularly as his lifespan has overlapped with the early 1970's expansion of orchestra budgets and studio recording pay) on top of doing band directing (just as Tommy Johnson did).
====================================
yes, and/but I was only sorta getting into instrument voodoo, but I guess this type of stuff is fine to discuss as well...

[donn]

Well ... some of this is leaning towards baloney in the interest of typical well meaning emphasis on the right priority.

Same as with tuba - instruments and mouthpieces do inherently sound different, offer easier or harder intonation characteristics, are more or less suited to specific playing applications. (Though the range of these situations is perhaps larger - right off hand I'm not aware of any interest in "vintage" tuba sound.) Yeah, you aren't going to be as fast as Lance Armstrong just because you bought the same bicycle, but there's a reason he's going to buy the best and keep the tires pumped up. The same applies much more to a saxophone, or a tuba.

The reed strength thing runs really deep. It's hard for a lot of players to accept that hard reeds aren't just more ideal, but there's a real relationship there with the mouthpiece, where the shape of the "facing" may call for a softer or harder reed to match. And there's the player. The corresponding tendency with the tuba is that we sort of disdain to play mouthpieces 32mm inside cup diameter or less. Not without reason, but it's a bad rule.

A perhaps less well known myth (that may be true) is that the reeds of old were made of better cane and were much harder ... and that's why the mouthpieces of yesteryear all have to be "opened up." This business of acquiring some highly sought after vintage mouthpiece and then having an expert refacer modify it ... I like to think there's nothing like that in the tuba scene.

I don't think sax players think much about what kind of brass the instrument is made of, though the neck joint may be an exception. Other woodwind players though, like clarinet, can overestimate the difference between wood and other alternative materials. What sure does make a difference here is how the interior is formed - the tonehole openings - and saxophones may get into this area with a covering over the center of the key pad called a "resonator", though that too is probably overestimated as an issue.

[bloke]

Having been around (and available to help) a tremendous quantity of players and their instruments over the years - players and instruments from the bottom to the top of each heap - the more deficient the player, (sure: with many exceptions) the more they seem to tend to dwell on their equipment (along with "so-and-so says"), and the less they tend to invest in self-improvement (well-applied work + time).

Ryan Anthony:
"Hey bloke...You know from maintaining these horns (and cleaning the "green room" food out of them over-and-over) that Yamaha has us play their stuff and that all of it's gold plated...I've been playing my old YFH-231 [*LONG-discontinued "beginner" LACQUER-finish flugelhorn, with YTR-232 trumpet valve section - his parents bought it for him when he was 11] on our gigs, and a Yamaha rep. said something about it. Would you please refinish the ugly bell interior, and then spray over the instrument with gold-tinted lacquer that will hold up?' sure...I can do a thin coat of of gold to get just the right color and a hardy coat of clear on top - to protect it...Will that suffice? "yeah...great."

stupid-hard reeds being used where they should not be used:
[band director]
"Hey bloke, this contrabass clarinet plays stuffy and sounds airy.
[bloke - seeing a Bundy/Babbit contra-ALTO mouthpiece and a #3-1/2 (or #4 ) popsicle stick.]
Even though the mouthpiece is too small and not-that-great, I go into our stock room, pull out a #1 or #1-1/2 contrabass clarinet reed, put it on their mouthpiece, and play their contrabass clarinet with a big resonant sound.

The guy in the video is correct:
Really "hard" (thick-tipped) reeds should (mostly) be bought with the intention of CUSTOM-shaving them down to one's liking.
As an example, there's really no such thing (in the successful professional realm, at least, not in the USA...and less-and-less in Europe) as a "hard" oboe reed.
Reeds should vibrate. If they are resistant to vibrating, they are resistant to generating sound.
If a commercial sax player is using a really hard (thick-tipped) reed with a commercial (very open/small-chambered) mouthpiece, they're also blowing their ass off, and getting a tremendous amount of "fist" in their sound - with not much choice of producing other types of sounds, with that set-up (ie. special application).
___________________________________________
*Possibly (??), it was determined by corporate that these played way too well, for way-too-low pricing:
https://images.reverb.com/image/upload/ ... pk8pie.jpg

[iiipopes]

Where we see this in horn playing is teachers who STILL try to force students into a "Farkas embouchure," because it's the "only right way to play the horn." Has ruined so many students whose natural working embouchure is NOT that. As soon as they see someone using more lower lip than upper, they freak out and say, no matter how accomplished the student, "Oh you would be SO much better if you would switch to doing it the RIGHT way."

That happened to a friend of mine. Ruined his french horn playing.

[bloke]

As a college freshman, I had sort of a screwy tuba embouchure and a big change right in the middle range of the tuba. (This was when I was migrating from identifying as a working guitarist to identifying as a working tuba player.) I was having a good bit of success, and I thank that teacher for leaving me alone (particularly, as I was already being hired to play gigs). Over time, I worked on it on my own and straightened everything out. Further, just in the past several years, a rim profile that slides easily across the skin just above the chin (so as to eliminate the chance of soreness and blisters) allowed my embouchure to make a gradual change from low to high, rather than sudden.

I remember around that time being shown pictures of well-known players embouchures, and not just from that Farkas-written brass players book (published by the Instrumentalist magazine), but maybe even of William Bell, and I'm not sure (??) it's a good idea to show such pictures to young students.

[Mary Ann]

Where we see this in horn playing is teachers who STILL try to force students into a "Farkas embouchure," because it's the "only right way to play the horn." Has ruined so many students whose natural working embouchure is NOT that. As soon as they see someone using more lower lip than upper, they freak out and say, no matter how accomplished the student, "Oh you would be SO much better if you would switch to doing it the RIGHT way."

That happened to a friend of mine. Ruined his french horn playing.

There is a local pro-am player (gets paid but has a different "career") who is very clearly an up-blower. Much more lower lip than upper, and he has one of the best high ranges I've ever heard (easy high concert A above concert high F.) No one ever got a hold of him to "fix" him, to his benefit. I'd like to see someone do a dissertation on the facial structures that call for different embouchure sets. I think it would be obvious if someone took the time to look.
And of course there are the people who play off to one side or the other on the smaller cups, and some even try to fix THAT, I guess because they don't like the way it looks.

[matt g]

re: YFH-231

I had one (YFH-231S) and it was a heckuva player. Better than most other fluegelhorns, and especially for the price. Unfortunately, it would’ve benefited from a third valve throw. Otherwise, a great horn.

[iiipopes]

re: YFH-231

I had one (YFH-231S) and it was a heckuva player. Better than most other fluegelhorns, and especially for the price. Unfortunately, it would’ve benefited from a third valve throw. Otherwise, a great horn.

My Couesnon flugel doesn't have any throws, either. On it I do what I learned from watching Harry James as I watched one of his movies. He didn't use saddles, rings or triggers. He pulled and set the 3rd valve slide so 2+3 was in tune, or maybe a little flat, so that 1+3 was lippable down.

[donn]

Hope he didn't get that from a tuba player. He should have tuned closer to 1+3, lipped 2+3 up, lipped 1+2+3 down.

[bloke]

re: YFH-231

I had one (YFH-231S) and it was a heckuva player. Better than most other fluegelhorns, and especially for the price. Unfortunately, it would’ve benefited from a third valve throw. Otherwise, a great horn.

My Couesnon flugel doesn't have any throws, either. On it I do what I learned from watching Harry James as I watched one of his movies. He didn't use saddles, rings or triggers. He pulled and set the 3rd valve slide so 2+3 was in tune, or maybe a little flat, so that 1+3 was lippable down.

Admittedly, I only just sort of scanned your response, but I had put a #1 thumb saddle on that instrument for him.
He "fixed" 1-3/1-2-3 with that #1 thumb saddle.

[iiipopes]

re: YFH-231

I had one (YFH-231S) and it was a heckuva player. Better than most other fluegelhorns, and especially for the price. Unfortunately, it would’ve benefited from a third valve throw. Otherwise, a great horn.

My Couesnon flugel doesn't have any throws, either. On it I do what I learned from watching Harry James as I watched one of his movies. He didn't use saddles, rings or triggers. He pulled and set the 3rd valve slide so 2+3 was in tune, or maybe a little flat, so that 1+3 was lippable down.

Admittedly, I only just sort of scanned your response, but I had put a #1 thumb saddle on that instrument for him.
He "fixed" 1-3/1-2-3 with that #1 thumb saddle.

Yeah, I do that to on my other high brass that has saddles/rings/triggers, and of course I do that "riding throttle" on my tuba and my Conn souzy with the modified upper loop to the 1st valve circuit. I've even been known to reverse the 3rd circuit appliance and have it long for the regular valve combinations and pull it in for trill fingerings.

[bloke]

I play C below the staff on my really big B flat tuba by pulling out the first slide and using 1 & 3...
... unless a fingering issue or really fast playing, whereby - of course - I will mash #4.

Moving #3 for anything - on an tuba - is pretty awkward...

...and of course I'm not stating anything that no one here knows.

[iiipopes]

My Couesnon flugel doesn't have any throws, either. On it I do what I learned from watching Harry James as I watched one of his movies. He didn't use saddles, rings or triggers. He pulled and set the 3rd valve slide so 2+3 was in tune, or maybe a little flat, so that 1+3 was lippable down.

Admittedly, I only just sort of scanned your response, but I had put a #1 thumb saddle on that instrument for him.
He "fixed" 1-3/1-2-3 with that #1 thumb saddle.

Yeah, I do that to on my other high brass that has saddles/rings/triggers, and of course I do that "riding throttle" on my tuba and my Conn souzy with the modified upper loop to the 1st valve circuit. I've even been known to reverse the 3rd circuit appliance and have it long for the regular valve combinations and pull it in for trill fingerings.

I play C below the staff on my really big B flat tuba by pulling out the first slide and using 1 & 3...
... unless a fingering issue or really fast playing, whereby - of course - I will mash #4.

Moving #3 for anything - on an tuba - is pretty awkward...

...and of course I'm not stating anything that no one here knows.

I may not have been clear. I meant my 1st valve comments on lower brass and my 3rd valve comments on upper brass. I agree that adjusting the third valve slide on any tuba is awkward at best. One time, though, I did have an ostinato part on a piece that went from (on BBb tuba) from concert C below the staff to concert D then concert G in various combinations and order of notes. Since the passage consisted whole notes with a period of rest afterwards between sections of the piece, I did completely readjust the slides, pull 1 and shove 3, so I could play C 1+3 and D&G 3 so the legato articulations and slurs would not burble, as it did for the rest of the section who tried to play C 4th then D&G 1+2. At the end of that section of the piece I had time to reset the slides and continue on conventionally.