It always tends to annoy some people when someone (such as will be read below) posts a bunch of statements (rather than asking questions), as there will always be those who vehemently disagree with those statements...particularly when there are several paragraphs of them.
...Are more brass players reawakening to the fact that it's not so much about
- (more/less-restricted) air flow
- blowing (more) air
...??
The more efficiently the lips vibrate, the less "blowing" is required, the nicer things sound, the less effort is required to play quite loud/quite soft, and the more effortless most things - related to playing a brass instrument - become.
(Things can actually become so easy, that a white dress shirt might actually last through three or four 2-hr. concerts, rather than being completely soaked after only one.)
Legato playing becomes easier (because not as much air is blown between the vibrating lips - thus less air interference with the vibration.
Sustaining of long-lasting "tied donut" pitches becomes easier/possible, because there is - then - enough air to play those long pitches (since the lips vibrate with more efficiency/amplitude with less air required to stimulate the lips-vibrating phenomenon).
"Way more air" IS INDEED a way to get young players (who have not developed efficient lip vibration skills) to produce louder sounds, but it's probably best to use the "more air" thing with beginner players only so as they can - early on - experience generating "enough" sound, rather than having beginner players believe that "huge air" and "little or no lip-vibration efficiency" is the proper way to approach brass playing.
bloke "recalling - decades ago (when - walking away from the "efficient vibration" reality - so many were on the "more air" bandwagon, as well as the huge-mouthpiece-throat/huge-bore kick) - struggling to sustain that B-natural on the first page of the tuba part to Prokofiev 5...and now - as a 'frail old man' - it being so very easy"
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:00 am
by Doc
bloke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:02 amIt always tends to annoy some people when someone (such as will be read below) posts a bunch of statements (rather than asking questions), as there will always be those who vehemently disagree with those statements...particularly when there are several paragraphs of them.
...Are more brass players reawakening to the fact that it's not so much about
- (more/less-restricted) air flow
- blowing (more) air
...??
The more efficiently the lips vibrate, the less "blowing" is required, the nicer things sound, the less effort is required to play quite loud/quite soft, and the more effortless most things - related to playing a brass instrument - become.
(Things can actually become so easy, that a white dress shirt might actually last through three or four 2-hr. concerts, rather than being completely soaked after only one.)
Legato playing becomes easier (because not as much air is blown between the vibrating lips - thus less air interference with the vibration.
Sustaining of long-lasting "tied donut" pitches becomes easier/possible, because there is - then - enough air to play those long pitches (since the lips vibrate with more efficiency/amplitude with less air required to stimulate the lips-vibrating phenomenon).
"Way more air" IS INDEED a way to get young players (who have not developed efficient lip vibration skills) to produce louder sounds, but it's probably best to use the "more air" thing with beginner players only so as they can - early on - experience generating "enough" sound, rather than having beginner players believe that "huge air" and "little or no lip-vibration efficiency" is the proper way to approach brass playing.
bloke "recalling - decades ago (when - walking away from the "efficient vibration" reality - so many were on the "more air" bandwagon, as well as the huge-mouthpiece-throat/huge-bore kick) - struggling to sustain that B-natural on the first page of the tuba part to Prokofiev 5...and now - as a 'frail old man' - it being so very easy"
Efficiency/clarity/projection used to be a thing. "More air" is now a thing. To be sure, air flow is important - the air must actually move freely to fuel an efficient buzz, but maybe that requires a side discussion about relaxed breathing/less tension and the "proper" use of air vs. just "more air."
A clear, efficient buzz will do wonders for you once you plug in the mouthpiece, "clear" or "clarity" being key terms. Whether you plug it into a small Miraphone (Bobo), or a large York (Jacobs), clarity/efficiency in the buzz is what counts.
In laymen's terms: I can plug my bass (mouthpiece) into my 500W 2x10 cabinet (Mira 184) and get a nice clear sound that is focused and balanced, but I can plug in the same bass with the controls set the same way into my 900W 2x15 cabinet (York) and get the same clear sound, but with added bottom and depth. The input from the bass (mouthpiece) is the same, but I use the amplifier for it that the job requires. The need for clarity and efficiency on the front end does not diminish in either case.
Doc (who hopes @Rick Denney doesn't roast too harshly for any scientific errors above)
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
bloke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:02 amIt always tends to annoy some people when someone (such as will be read below) posts a bunch of statements (rather than asking questions), as there will always be those who vehemently disagree with those statements...particularly when there are several paragraphs of them.
...Are more brass players reawakening to the fact that it's not so much about
- (more/less-restricted) air flow
- blowing (more) air
...??
The more efficiently the lips vibrate, the less "blowing" is required, the nicer things sound, the less effort is required to play quite loud/quite soft, and the more effortless most things - related to playing a brass instrument - become.
(Things can actually become so easy, that a white dress shirt might actually last through three or four 2-hr. concerts, rather than being completely soaked after only one.)
Legato playing becomes easier (because not as much air is blown between the vibrating lips - thus less air interference with the vibration.
Sustaining of long-lasting "tied donut" pitches becomes easier/possible, because there is - then - enough air to play those long pitches (since the lips vibrate with more efficiency/amplitude with less air required to stimulate the lips-vibrating phenomenon).
"Way more air" IS INDEED a way to get young players (who have not developed efficient lip vibration skills) to produce louder sounds, but it's probably best to use the "more air" thing with beginner players only so as they can - early on - experience generating "enough" sound, rather than having beginner players believe that "huge air" and "little or no lip-vibration efficiency" is the proper way to approach brass playing.
bloke "recalling - decades ago (when - walking away from the "efficient vibration" reality - so many were on the "more air" bandwagon, as well as the huge-mouthpiece-throat/huge-bore kick) - struggling to sustain that B-natural on the first page of the tuba part to Prokofiev 5...and now - as a 'frail old man' - it being so very easy"
Efficiency/clarity/projection used to be a thing. "More air" is now a thing. To be sure, air flow is important - the air must actually move freely to fuel an efficient buzz, but maybe that requires a side discussion about relaxed breathing/less tension and the "proper" use of air vs. just "more air."
A clear, efficient buzz will do wonders for you once you plug in the mouthpiece, "clear" or "clarity" being key terms. Whether you plug it into a small Miraphone (Bobo), or a large York (Jacobs), clarity/efficiency in the buzz is what counts.
In laymen's terms: I can plug my bass (mouthpiece) into my 500W 2x10 cabinet (Mira 184) and get a nice clear sound that is focused and balanced, but I can plug in the same bass with the controls set the same way into my 900W 2x15 cabinet (York) and get the same clear sound, but with added bottom and depth. The input from the bass (mouthpiece) is the same, but I use the amplifier for it that the job requires. The need for clarity and efficiency on the front end does not diminish in either case.
Doc (who hopes @Rick Denney doesn't roast too harshly for any scientific errors above)
Calm air and no uncontrolled bursts of air. Think of a block of air and all you do is dent the air. Disturbed air causes problems and unwanted sounds. Telling someone “more air” gives them the wrong concept.
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:30 am
by cthuba
My playing did not improve immensely until after college when I studied with a guy in boston (One of Sam's students).
He would always make me blow air into my palm the same way I would fog a mirror.
None of this really clicked until I wanted the low register on my f tuba to speak... In fact as soon as it did click my low register became immensely easier on C Tuba as well.
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:00 am
by Andy
I think that this topic somewhat boils down to a miscommunication and/or misunderstanding regarding the definition of "more air."
When I studied with Jake, one of the first things he explained was that the tuba requiores a large volume of air, but at very low pressure (as measured in the oral cavity). His studies, for example, showed that a tuba player uses his air at three times the flow rate, but at one third the air pressure, when compared with a trumpet player. The exception is when playing the same note enharmonically, such as middle C on the piano, in which case the air flow rate and air pressure are the same for both instruments (when playing at the same dynamic level). He used to tell me, why should a tuba player be working hard (to play a high C) when the trumpet player is loafing (playing their low C).
He also taught that the embouchure vibrates more efficiently when given an ample supply of fuel (i.e., air). That is why he taught his students to keep the tongue as low as possible inside the mouth so that the lips were provided with a thick column of air at very low pressure.
One of the things that we worked on the most was to avoid blowing the air "hard" against the lips, especially when trying to play loud. He compared it to a string player really grinding the bow into the strings. He wanted his students to blow the air faster when playing louder, but not harder.
As the OP is indicating, I think the concept of moving a lot of air, in too many cases, correlates to blowing the air hard instead of fast.
And this is all intertwined with why he was such an advocate of buzzing on the mouthpiece and rim. His belief was that, because it is harder to get the lips to buzz on the mouthpiece, and harder yet on the rim alone, that it helped the player to develop "an embouchure that wants to vibrate."
I know that there are some here that don't like mouthpiece practice, but when done the way Jacobs suggested, was very helpful (to myself and many of his other students) in the development of an embouchure that vibrates efficiently. He wanted the student to get the desired result with the least amount of effort possible. Like I mentioned above, why should we work hard when the other guy is loafing?
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:35 am
by bloke
I admit that I'm one who rejects mouthpiece-alone practice, as it's just not very much the same much-of-anything as when playing.
It would be far more convenient for a bass player to run their bow across the rounded/reeded edge of a straight piece of aluminum, etc., to develop bowing technique...yet, it has not occurred to any of them to do that. It's pretty obvious that just about any type of bowing action against an edge of a block of aluminum - designed to imitate the diameter and texture of a bass string - offers no real feedback regarding what type of sound would be created - when bowing an actual bass string in the same way.
When I actually have buzzed a tuba mouthpiece (with absolutely no added artificial resistance - as artificial resistance CAN be achieved - such as via a nearly-closed-down "B.E.R.P.", or just by nearly completely plugging off the end of the mouthpiece with a finger) and then played through my instrument - with the exact same approach, the resultant sounds have been absurdly loud - as well as raucous.
As has been shown, when vibrating the lips into a complete instrument (mouthpiece + instrument) and then taking away the instrument, the lips (when the player continues with precisely the same effort) will cease vibrating.
"faster" vs. "harder":
I've heard Jacobs students (just about exclusively - possibly a couple of students-of-students) claim that these are different things.
I understand what CFM's are, but I don't see how they can be delivered "harder" vs. "faster".
Delivering air faster is going to define more CFM's. I suppose when air is delivered through a very small opening at a fast rate - and that air hits someone in the face, that air is going to feel "hard", just as water becomes "hard", when I person hits it at terminal velocity - vs. a few mph.
More likely - in my estimation (rather than something real) "faster vs. harder" is a way to encourage a better mental concept of sonority (mouth/lip shape/tension to accomplish a marketable/pleasing resonance), I would tend to suspect.
If "faster" vs. "harder" is actually is real, lacking this understanding hasn't seemed to have handicapped my playing.
As is known, we actually blow very little air through our instruments, when playing them.
The very act of constricting our lips (so that they will vibrate) prevents very much air from leaving our bodies and entering into our instruments.
Mostly, we are vibrating the air column that is already in the instrument. Though we utilize that very small amount of air flow to cause our lips to vibrate, the fact that we are slowly replacing the air that is inside our instruments with different air is somewhat parenthetical.
great teachers of performance:
Great teachers (sports/dance/music/what-have-you) are those whose students often achieve great results - when working with those teachers vs. working alone or with some other teacher. Regardless of how much a great teacher may know - and regardless of how much scientific research a teacher may have done, not everything a teacher claims and or describes necessarily needs to be absolutely true, in order for their students to greatly succeed in performance. It is conceivable that concepts assist a student's mind towards directing the body to achieve extraordinary things - even if those concepts don't quite accurately describe what is occurring.
Mr. Jacobs:
I have never accused him of being an "air is everything" teacher. Further, I don't believe - not at all - that he was of the "air is everything" school, to which I referred in my first post. Several of my friends have worked with him - some of whom had "playing hang-ups". I believe a large percentage of people - who would travel to see Mr. Jacobs - went to see him because they believed he could cure their playing ills. Several of them have told me of how he would manipulate them into thinking about "anything other than playing" - while they were playing. I judge that strategy to be brilliant. One final thing... Since Mr. Jacobs was such an extremely nice and upbeat person, those suffering from playing ills would - for that hour that they were there with him - be in a POSITIVE emotional place, when playing their instruments. For many, that was probably just as much of a cure as anything else.
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 12:59 pm
by iiipopes
And, of course, it is all the funnier knowing that John Cleese has a law degree:
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:25 pm
by bloke
nah...
I'm not arguing.
I really haven't had that many lessons (other than baccalaureate level - and the things I was being assigned - at that level - weren't enough to satisfy my own requirements for my own rate of progress, so I - not being either an alcohol nor cannabis consumer (ie. was able to keep my $h!t together, etc.) -always would master those weekly assignments and take on more. Again: I was playing catch-up from - basically - setting aside profitable guitar playing and taking on tuba playing - which I was also requiring that it be profitable, in order to be worth pursuing...sound concept? By then, recordings of really good players were beginning to emerge..."Play it like the record", etc.)
By the time I could afford to pay for really insightful people to coach me ($XXX/hr., etc.), it was difficult to get away from day-job/gigs to pay them to do it...but - for a couple of years or so - in my early 50's) I worked out a north-to-south route up through Illinois into Wisconsin, back down through Indiana, and then home again (all in one frantic weekend).
Three different profoundly fine and insightful people (during each of those selected weekends) put a lot of words, concepts, and workaround tips into my head. After a couple of weeks of being back home, I managed to sort it all out, figured out how much of it (though it was expressed differently) was the same suggestions, and other things (offered by only one of the three) were also worthy of being considered and employed. With one of them: "You should use this mouthpiece with this shank size"...well...That one wasn't particularly useful at all, and sent me off on quite a detour...though it DID prompt me to (once-and-for-all) come up with something workable on my own.
It was the (c. two-year) "bloke conservatory".
TO THE TOPIC:
I believe I've always concentrated more on lip vibration contributing to sonority (rather than the "air" thing), because - as a guitarist, the right-hand finger technique/efficiency is responsible for the quality and quantity of the sound, and not the "arm" or what-have-you...
...and (though I knew that I was continuing to stumble through contrabass tuba mouthpieces that sucked) I realized that EVENTUALLY finding (at least) one that worked was a REALLY important pursuit, because I knew that some brands of guitar strings sucked, some were usable, and some (though damned expensive) were sublime.
It would be quite something to combine today's possessed equipment/knowledge with the energy/determination of a non-substance-abusing 20-year-old.
bloke "It's all about vibration."
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 5:57 pm
by Andy
bloke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 11:35 am
I admit that I'm one who rejects mouthpiece-alone practice, as it's just not very much the same much-of-anything as when playing.
It would be far more convenient for a bass player to run their bow across the rounded/reeded edge of a straight piece of aluminum, etc., to develop bowing technique...yet, it has not occurred to any of them to do that. It's pretty obvious that just about any type of bowing action against an edge of a block of aluminum - designed to imitate the diameter and texture of a bass string - offers no real feedback regarding what type of sound would be created - when bowing an actual bass string in the same way.
When I actually have buzzed a tuba mouthpiece (with absolutely no added artificial resistance - as artificial resistance CAN be achieved - such as via a nearly-closed-down "B.E.R.P.", or just by nearly completely plugging off the end of the mouthpiece with a finger) and then played through my instrument - with the exact same approach, the resultant sounds have been absurdly loud - as well as raucous.
As has been shown, when vibrating the lips into a complete instrument (mouthpiece + instrument) and then taking away the instrument, the lips (when the player continues with precisely the same effort) will cease vibrating.
"faster" vs. "harder":
I've heard Jacobs students (just about exclusively - possibly a couple of students-of-students) claim that these are different things.
I understand what CFM's are, but I don't see how they can be delivered "harder" vs. "faster".
Delivering air faster is going to define more CFM's. I suppose when air is delivered through a very small opening at a fast rate - and that air hits someone in the face, that air is going to feel "hard", just as water becomes "hard", when I person hits it at terminal velocity - vs. a few mph.
More likely - in my estimation (rather than something real) "faster vs. harder" is a way to encourage a better mental concept of sonority (mouth/lip shape/tension to accomplish a marketable/pleasing resonance), I would tend to suspect.
If "faster" vs. "harder" is actually is real, lacking this understanding hasn't seemed to have handicapped my playing.
As is known, we actually blow very little air through our instruments, when playing them.
The very act of constricting our lips (so that they will vibrate) prevents very much air from leaving our bodies and entering into our instruments.
Mostly, we are vibrating the air column that is already in the instrument. Though we utilize that very small amount of air flow to cause our lips to vibrate, the fact that we are slowly replacing the air that is inside our instruments with different air is somewhat parenthetical.
great teachers of performance:
Great teachers (sports/dance/music/what-have-you) are those whose students often achieve great results - when working with those teachers vs. working alone or with some other teacher. Regardless of how much a great teacher may know - and regardless of how much scientific research a teacher may have done, not everything a teacher claims and or describes necessarily needs to be absolutely true, in order for their students to greatly succeed in performance. It is conceivable that concepts assist a student's mind towards directing the body to achieve extraordinary things - even if those concepts don't quite accurately describe what is occurring.
Mr. Jacobs:
I have never accused him of being an "air is everything" teacher. Further, I don't believe - not at all - that he was of the "air is everything" school, to which I referred in my first post. Several of my friends have worked with him - some of whom had "playing hang-ups". I believe a large percentage of people - who would travel to see Mr. Jacobs - went to see him because they believed he could cure their playing ills. Several of them have told me of how he would manipulate them into thinking about "anything other than playing" - while they were playing. I judge that strategy to be brilliant. One final thing... Since Mr. Jacobs was such an extremely nice and upbeat person, those suffering from playing ills would - for that hour that they were there with him - be in a POSITIVE emotional place, when playing their instruments. For many, that was probably just as much of a cure as anything else.
I freely admit that I have no idea whether fast and hard are actually different physical activities. I believe it is more of a way for the player to think about things and use that as a motivational aspect in their playing. And when I refer to motivation, I mean what actually causes the lips to vibrate. Whay motivates the vibration.
One key is to make sure that one keeps the air pressure as low as possible when playing at a middle dynamic of mf or f. At that dynamic, one can sense more easily whether you are blowing hard against the lips. I know that he said that the pressure doubles every octave, so if you start too high in the lower and middle register, it really jumps as you ascend in range. I would imagine that a similar effect occurs as the dynamic increases. The air is not only moving faster, but the pressure increases. The key is not starting at a level where the pressure is high and increases from there.
And you are absolutely correct that Jacobs was not an air is everything teacher. When I studied with him, the phrase he used was Wind and Song, but he later reversed it to Song and Wind because he realized that the original version placed too much emphasis on the wind aspect.
I believe this is especially important when tryiung to play at a loud dynamic. He would ask the student to try and concieve of a "large quantity of sound" rather than simply blowing their brains out. I think this is why he liked to include changing dynamics in his long tone studies. He would ask the student to play with a controlled crescendo from ppp to fff without allowing the quality of the sound to change. He would compare it to the volume control on a stereo. As you turn the volume up, you get more sound but not altered sound. But it all comes down to having a mental concept of how you want to sound and then imitating that. The focus was always on creating the most beautiful quality of tone you could and at the same time, using the least amount of effort possible, regardless of dynamic.
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:05 pm
by Andy
bloke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 3:25 pmI believe I've always concentrated more on lip vibration contributing to sonority (rather than the "air" thing), because - as a guitarist, the right-hand finger technique/efficiency is responsible for the quality and quantity of the sound, and not the "arm" or what-have-you...
...and (though I knew that I was continuing to stumble through contrabass tuba mouthpieces that sucked) I realized that EVENTUALLY finding (at least) one that worked was a REALLY important pursuit, because I knew that some brands of guitar strings sucked, some were usable, and some (though damned expensive) were sublime.
It would be quite something to combine today's possessed equipment/knowledge with the energy/determination of a non-substance-abusing 20-year-old.
bloke "It's all about vibration."
I agree completely that it is the vibration that is key to the sound. Jake would often say that the wind is just thje fuel source. The lips cannot vibrate without air. If we could substitute something else, like electricity, then we wouldn't need air.
Unfortunately, Jake got a reputation for being the guy that will teach you how to breathe. So many of the players that would arrive at his studio would be doing things that simply would not allow them to provide the lips with a sufficient volume of fuel to vibrate efficiently. Once he was able to get them past those issues, the magic truly began.
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:11 pm
by bloke
I wonder if the >concept< of hard air versus fast air was a mental concept which was used to encourage students to allow the lips to vibrate nicely with not as much air vs. bullying the lips (perhaps lips that are distorted and overtightened by some player who’s completely worried and concerned with technique and mechanics, rather than sound production) into vibrating wildly (yet resisting) with too much air…(??)
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 9:54 pm
by Tim Jackson
I think it takes a lot of correct air (whatever you want that to be) to get anything out of a crappy embouchure. I don't think good air solves 90% of problems. Air can certainly cover many probems. But when players execute in soft passages you can tell who has it together. What Jacobs did say was buzzing links the brain with the embouchure. That doesn't necessarily mean you're training the lips to function the same with or without the horn. I have been an on-again-off-again buzzer. At the moment I'm on. I need to walk at night to stay/get healthy. Sometimes/tonight I buzzed while walking. A good 20-30 minutes - man, when I get to the horn it's go time. Everything is hitting big time. Yea, I don't believe in buzzing, but I sure like the results! haha
Playing soft will really tune up your embouchure - what good is a high range or any range if you can't play soft. Playing soft also helps you define and locate weaknesses. I was playing a gig in New Orleans one time with my pop band. We did a dinner set in another room - all acoustic & very soft, bass, guitar & trumpet. Trumpet man was a top call guy at that time. We were right on top of folks eating - like 2 feet away from the tables. He was playing and improvising in the high range at a very soft volume. Being a brass player myself, I was quite taken back. It was really unbelievable, stunning and beautiful. I quizzed him on it later on. He said he just sits around at night sheading at soft/whisper volumes in all ranges. He worked on it and developed it. I am convinced this can, if you figure it out, really get you moving toward a wonderful embouchure. Try doing your practice session ppp. Very revealing and when you're done you may be pleasantly surprised at the results.
As mentioned by some writers on this thread, an extremely well-developed embouchure allows one to do so much more on the instrument. I had an older tuba friend tell me the other day "I don't know how much one should worry about losing elasticity in the lungs as you age- if you use what you have efficiently, you'll be fine. Of course that was the guy Jake mentioned "one fine young student had a 5-6 litre lung capacity. Some say that was Bill Keck!
TJ
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Thu Apr 28, 2022 10:29 pm
by bloke
When playing this new-to-me gigantic B-flat tuba, I'm having to be remarkably accurate - lips vibration- (and timing) -wise.
"Mo' air" doesn't offer anything. Mo' air (with a messy lip vibration - particularly with this instrument) just means mo' mess.
...so besides concentrating HARD on the friggin' B-flat button-mashing, I'm ALSO concentrating HARD on "singing" these things in my head so that (hopefully) that transfers to the frequencies at which my lips vibrate, and precisely when these lips locate those frequencies, as well as precisely when they change frequencies (even though I'm usually striving towards a portamento effect).
That having been said, it's the easiest of the gigantic B-flat tubas I've ever encountered.
bloke "I've been through that Chester Roberts random collection of forty-something Bordogni vocalises - with this instrument once forward, and now I'm going through it backwards. It's sorta nice to go through it backwards, because I can fool myself into believing that I'm improving."
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 10:50 am
by Andy
bloke wrote: ↑Thu Apr 28, 2022 6:11 pm
I wonder if the >concept< of hard air versus fast air was a mental concept which was used to encourage students to allow the lips to vibrate nicely with not as much air vs. bullying the lips (perhaps lips that are distorted and overtightened by some player who’s completely worried and concerned with technique and mechanics, rather than sound production) into vibrating wildly (yet resisting) with too much air…(??)
I think this is corrrect. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, brass playing is 90% mental and the other half is physical.
I also thought of another aspect related to your OP with respect to working too hard. When we are trying hard and blowing hard, we are also likely experiencing isometric contractions of the muscles in the torso that are responsible for respiration.
A huge issue for a lot of Jacobs' students was invlountarily going into the Valsalva maneuver. For those who are not familiar with the term, it is the contraction of the abdominal muscles in a bearing down effort used in defication and childbirth. It is also used in athletics to protect the internal organs or to take a punch in the stomach.
At any rate, if these muscles are actively contracted, it is difficult to move air in and out quickly and efficiently, and impossible to use one's full air capacity. This is where Jacobs' phrase "Strength is my enemy, weakness is my friend" comes from. If these muscles are relaxed, we can rapidly fill and empty our full (i.e., usable) lung volumes, which is much better for tuba playing.
And, you won't sweat through your white shirt.
Re: Am I just imagining this, or... [trigger warning]
Posted: Fri Apr 29, 2022 12:59 pm
by bloke
I realize that so many people were taught differently, but I never jam my lungs full of air unless I really need to, or if I’m sight-reading something that’s busy, and can’t tell - ahead of time, for certain - where to breathe.
I typically inhale a little bit more than I’m going to need. It seems to be working, so far…
bloke “I’ve met Jim Nausium, but I’ve never yet been introduced to Breathin’ Jim.”
