EN CUANTO AL BE, DEBO DECIR QUE PERSONALMENTE ME AYUDO MUCHISIMO, HE TOCADO LA TROMPENTA DURANTE 15 AOS Y JAMAS HE LOGRADO TENER UNA EMBOCADURA RESISTENTE Y UN RANGO BASTANTE BUENO, REALMENTE BE PARA MI HA SIDO LA ESPERANZA, CREO QUE ALGUNAS COSAS QUE TU MANIFIESTAS NO SON TOTALMENTE CIERTAS CREO QUE SE PUEDE TENER UN CRITERIO MAS PROPIO CUANDO SE HA PROBADO Y UTILIZADO ESTE RECURSO COMO ES EL BE
Your BE review reminds me of somebody giving a review on a western-horse-riding-skills-steer-roping book, where the reviewer has only ridden “English”. I agree with other replies that suggest you must first go through the BE method from beginning to the end before you have gained the skills needed to critique Jeff’s book.
Anything more specific that I could add, has already been said before.
Thanks for your comments, Harry, but you’re using a false analogy. I feel that I can make accurate statements about the flaws in Smiley’s book because there is so much misinformation in them. To put it bluntly, the Balanced Embouchure text demonstrates a lack of understanding in embouchure form and function and many of the exercises that are promoted will largely have the result of teaching players to play better in the wrong way.
Please re-read the “Direct vs. Indirect” chapter at p. 56.
Yes, the exaggerated lip movement exercises are done outside of your normal playing.
That means that you do the exercise and let the lips integrate the new motions into the normal playing without you thinking about it.
So, during your normal playing you totally forget about BE and let the lips take care of themselves thus using your normal playing embouchure.
I don’t think it was Jeff’s intention to lay out a fully scientific explanation of embouchure mechanics. Why? Because there are volumes written on this, and, what’s most important, all this information amounts to nothing whatsoever! The humanity is as far away from understanding the mechanics of embouchure (save for some basics which get debated over and over by the scholars) as ever.
The book is for those desperados with broken embouchures and tired to stay at the plato no matter what they do.
It’s a wholistic approach at that, you can’t just try to apply some of its excerpts and hope that it will work. It won’t, so you’d be better off doing something else.
Maarten did a good explanation of how RI and RO have little to do with high range and low range.
But then again, without actually doing the exercises these explanations are just that.
When you feel that you have a great teacher and you get better following your practice routine, stick to it, there is no need for this book.
When nothing works, like in my case, and you grab at straws, you are about to sell your trumpet, then you got nothing to lose and you might as well give it a try, just by following the prescribed exersices without questioning the scientific value of them, because honestly, at this stage you don’t give a damn about theory, you just want some results.
And when you see progress, you just watch it with astonishment, and again, why do you need theoretical justification when it just works? I am happy just tooting away and watch me continue to progress without trying to analyse it too much. Years with trumpet taught me this: analysis leads to paralysis 🙂
I dont think it was Jeffs intention to lay out a fully scientific explanation of embouchure mechanics.
But he did make factual statements about embouchure form and function and the bulk of what he wrote is either misleading or wrong.
Because there are volumes written on this, and, whats most important, all this information amounts to nothing whatsoever!
First, there is not a lot written on embouchure form and function that can truly be considered scientific. Much of what passes as “science” in the realm of embouchure is, in fact, pseudo-scientific. Smiley’s cites made up statistics and experiments that give the veneer of science to an uniformed reader and it’s fair to question and criticize those statements and the conclusions he draws from them.
The humanity is as far away from understanding the mechanics of embouchure (save for some basics which get debated over and over by the scholars) as ever.
Just because we debate embouchure points doesn’t mean that an understanding of the mechanics of brass embouchure are “far away.” Most of the debate I see is among folks arguing about what they think they do, rather than addressing the evidence and knowledge that we have accumulated over years of research. There is much more than you’re aware of out there, but unless you happen to have an academic interest in brass embouchures you’re likely not going to be familiar with it.
Years with trumpet taught me this: analysis leads to paralysis
No, incorrect analysis leads to paralysis. Or multitasking, which is a completely different phenomenon than analysis. I find it intellectually lazy and outright wrong to criticize analysis as the source of a student’s problem. It’s much better to learn how to analyze and when than to dismiss a valuable tool to not only brass playing and pedagogy, but life in general.
I get it. You’re having fun and finding results with The Balanced Embouchure. By all means, continue to explore it and enjoy your time with it. Best of luck!
I am a mathematician, not a lawyer, so yes, the concept of burden of proof is foreign to me, sorry.
The number of dismissive and demeaning adjectives like “disingenuous”, “hypocritical” and other personal remarks tell me that I’ve crossed the line, so I feel sorry and take my leave.
EN CUANTO AL BE, DEBO DECIR QUE PERSONALMENTE ME AYUDO MUCHISIMO, HE TOCADO LA TROMPENTA DURANTE 15 AOS Y JAMAS HE LOGRADO TENER UNA EMBOCADURA RESISTENTE Y UN RANGO BASTANTE BUENO, REALMENTE BE PARA MI HA SIDO LA ESPERANZA, CREO QUE ALGUNAS COSAS QUE TU MANIFIESTAS NO SON TOTALMENTE CIERTAS CREO QUE SE PUEDE TENER UN CRITERIO MAS PROPIO CUANDO SE HA PROBADO Y UTILIZADO ESTE RECURSO COMO ES EL BE
Your BE review reminds me of somebody giving a review on a western-horse-riding-skills-steer-roping book, where the reviewer has only ridden “English”. I agree with other replies that suggest you must first go through the BE method from beginning to the end before you have gained the skills needed to critique Jeff’s book.
Anything more specific that I could add, has already been said before.
Thanks for your comments, Harry, but you’re using a false analogy. I feel that I can make accurate statements about the flaws in Smiley’s book because there is so much misinformation in them. To put it bluntly, the Balanced Embouchure text demonstrates a lack of understanding in embouchure form and function and many of the exercises that are promoted will largely have the result of teaching players to play better in the wrong way.
Hi Dave
Please re-read the “Direct vs. Indirect” chapter at p. 56.
Yes, the exaggerated lip movement exercises are done outside of your normal playing.
That means that you do the exercise and let the lips integrate the new motions into the normal playing without you thinking about it.
So, during your normal playing you totally forget about BE and let the lips take care of themselves thus using your normal playing embouchure.
I don’t think it was Jeff’s intention to lay out a fully scientific explanation of embouchure mechanics. Why? Because there are volumes written on this, and, what’s most important, all this information amounts to nothing whatsoever! The humanity is as far away from understanding the mechanics of embouchure (save for some basics which get debated over and over by the scholars) as ever.
The book is for those desperados with broken embouchures and tired to stay at the plato no matter what they do.
It’s a wholistic approach at that, you can’t just try to apply some of its excerpts and hope that it will work. It won’t, so you’d be better off doing something else.
Maarten did a good explanation of how RI and RO have little to do with high range and low range.
But then again, without actually doing the exercises these explanations are just that.
When you feel that you have a great teacher and you get better following your practice routine, stick to it, there is no need for this book.
When nothing works, like in my case, and you grab at straws, you are about to sell your trumpet, then you got nothing to lose and you might as well give it a try, just by following the prescribed exersices without questioning the scientific value of them, because honestly, at this stage you don’t give a damn about theory, you just want some results.
And when you see progress, you just watch it with astonishment, and again, why do you need theoretical justification when it just works? I am happy just tooting away and watch me continue to progress without trying to analyse it too much. Years with trumpet taught me this: analysis leads to paralysis 🙂
Hi, Andrei.
But he did make factual statements about embouchure form and function and the bulk of what he wrote is either misleading or wrong.
First, there is not a lot written on embouchure form and function that can truly be considered scientific. Much of what passes as “science” in the realm of embouchure is, in fact, pseudo-scientific. Smiley’s cites made up statistics and experiments that give the veneer of science to an uniformed reader and it’s fair to question and criticize those statements and the conclusions he draws from them.
Just because we debate embouchure points doesn’t mean that an understanding of the mechanics of brass embouchure are “far away.” Most of the debate I see is among folks arguing about what they think they do, rather than addressing the evidence and knowledge that we have accumulated over years of research. There is much more than you’re aware of out there, but unless you happen to have an academic interest in brass embouchures you’re likely not going to be familiar with it.
No, incorrect analysis leads to paralysis. Or multitasking, which is a completely different phenomenon than analysis. I find it intellectually lazy and outright wrong to criticize analysis as the source of a student’s problem. It’s much better to learn how to analyze and when than to dismiss a valuable tool to not only brass playing and pedagogy, but life in general.
I get it. You’re having fun and finding results with The Balanced Embouchure. By all means, continue to explore it and enjoy your time with it. Best of luck!
Dave
I am a mathematician, not a lawyer, so yes, the concept of burden of proof is foreign to me, sorry.
The number of dismissive and demeaning adjectives like “disingenuous”, “hypocritical” and other personal remarks tell me that I’ve crossed the line, so I feel sorry and take my leave.