Category: Brass

“Practical” Brass Physics?

~ wilktone ~ 2 Comments

If you’ve been reading my blog long enough you already know that I’m interested in the science of music and pedagogy. I feel that since so much of our art form is very subjective, whenever we can take an empirical look at bass playing and teaching it can offer objective insights into how we practice and teach. So I was very interested when I discovered an article, reprinted from the Utah Music Educators Journal, titled “Practical Brass Physics to Improve Your Teaching and Playing.” Unfortunately, I’m not very certain that the physics are practical, or even necessarily true.

The article is written by either Steve Oare or Shannon Roberts, it’s not clear. The byline states Oare, but then there is a photograph of Roberts prominently displayed at the top of the article and other photographs in the article show Roberts. Regardless, the author wrote that after witnessing a master class by Allen Vizutti that his teaching and playing were transformed by what he heard. He decided to investigate the ideas further to see what physics had to say about the concepts Vizutti discussed regarding “smooth air” and “no buzz techniques.”

But even with these successes, I still harbored the following burning questions. How does this technique actually work? What are the physical mechanisms that make this work for brass players at any level? How can I teach this to students and colleagues and support it with evidence?  These questions subsequently led me to investigate tube physics, air jets, oscillators and any topics that could provide answers and evidence for the smooth air and no buzz techniques. What follows is a summation of this scientific information and some practical applications to teaching and performing.

The first issue to discuss here is the author’s research methodology. He had some questions and tried to find answers that supported his preconceived notions. Right from the beginning, his research is biased. While one could argue that his “research” was informal, when you look for evidence that supports your hypothesis you’re going to miss evidence that contradicts it. This is why the null hypothesis exists. If the author wanted to learn more about the hypothesis that “smooth air and no buzz techniques” works because of physics, he should have looked for evidence that falsifies the research question. If none exists, then he’s on to something. Any evidence that he presents now is tainted by researcher bias.

But that doesn’t mean, in and of itself, that the evidence isn’t correct, just that we need to really take a much closer and skeptical look at it. He lists three basic topics of misconception in brass playing, embouchure mechanics, mouthpiece function, and tube mechanics.

1) Embouchure Mechanics:

  • Buzzing is the technique that produces the best sound on a brass instrument. False
  • Buzzing the lips to match pitches translates into pitch accuracy in the instrument. False
  • Buzzing is the only way that one can make musical tones on a brass instrument. False

All three of these “misconceptions” rely on the belief that the lips don’t actually buzz inside the mouthpiece when playing. This is explicitly stated later in the article.

  • The formation of the lips creates a natural opening (aperture), similar to vocal folds that act as frequency oscillators.
  • As air is forced through the lips, the lips never touch each other. Instead, they oscillate because of the shifts in air pressure, turbulent eddies in the mouthpiece and elasticity of the skin.

The first bullet point is more nuanced than the author acknowledged and the second is wrong. The lips do in fact touch each other, otherwise there would be no sound. At this point anyone who states the lips don’t actually open and close while playing isn’t paying attention, there is just too much evidence (both theoretical and observational).

There are many more you can find, but the idea that the lips do not buzz while playing is false, therefore the “no buzz technique” the author is advocating for is highly questionable. We can discuss whether the playing sensation of not buzzing the lips to play is helpful or not, but the reality is that no buzz=no sound. Buzzing is the only technique that will produce a sound on brass, not just the best sound. Whether or not the lips actually vibrate at the frequency of the pitch is irrelevant to his hypothesis, but again, it’s much more nuanced than the author presents.

In general, I think it’s fair to state that the lips do vibrate at the frequency of the pitch being played, with a caveat. The research I’m familiar with on this topic often show that the lips vibrate at a frequency that’s typically just a touch above of the pitch frequency.

The players normally played at frequencies about 1.1% above that of the impedance peak of the bore, but could play below as well as above this frequency and bend from above to below without discontinuity.

– Relationships between pressure, flow, lip motion, and upstream and downstream impedances for the trombone

Trombonists normally play at a frequency slightly above a bore resonance. However, they can “lip up and down” to frequencies further above the resonance (more compliant load) and below (inertive load).

– Trombone lip mechanics with inertive and compliant loads (“lipping up and down”)

All measurements revealed a strong mechanical resonance with “outward striking” behavior; the played note always sounded above this frequency. Several measurements also showed a weaker second resonance, above the played frequency, with “inward striking” behavior. The Q values of the dominant resonances in human lips were lower than those typical of artificial lips.

– Mechanical response measurements of real and artificial brass players lips

The results show that with extreme efforts the players can generated playing frequencies both lower and higher than the corresponding air column resonance, but that the playing frequency under normal playing conditions (the “most comfortable note”) is almost always higher than the corresponding air column resonance. This supports the view that human lips function as “striking outward” reeds.

– Nature of the lip reed

From a practical standpoint, I feel it’s fair to say the lips do vibrate at the frequency being played, or near enough. Certainly it’s not something that we can feel or hear while we’re playing, it’s something that can only be checked with special equipment. What this information doesn’t support is a “no buzz technique.”

Some of the author’s argument conflates feeling with reality.

For example, one’s lips feel like they are buzzing when they play. It is intuitive, then, to conclude that the buzzing is the cause of the tones being produced. But it will be shown that the lip buzz sensation is not a cause but an effect of several factors: air jets, pressure changes in the mouth cavity, strong turbulent eddies in the mouthpiece, a frequency feedback loop to and from the lips, and mouthpiece cavity resonance.

In order for a tone to be produced on a brass instrument the lips must oscillate (opening and closing) before the standing wave reflects back and helps to support the lip vibration. Again, one can discuss the benefits of feeling like the standing wave sets the lips to vibrating, but without the lips oscillating to start with, no tone can be produced. Certainly if we want to attack a pitch cleanly the lips (and air, tongue, fingerings/slide position, etc.) need to be set correctly for that pitch. If the author’s hypothesis were correct, how does the instrument know the musician wants to play a low C or a high C?

Another example is the technique of placing and sealing lips into the mouthpiece. It naturally seems that the cup “captures” a pitch created by buzzing lips. It will be illustrated that this is false. Instead, smooth (laminar) air flows between the lips & into the mouthpiece, which produces Aeolian tones and maximal resonance of the mouthpiece cavity. These actions excite the harmonics of the standing airwave in the instrument to sympathetically resonate.  In effect, the air column resonates in a similar fashion to a string on a piano.

Getting into the weeds of the acoustics is not in my wheel house, so I’m a little unsure about the above. Best as I can tell, the flow of air into the mouthpiece is not a “smooth (laminar)” flow, the air is pulsed into the mouthpiece cup as the lips open and close. After the air passes the lips it swirls inside the cup before it gets blown into the shank. An Aeolian tone is created when air passes a solid object and generates an oscillation of the air stream, such as a flute tone or whistling. Brass playing are sustained lip-reed oscillations, not Aeolian vortex tones.

Now it is true that the brass tone is the air column inside the instrument oscillating, which strings do as well. Where the piano string analogy breaks down for brass is that we only rarely play the fundamental of the air column, we are almost always playing on the harmonics of the vibrating column of air inside the instrument. On a piano the string length determines the pitch. On brass, the frequency of the lip vibrating influences the column of air to develop nodes and oscillate on the harmonic series.

When the author “puts it together” he included a graphic representation. Take a look at it.

Now take a look at the graphic I created way back in 2010 when I needed an image to spice up a blog post.

It’s a pretty poor job of graphics, to be honest. I just wanted an image that depicted a brass musician playing with the tongue tip touching the bottom of the lip (as something to avoid, by the way). I don’t know why the author took this crappy image for his graphical representation, since it really doesn’t add anything. I might have even granted permission to use it, if I had been asked.

In short, buzzing has no positive effect on tone production. It is merely a sensation felt on the lips due to air pressure changes. An effective experiment one can try is to simply blow air into a mouthpiece while inserting it in a brass instrument. The result is the Aeolian tone Mouthpiece Effect. No buzzing is ever needed. One can also try the opposite. Buzz into a mouthpiece while inserting it. Do not alter the buzzing in any way. The resultant sound is kazoo-like and uncontrolled.  A comparison of the muscular positions and tensions of the buzz and smooth-air techniques yields some interesting results.  The photo and spectrographs, which follow, illustrate those results.

Yeah, not really. If one were to conduct the above experiments utilizing artificial lips I suspect that the results might be different. Trying to do this with a human being will result on the musician making micro-adjustments, perhaps even without realizing it. Blowing air into the mouthpiece while inserting it into the instrument does, in fact, alter the conditions and the resulting back pressure can indeed make it feel as if the lips begin oscillating on their own, but that’s just the player making enough adjustment to get the tone started. Try doing this with a high C, instead of the low pitch that you end up with this experiment.

Likewise buzzing the mouthpiece and then slotting it into the instrument requires some adjustments. The lip position and blowing activity is different between mouthpiece buzzing and playing the instrument. The author pointed out that the mouthpiece itself has a natural (very high pitch) resonance. Buzzing on the mouthpiece alone requires the player to lip the oscillation to the desired pitch and this is quite easy to do on the mouthpiece. Adding the instrument then adds the resonance of the air column inside of the instrument and influences (not creates) the frequency of the lip vibration. So by mouthpiece buzzing and slotting the instrument you’re going to need to make an adjustment or else you will get an uncontrolled and kazoo-like sound.

The author does eventually get down to brass tacks (no pun intended) with some practical suggestions.

  • Always incorporate breathing exercises into every practice session.  This promotes more lung capacity and the ability to produce steady laminar air.
  • fig 8Straw Blowing to achieve laminar (smooth) air. This is one of the most beneficial exercises a brass player can perform. Place the straw between the lips. The straw should make no contact with the teeth. Simply practice blowing long phrases/tones into the palm of the hand. Concentrate on steady smooth air. Follow this immediately by blowing into the instrument.  The results are remarkable. One can see and hear immediate improvement. This is very beneficial for students who are currently having difficulty with tone production.
  • Make an “M” for embouchure formation.  The “M” position of the mouth, as in the word “mom”, is the most natural brass embouchure.  It places the lips in a very relaxed and supple position for smooth air production.
  • More closed M for higher notes, open for low notes.  This is a productive method for register change. Tighten the “M” as if one is squeezing a straw between the lips. This can be practiced with the straw ahead of time.  Emphasize steady air when shifting to the next overtone.

Breathing exercises are fine, and probably to be encouraged. The idea that one can increase lung capacity is a myth on its own, but not worth going into right now. Laminar air flow doesn’t really apply to brass playing, which has the pulsating and varying jets of air.

Straw blowing might make for a way to lead a player towards a particular playing sensation, but doesn’t recreate the way the lips actually vibrate. It might also lead to the student going too far in that direction. Use that exercise with caution.

Setting the embouchure formation with an “M” syllable is fine, I use that analogy all the time. However, I prefer not to describe ascending as “squeezing a straw between the lips.” My concern here is that the squeezing action results in bringing the mouth corners in from their position as ascending, rather than keeping them lock in the same place for the entire range. Sure, if a student has difficulties with pulling them back with a “smile embouchure” the sensation of bringing them in like you’re squeezing a straw between your lips might help. But some brass musicians have the opposite problem, their mouth corners get pulled in towards the mouthpiece rim, which can choke off the sound and make it difficult to ascend from the upper register without resetting the mouthpiece (I speak from personal experience here).

Conclusion

If something in the article speaks to you and helps you with your playing and teacher, that’s just fine. Don’t mistake the playing analogies and playing sensations the author is claiming to be actual fact. I find his claims that the lip vibration is merely a playing sensation ironic. The physics he covers have just enough truth to them to sound legit, but not enough to be objectively helpful. Is the article inspirational? Maybe, but I was just disappointed.

Embouchure Muscle Use – Cheek or Chin?

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

I recently came across an older “guest blog” post from 2019 in the International Journal of Music. Written by trumpet teacher Clint McLaughlin, the post is titled, “The Effects of Using the Cheek Muscles vs. the Chin Muscles When Playing the Trumpet.” His post discusses his study of what muscles trumpet players activate and compares players who use a “smile embouchure” versus a “frown embouchure.” Using a thermal infrared camera, decibel meter, and spectrum analyzer, McLaughlin found that the players who used cheek muscles (specifically the Zygomaticus Major, Buccinator, and Risorius muscles) had weaker range and resonance compared to players who relied more on muscles around the mouth corners (specifically the Depressor Labii Inferioris and Depressor Anguli Oris muscles).

The results aren’t very surprising, I think. While at one time it may have been common for brass teachers to instruct students to ascend by drawing their mouth corners back (often referred to as a “smile embouchure”), this notion is very much in the minority today. In fact, I would be hard pressed to find qualified brass teachers who actually teach a smile embouchure now. It’s not too hard to find brass musicians who do have a smile embouchure, however it’s pretty universally acknowledged that this causes range and endurance issues.

McLaughlin’s takeaway advice is for trumpet players to utilize what he refers to as a “frown embouchure,” I guess to distinguish it differently from the smile embouchure.

Notably, the findings indicated that players employing the frown embouchure exhibited superior range and resonance compared to their smile embouchure counterparts. The thermal images and corresponding analyses revealed that the muscle activity within 1.5 cm of the lips and around the chin was crucial for optimal trumpet performance. The frown players consistently demonstrated a more robust harmonic presence, with some exhibiting up to 13 strong upper harmonics, underscoring the effectiveness of this embouchure in achieving a resonant and powerful sound.

Clint McLaughlin – The Effects of Using the Cheek Muscles vs. the Chin Muscles When Playing the Trumpet.

Similar research has been done before. One of the best ones I’ve seen is Matthias Bertsch’s 2001 paper, “Visualization of Trumpet Players’ Warm Up By Infrared Thermography.”

During the warm up of trumpet players, face muscle contractions with increased blood flow result in a higher temperature of the overlying skin. This effect can be visualized and quantified by infraredthermography. The analysis demonstrates that the main facial muscle activity during warm up is restricted to only a few muscle groups (M.orbicularis oris, M.depressor anguli oris). The “trumpeter’s muscle” (M.buccinator) proved to be of minor importance. Less trained players expressed a more inhomogenous thermographic pattern compared to well-trained musicians. Infrared thermography could become a useful tool for documentation of musicians playing technique.

Matthias Bertsch – Visualization of Trumpet Players’ Warm Up By Infrared Thermography.

Since McLaughlin’s study essentially replicates Bertsch’s paper I feel that the muscle activity in the trumpet embouchure is pretty well established to be better focused on the area around the mouth corners and not in the cheeks. Where I deviate from McLaughlin isn’t so much in the findings, but in the specific term he uses for his recommendations, “frown embouchure.”

That might be more of a minor quibble. I prefer to describe the best position of the mouth corners when playing brass to be more or less where they are when they are at rest. We certainly don’t want to pull them back as if smiling, but I don’t believe that pulling them down into a frown position is best either. While it may help players prevent their mouth corners from being drawn back to think about frowning instead, I don’t really find pulling the mouth corners down to be correct. The muscles at the mouth corners do need to be engaged, but I don’t want my students to pull them down out of their position.

Taken together, both McLaughlin’s blog post and Bertsch’s paper also show the potential for using infrared photography as a valuable tool for studying muscular effort while performing musical tasks. Bertsch has even taken this idea further, looking at the entire bodies of a violinist, saxophonist, and trombonist to see what muscles were activate to perform.

In addition to the description of effective embouchure technique as a “frown embouchure” I do have some other criticisms about McLaughlin’s writeup of his research, however I don’t think that these invalidate the data he presents. These arguments are simply standard points that anyone who has engaged in serious academic or scientific research would probably also raise. That’s not to say that McLaughlin’s research isn’t interesting or useful. Some of my disappointment may be more related to the policies and publishing practices of the International Journal of Music.

I’ll start with that point. It’s difficult to find more information about the International Journal of Music’s publishing policies. Their editorial board seems solid, but I can’t find any information about their peer reviewers. Their editorial policy does mention “rigorous peer review for research-oriented content” but doesn’t note who their reviewers are (just their editors), whether the reviews are blinded, or how they label peer reviewed content compared to non-reviewed content. I think the $360 publication fee for an open-access article there is a bit much for an online journal that specifically seems to cater to a general audience. An average to purchase your own domain name and host a web site of your own for a year is about $150 if you’re just interested in getting your ideas out there, so you’re just paying extra to be associated with the IJM. Peer reviewers are volunteers, not paid staff, so while I don’t think the IJM is a predatory journal, I’m not sure how seriously they should be taken by scholars.

I suspect that the vast majority of articles published in the International Journal of Music are not peer reviewed and McLaughlin’s post (more on this below) probably would not be accepted for publication as peer-reviewed, such as in the (not to be confused with) International Journal of Music Education. In my opinion, naming their journal so close to the more serious scholarly resource was a bit sneaky. Maybe they didn’t really consider the confusion that could result with such similar names to be an issue, but the International Journal of Music Education is one of the gold standard publications of music research. The International Journal of Music, however, is much less so.

As best as I can tell, authors who publish in the International Journal of Music are qualified musicians, but a large portion of the articles (at least the ones accessible without a subscription) are “fluff” pieces, like interviews, obituaries, or other non-academic works written for a general audience. McLaughlin’s writeup there is described specifically as a “guest blog,” not really an article. Brevard College doesn’t have a subscription to the IJM, so I can’t go deeper without paying a subscription fee personally, and I don’t really think that it would be worth it for my purposes, so take my criticism here with a grain of salt. The articles behind the paywall may be very well researched and written. They do have ads on their site and also have links for marketing opportunities, which aren’t really a red flag for non-peer reviewed journals (they have to offset their costs somehow), but peer reviewed journals typically do not include ads unless they are for professional conferences or organizations, not products.

More specifically to McLaughlin’s post, I think he wrote up what he wanted to and what the editorial staff asked him for, but nothing more. A publication in a peer reviewed journal would have required a literature review and much more information about McLaughlin’s methodology. Since McLaughlin is essentially replicating earlier research a scholar would want to know this before citing or drawing conclusions. A thorough literature review also shows that McLaughlin is aware of the current consensus among experts in this topic, isn’t reinventing the wheel, and is addressing criticisms and concerns that often come up when different researchers look at similar topics in different ways. A detailed report on the methodology also helps scholars to bring appropriate weight to the findings. For example, McLaughlin’s writeup includes data from 5 test subjects, but we don’t know for sure if those are the only subjects or if they are a small subset. 5 test subjects is not enough to come to any statistical significance, even if the results are consistent with consensus. More data should also be presented in the writeup so that the reader understands how typical the examples are. It’s not necessary to include all the raw data from every test subject in an academic paper, but enough should be presented so that a scholar understands how typical the presented examples actually are. For all we know, those examples may have been cherry picked to demonstrate McLaughlin’s preconceived ideas. When conducting studies like this the researcher should be testing the null-hypothesis, gathering up enough evidence to prove that a real effect is actually present. In other words, you try to find evidence against what you expect to find and if you can’t, you’re on to something.

My last criticism about McLaughlin’s writeup has to do with the photographs he uses in his post. While he does helpfully label the specific areas of the face in the infrared photos, the view does not provide good context to see exactly where the muscles were activated or show other areas around the face that might also be related. Compare an example of McLaughlin’s photographs…

… to photos published in Bertsch’s paper.

Bertsch’s photos provide much better context. There may be a good reason why McLaughlin needed to photograph his subjects so close to the face (and they were playing trumpet at the time, I believe, so that is one difference), but if you’re comparing the muscles around the mouth corners to the muscles around the cheeks a better view would include the area around the mouth corners, rather than cropping them out. Bertsch’s data shows whether or not the muscles at the chin are activated as well and while the performers are not actually playing. Taken as a whole photos of the entire embouchure area both while playing and while at rest might provide evidence for or against whether the player is actually “frowning.”

If dwelling on the negative above seems like I’m against the IJM or McLaughlin’s research I want to again state that I think the blog post is very good. It offers further evidence for what the general consensus already states and is presented in a way that makes this information more accessible to non-academics. Heck, all my criticisms here apply to pretty much everything I post here! I guess I mainly am bothered by the veneer of a scholarly article in an academic journal that is really more focused on a general audience.

Update: After I made this post this morning I had a thought to poke around on Clint McLaughlin’s web site and sure enough, he has a more detailed writeup of his experiment over there. His discussion over there addresses some of my quibbles that I made above and has even more examples, including video, that you can look at. If this is a topic that interests you, I highly recommend you go to McLaughlin’s web page, Thermal Imaging And Spectrum Analysis Study Of Trumpet Players.

Lessons Page Added

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

I finally broke down and added a dedicated page here for brass players looking for lessons to sort out embouchure difficulties. If you look in the menu above, you’ll see a page called Lessons. That page includes the contact for to reach out to me via email as well as some additional information. I usually want to see a player’s chops in action before we schedule the lesson, since every once in a while I can spot something that’s easy to fix, plus it’s nice for me to get an idea what I’m going to be working with before we start. I have a video example and some music there so you can see what I would like to see and hear from that.

I’ve also added some info about how to use the audio settings on Zoom so that we won’t have difficulties hearing each other on the Zoom call. After helping too many new students get their Zoom settings set up correctly I think I’ve discovered the usual culprit so if you set up the audio settings as I mentioned in that page we should hopefully not need to spend time in the lesson troubleshooting audio issues.

The “Secret” to High Notes

~ wilktone ~ 3 Comments

Is there a “secret” to playing high notes on a brass instrument?

According to this video, it’s got something to do with the teeth and lips, but he’s not very clear on what he means. He talks about if you imagine the air passing over the tongue it hits the back of the teeth and then on the lips it forms a “thick” air stream. But we need a “thin” air stream to play high. He then demonstrates how he can place the mouthpiece in different (horizontal) placements that, I think he claims, naturally create a thin air stream for high notes.

But the key is his Mays Double-Aperture System (MDAS). This is used to unlock “High Note Air Jets” (HNAJ). He goes through a number of procedures to position the lower lip closer to the top teeth, position the top lip further away from the lower lip, curl the lower lip over the lower teeth, drag the lower lip so it’s in line with the edge of the lower teeth, direct the air up (with the jaw), experiment with horizontal mouthpiece placement (in order to find a place that “unlocks” air channels), experiment with vertical mouthpiece placement, and create “fast” air with “dry areas” of your lips.

Now I can see how some of this experimentation could lead to brass students finding a “sweet spot” on the lips that works best, but much of his description seems to be more his playing sensations or an analogy. This sort of experimentation done subjectively could just as easily screw a player up, in my opinion.

By the way, I would type his embouchure as a Medium High Placement type.

But there are a lot of more videos on YouTube that teach us the “secrets” to playing high. Let’s see what another says.

This video states that it’s tongue position. But he first describes that instead of going “up or down” on the center of the pitch we need to go “out deeper into the center of the instrument.” The lips, he says, are not the cause of the sound but rather just responding to everything else (most especially the oral cavity resonance). With the lip position what you want to do is think of the air column as a string. To go up an octave, you use the tongue position to “cut the air column in half.” He discusses a “half whistle,” which I like to describe as a pitched hissing instead.

Tongue position is an important part of the puzzle, and his idea of a “half whistle” is similar to something that I’ve been using in my own practice and teaching as well. But is it the “secret” to high notes for all players or does it depend on what the student is already doing and what direction they need to move towards? I think that in order for this concept to have such a dramatic effect the musician will need to have other things, like the embouchure and breathing, already pretty well in place.

By the way, my best guess for his embouchure type is the Very High Placement type.

In this video we learn a bit about how the brain is plastic and changes as we learn new motor skills, but it can adopt to incorrect technique as well as correct technique. So we need to practice correctly in order to reinforce efficient playing rather than incorrect playing.

Regarding the embouchure, he describes his as having an “open aperture.” The concept of an open or closed aperture to play a brass instrument is sometimes brought up, but people often use the terms differently and neither really describes what happens as a tone is being played. The aperture actually opens and closes throughout the playing. Regardless, he makes the connection between aperture size and dynamic (larger aperture for louder notes, smaller for softer) and range (smaller aperture for higher notes, larger for lower).

According to this teacher, we can create “compression” at three points in the playing apparatus; the lips, the tongue, and the glottis. Of the three, we don’t really want to do so at the glottis as that tends to cause playing issues. The tongue is used to create a resonance in the oral cavity to match the pitch being played, as described in the previous video. He briefly discusses a “modified yoga breathing,” which he describes as a process to breathe in first at the abdomen, then the intercostal muscles, and then then “claviculary” (at the clavicles). The goal of all of this is to remove excess tension, so I guess that’s the secret he’s talking about.

For descriptions and instructions on breathing I think I prefer to avoid the three-step process he advocates. I lean more towards how Arnold Jacobs would prefer to get the student taking a natural breath, using the sensation of moving air instead. Perhaps you could use those three regions as a guide for the teacher to use to see if the inhalation is working correctly, but Jacobs famously pointed out that you can imitate this body movements without moving the air correctly. It’s not the body moving that creates efficient and relaxed breathing, but rather efficient breathing that causes the body to move in the manner we associate as correct.

I can’t really guess his embouchure type from this video. Every time he plays the camera focuses on the bell of his trumpet and we can’t get a decent look at his embouchure. Probably one of the downstream types.

What’s the point of going through contrasting discussions on playing well in the upper register? Particularly since they cover some different things? Some players could definitely follow the advice of any of these videos (or the myriad of other videos purporting to offer the “secret”) and find something that clicks. But again, it really depends on what other playing factors are already in place and what needs adjustments.

With my personal interest in brass embouchure technique and pedagogy it’s very easy for me to break down the “secret” to opening up the upper register there. If I were to take it more personal, I might even advise all players to put as little upper lip inside the mouthpiece as possible and play upstream. But that particular adjustment that worked so well for me might be exactly opposite of what another player needs to do.

Ultimately the best way to open up the upper register is to get the coordination of all the different playing factors working together. It can be very helpful to isolate something in particular (tongue position, mouthpiece placement, breathing, etc.) because it can help us to both diagnose what needs changing and make the corrections. But these things must interact with the other playing factors in order for things to work efficiently.

I’ve discussed (quite a while ago) how I dislike it when brass teachers describe things as “secrets” to unlock your potential. It always seems that when that’s the rhetoric the advice is either pretty much already acknowledged as an important part of good playing mechanics or something really unusual that I wouldn’t advocate for. Most of the time I think well-intentioned teachers describe what clicked for them personally and then transfer its importance on to every student.

What do you think? Is there really a “secret” to good brass technique? Do you think that it’s OK to describe corrections as a “secret” and I’m being pedantic? Or do you agree with this pet peeve and think that brass teachers need to stop being so over-the-top in their sales technique? Is it just a way for these teachers to get clicks on their videos, drive traffic, and hawk their books and lessons? Let me know in the comments if I’m being a curmudgeon.

Dental Structure and Brass Embouchure – The Shiner Plot Thickens

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

A recent topic on the Trumpet Herald forum spun off into a discussion of tooth structure and how it influences a brass musician’s embouchure. The thread mentioned some research on the topic that I wasn’t already familiar with, so I did some digging and ended up finding a newer paper from 2012, The Relationship of Oral Anatomy and Trumpet Performance: Prediction of Physical Talent by H. Zeynep Cilingir.

Cilingir got access to some very advanced dental imaging equipment and designed a very good study to look at trumpet players’ anatomical features and looked for correlations between playing characteristics and dental anatomy. My own dissertation looked in part at this topic and my results here were inconclusive. Cilingir’s research did find some interesting results.

I’ve blogged about this topic before, particularly in relation to the ideas of Matty Shiner (here and here). Shiner would tell students who didn’t have what he considered to be an “ideal” tooth structure for brass playing to undergo an orthodontic procedure.

There are several problematic issues, which I go into detail on the earlier blog posts. Briefly, Shiner never published his research and what we know about it from interviews he gave would almost certainly not get IRB approval. There are massive ethical and even legal concerns with how he went about this.

Red flags aside, that doesn’t mean that his ideas weren’t correct. Cilingir’s paper took a good look at Shiner’s ideas and found some interesting things.

In this research, the relationship between the rotation angle of the central incisors (Inter-incisal Rotation) and performance skills was analyzed in order to further investigate the Shiner brothers’ theory. The results showed an association between Inter-incisal Rotation Angle and Flexibility; participants with a more pronounced “V” shape between the central incisors received higher scores from Flexibility A and B exercises. However, no significant association was found between the Inter-incisal Rotation Angle and High Range or Endurance scores as hypothesized by the Shiners and Franks.

– Cilingir, p. 65

So there was a positive association with lip flexibility and the V shape Shiner felt was ideal, but there was no relationship between that dental structure and high range or endurance. Interestingly, Cilingir didn’t find any relationship between high range and daily practice or years of experience either.

Cilingir also find some relationship between the amount of space in the back of the mouth (Inter-molar Width measurements) and certain types of tonguing. Subjects with a wider back part of the mouth tended to do better with multiple tonguing and flutter tonguing. There wasn’t any correlation found between the general alignment of the upper teeth and any playing characteristics, although there was a statistically significant correlation between well-aligned lower teeth along with multiple tonguing and flutter tonguing as well.

Pretty much all of the anatomical features that Cilingir looked at were characteristics that come from what I think are mostly “arm chair” speculation. Like a lot of thoughts on brass embouchure, many players and teachers describe what they think they are doing, and then leap to the assumption that not only is that how they actually play, but is also the best way for everyone. Cilingir’s paper is, to my knowledge, the best serious look at whether the speculation holds water.

Other dental characteristics Cilingir examined included:

  • Overjet
  • Inclination of the first molars (the molars are said by some to “support facial muscles at the side of the mouth”)
  • Slightly protruded and wider teeth

There wasn’t a relationship found between the above bullet points and any trumpet skills.

Almost every brass musician who has had some dental work done knows that the tooth structure is an important part of the brass embouchure. The support of the teeth and gums underneath the lips and mouthpiece rim is a vital part of embouchure technique and when an alteration is made it usually requires some time to adjust technique accordingly. Sometimes the playing is immediately better as a result of dental work too.

However, that doesn’t mean that anyone has the inside track on what dental characteristics relate to good brass playing. Even Cilingir was very careful to qualify the findings several times. Here’s one example:

However, none of the results of this study should be considered conclusive. After all, music performance is a combination of numerous aspects of human mind and body, which are full of endless capabilities. I believe that anyone, regardless of their physical makeup, can succeed becoming an excellent performer with enough determination.

– Cilingir, p. v

Someday I hope that we’ll have a much more accurate understanding of how anatomical features influence brass technique, but we’re not really very close yet. Before we can get there we not only want to pin down the dental characteristics Cilingir looked at, but also learn how those features are influenced by things like lip size and texture, oral cavity size and shape, tongue size and shape, the degree of the musician’s malocclusion, and more. Not to mention the variables of what embouchure type the player is using and whether or not they are playing correctly that way.

Anyone who recommends specific dental work in order to improve brass technique almost certainly doesn’t know what they are talking about. If you need to adjust your teeth, do so under the recommendation of a dental professional and do not expect it to make for any improvements in your brass playing.

You’re Going To Be Fine – Talking Embouchure Injuries with Brad Goode

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

Brad Goode is an amazing musician. You’re probably most likely to know about his jazz trumpet playing. He’s also an excellent composer and bassist. He has also struggled a number of times with injuries to his lips that have seriously hindered his trumpet players.

Recently I came across a video podcast series, Trust the Process, that is devoted to helping musicians deal with injuries related to playing their instruments. Episode 4 is an interview with Brad Goode.

Here are a couple of quotes from the video that I found particularly interesting or insightful.

Understanding good brass technique and preventing injury go hand in hand.

For those who prefer not to think about brass technique, this is the best argument I can think for why you should understand brass technique.

There are many, many brass teachers not teaching embouchure. And not dealing with the subject of embouchure but believing in a magical thinking system where if you just imagine the results strong enough everything will be perfect and you won’t need to know anything about embouchure.

I find it truly amazing how many intelligent, well-intentioned, and experience brass teachers and players buy into this “think system” approach. And many are quite defensive if you point out the absurdity of it. And as Brad mentions, more players than not who get injured have been indoctrinated into this idea.

There are a few things he says that I question or disagree with. For example, while Brad is correct that different brass instruments require different approaches, I’ve found that the basic principles apply to all and they are more similar than many give credit. But I imagine that if we discussed these differences and similarities in person we’d find we’re more aligned than not here.

The whole interview is interesting and worth watching. I will definitely be checking out more of the Trust the Process series.

Brass Embouchures: A Guide For Teachers and Players – NC Trombone Festival Recording

~ wilktone ~ Leave a comment

Yesterday I attended the North Carolina Trombone Festival, held at Appalachian State University this year. It was a wonderful time. I heard two very fine trombone choirs perform, the ASU Trombone Choir and the Charlotte Trombone Collective. The Performer’s Showcase Recital featured a number of the guest artists and most performed pieces I wasn’t familiar with already. I got to meet some colleagues from around North Carolina that I haven’t met before and also finally met a couple of teachers face to face for the first time.

There were also some workshops and I gave a presentation on brass embouchure technique and pedagogy in the morning session. While preparing for this I spent some time practicing it and recorded myself. Here is one practice session, unedited, but I think that it will get the points across pretty well. I didn’t write out everything I planned to say. Instead I had some bullet points of things I wanted to say in my presenters notes (as well as on the slides) and spoke about them off the cuff. I think that this makes a live presentation feel more natural, but on video it perhaps comes across better to recite something prewritten. What do you think?

At any rate, here is the practice session for anyone who is interested but wasn’t able to attend the festival or went to another workshop at the same time.

If you’ve read through some of my embouchure materials I’ve already posted here you’ll recognize the discussion as well as many of the examples I use. But it’s possible that this format and organization works well for some people as an introduction or review.

North Carolina Trombone Festival Embouchure Presentation 4/13/24

~ wilktone ~ 1 Comment

Coming up next month, on April 13, 2024, I will be presenting at the North Carolina Trombone Festival. I will be giving an presentation on brass embouchure technique titled “Brass Embouchures: A Guide for Teachers and Players” at 10 AM.

The boilerplate release forms that I received to participate this year mention live streaming. If the event is streamed or recorded, I will be sure to post links here for folks who might want to tune in.

Regardless of whether it is going to be streamed, I will practice the presentation (in part so I can be sure to get through everything in the allotted 45 minutes) and will probably record my practice. If I get a decent practice recording I’ll post it too, so even if the NCTF doesn’t record or stream it you’ll be able to watch it later.

Playing Requirement Differences Between Brass Instruments – Range and Endurance

~ wilktone ~ 6 Comments

I recently got an email from a trumpet player, Lee, who reminded me about a topic I’ve been meaning to blog about for a while. In his email about a different topic Lee mentioned that the range requirements for trumpet player are more demanding than that of trombone. While on the surface this could be correct, I’m not so certain that this is really true. There certainly is a lot more nuance that goes beyond how high each of those instruments are expected to play. There’s also the range where these instruments spend the most time playing as well as the length of time in a given performance. Of course that’s going to depend also on the style of the music and what the individual piece is. It’s really hard to quantify this and often it gets framed as which brass instrument is harder to play, which is not really a useful argument.

Regardless, as someone who has spent a lot of time studying scores of great composers and arrangers I’ve noticed that the playing demands placed on different brass instruments are not always comparable. A phrase played on a Bb trumpet in a particular range is going to have a completely different quality if played an octave lower on a trombone. A trombonist pasting out an F above high Bb can sound exciting, but it doesn’t have quite the same punch as the equivalent G above high C on trumpet. Then we also need to consider how much a particular brass part plays on a given piece of music. If I were asked to play a NOLA brass band style sousaphone part in the equivalent range on tenor trombone or euphonium I think I would be gassed by the end of one set, maybe sooner. Good arrangers come to an understanding of what good brass players are capable of and write parts accordingly.

Are there some ways to objectively look at the playing demands placed on different brass instruments? Maybe, but all the ways I can think of have their limitations. Still, I find this an interesting thought experiment and did some “back of the envelope” analysis to see if I could come up with anything that might tease out an understanding.

While I’m not really a brass doubler, I do find it useful to practice trumpet from time to time and while I was a student, particularly in high school, I played all the brass instruments in different ensembles. I also taught all the brass instruments for a while back when I was teaching at Adams State College and ended up working on my chops on all the brass to try to be able to keep up with my students. But honestly, I found it more effective to simply transpose and play along on trombone with my students on other brass instruments because it provided a better model. I’m providing this background simply to point out that I’m not completely inexperienced on every brass instrument, but also to acknowledge that I’m only expert on trombone (and some might argue not even on that). My background as a composer and arranger writing for brass might be more relevant, since I’ve had a chance to discover through trial and error what works well for different brass.

Suggested Ranges – Orchestral

The easiest way to look at the demands on brass range I could think of was to look at orchestration and arranging sources to see what is recommended by experts. Are trumpet players generally required to play a greater range than tubists? Which brass instrument seems to require the widest range or the highest range? For my purposes in this post I’m going to focus on trumpet and trombone in particular, but also discuss tuba and French horn when I have some info to share.

One of the first books I was assigned as an undergrad for scoring music was The Study of Orchestration, by Samuel Adler. I have the 2nd edition, so your copy might be different. If you’re not familiar with this text, it is largely concerned with orchestral arranging, so these ranges might seem a little smaller if you compare this to big band playing.

Bb Trumpet

This text suggests a range of 2 octaves and a minor 6th for trumpet. The highest recommended note is the 9th partial. The Adler text also helpfully describes the characteristics of the registers for each instruments. For trumpet it describes the lowest written F# to the B above as “rather dull,” the middle C to A above the staff as “clear bright and most articulate,” and B above the staff to the D above the staff as “brilliant but strident.”

French Horn

Horn is a different animal than the other brass instruments. The fundamental pitch of the instrument is actually lower than a trombone, but they tend to be scored on higher sounding pitches. The range demands on a horn are larger than on the other brass, Adler recommends a playable range of just under 4 octaves. We are cautioned, however, that the lower register are difficult and to be avoided in fast passages. Written C below middle C up to G below middle C is described as “dark and may be a bit unfocused.” Above that to written middle C is “deep and solid.” From there to G on top of the treble clef staff is “bright and heroic” and above that is “brilliant and loud.” The highest suggested note is way up in the partials and I’m too lazy to count and figure it out. If you’re a horn player help me out in the comments.

Tenor Trombone

The suggested range for a tenor trombone is 2 octaves and a diminished 5th, a whole step smaller than trumpet, but then Adler provides some additional upper register notes in the parenthesis. Adler writes, “Theoretically, the quarter notes . . . are possible, and many professional players can play them, but they are difficult and risky.” If we included the highest note in the above suggested range the tenor trombone has a range of 3 octaves and a minor 2nd. The lowest pitch up to the G on the bottom of the bass clef staff is described as “dark and rather nondescript.” From there to the F above the bass clef staff is labeled as “very strong.” G above the bass clef to the Bb whole note in the tenor clef above is “very intense.” The highest suggested whole note is the 8th partial.

Tuba

Adler’s suggested range for writing for tuba is 3 octaves and a major 2nd, but it is covered in the text that tubists will often play instruments pitched in different keys. The lowest suggested pitch above, F, to the Bb two ledger lines below the staff is described as sounding “deep and heavy.” From the C below the staff to E in the staff is indicated as sounding “very strong” and above that is “getting weaker but quite intense.” The highest recommended pitch for tuba is the 13th partial, I think.

“Winner of the Range Contest”

It’s not a contest, but the horn wins with almost 4 octaves. Tuba comes in second with 3 octaves and a major 2nd. Trumpet and trombone are about the same, roughly 2 and 1/2 octaves, depending on which pitch you go with for the highest recommended note on trombone.

Suggested Range – Big Band

For suggested ranges for big band writing I grabbed Nelson Riddle’s text, Arranged by Nelson Riddle. I’ve got several good books on arranging for big band, this just happened to be the first one that I grabbed off my shelf.

Trumpet

This suggested range is very close to Adler’s suggestions. For some reason the lowest note is a half step higher, so 2 octaves and a Perfect 4th. If you know Nelson Riddle’s arranging you know that he would often write his lead trumpet parts higher than suggested.

Trombone

Riddle describes the recommended range of the trombone differently from the trumpet, like Adler. The two notes at the beginning of the above example are almost the same as the equivalent trumpet range, 2 octaves and a diminished 5th. But Riddle also adds some pedal tones (personally, I wouldn’t recommend too many pedals on tenor trombone and the lowest I can think of in classical repertoire is the pedal G in the David Concertino for Trombone and Orchestra.) He clarifies his upper register suggestions as “The upper notes. . . are all practical and easily available to experienced professionals, but younger and weaker lips usually have ‘A’ or ‘Bb’ as a ceiling, and the high ‘D’ in particular seems to be the starting note of a kind of ‘stratosphere’ which is closed to all but the very finest players.”

French Horn

Riddles range suggestions for horn are difficult to follow. The above image is a recreation of what is in the book, but there’s not much description on what all that means. He covers the French horn in his chapter on woodwinds and then later in the chapter on brass. I may be missing a complete discussion on what ranges he recommends for horn, since I’m skimming.

Tuba

Riddle’s suggested range for tuba is a bit smaller than Adler’s, 3 octaves total.

“Winner of the Range Contest”

Again, not a contest, but at least according to Riddle the tuba “wins” at 3 octaves. I won’t attempt a guess as to what he feels is the playable range for the horn. The trombone might be considered to eke out the trumpet a hair. That said, I tend to think of the playable ranges of trumpet and trombone as being equivalent to each other (for professional players), but with some caveats that I mentioned earlier and that I’ll get into now.

Playing Demand Comparisons – Big Band Lead Trumpet and Lead Trombone

Something important for composers and arrangers to consider when writing for brass is how much time the players spend actually playing and how much rest they get in a given piece. Nelson Riddle notes, “The brass section should be used for punctuation and support, and should not be given the sustained passages you would assign to string players, who can saw away for hours without rippling a muscle or generating one drop of perspiration.”

Since most of my own writing and much of my playing is for big band, I’m most familiar with that repertoire. One thing I’ve noticed with most of the great arrangers is that the trumpets generally are used more sparingly than the trombone section. I think there are two main practical reasons why. First, the lead trumpet part in the upper register is often saved for the exciting shout chorus and it’s helpful to give the trumpet section a chance to rest a bit before they are required to play up there. Secondly, the range of the trombone section alone is a bit more rich and solid sounding than a the trumpet section up an octave by themselves. While there are certainly times when the trumpet section can carry a passage on their own, it’s more common for that section to be blended with the saxophone or trombone section. You don’t have to go very high before 4 trumpets alone start to sound “tinny” whereas the trombone section voiced an octave below is in a range that sounds rich and clear.

But I wanted to come up with a more objective way to measure my impressions here. I grabbed a chart out of my own library, A Little Minor Booze by Willie Maiden, written for the Stan Kenton Orchestra. I figured something out of the Kenton library might make for a representative sample of what is expected in modern big band playing. I looked at the lead trumpet and lead trombone parts and worked out a couple of different things that would give us a glimpse into the different playing demands. I worked out the required range for both parts, but also looked at what the average note and median note was for both parts. I also looked at how much of the chart each player would have the metal on the mouth. It’s not really an accurate comparison, a quarter note playing a 6th partial concert F isn’t as demanding as playing that same pitch for a whole note. Controlling for that sort of variable is too much work for a blog post (and just guess at how much effort it took to write this post already), but I think it could be done if someone was interested enough.

Here are the results using some charts to compare.

Following this chart takes some explaining. In order to easily calculate these numbers I assigned the number 1 to the concert E below the staff for both trumpet and trombone (the lowest recommended non-pedal tone note for both). The F above that was assigned the number 2 and so on, all the way up to the written “double C” on trumpet at number 43. Here’s another way to look at this data.

Lowest Pitch Played

Lead Trumpet (written)

Lead Trombone

The lead trombone part was required to play the equivalent of an octave lower than the lead trumpet part.

Highest Pitch Played

Lead Trumpet (written)

Lead Trombone

On the second to last measure the lead trumpet has to play a “double C.” This is a major 6th higher than the equivalent highest note on the lead trombone part. The lead trumpet part has an entire range of two octaves, the C in the middle of the staff to the C two octaves above. The lead trombone part has an entire range of 2 octaves plus a minor 3rd.

Average Pitch

Lead Trumpet (written)

Lead Trombone

The average pitch for the lead trumpet part came out to a diminished 5th higher than the lead trombone part.

Median Pitch

Lead Trumpet (written)

Lead Trombone

The median pitch, that is the middle between the highest and lowest notes played in both parts, has the lead trumpet part a major 3rd above the lead trombone part.

Mode Pitch

Lead Trumpet (written)

Lead Trombone

The mode pitch refers to the pitch that occurred most often in the part. The lead trumpet mode note was the equivalent of a Perfect 4th higher than the mode note in the lead trombone part.

Measures Spent with the Metal on the Mouth

Lead Trumpet

Lead Trombone

The entire chart of A Little Minor Booze is 108 measures long (not counting the quarter note pickup). The lead trumpet part has at least one note in 33 measures, compared to the lead trombone part having 53 measures with something to be played.

Summary Impressions

First of all, let me make it clear that all the above really doesn’t tell us which brass instrument is the most demanding to play, but it might give the composer/arranger some ideas on what brass are capable of and how to write more idiomatically for those instruments. For big band writing in general, my best guess is that the lead trumpet will typically be required to play higher, but the lead trombone part will be required to play a wider range in general. The trombone section will typically need to play for longer periods of time with less rest, whereas the trumpets, who probably need to play more in the upper side of their range, will get more rest. If you want your trombone parts to be higher than typical you might want to write them with more rests than normal. Likewise, if you want your trumpets to play more throughout your arrangement you should write their range lower than you might otherwise. If you want to look at which instrument is required to play the widest range in general, you can probably assume French horn can cover the most range, followed by tuba, trombone, then trumpet.

My general thoughts on range capabilities for similarly experienced brass musicians is to pretty much think of them as the same. Take the roughly 2 and 1/2 octaves for trumpet and transpose that down an octave for the range of trombone and euphonium. Drop that down an octave for tuba standard range. Those aren’t perfect, but they will give you a decent idea to work with so that instead of having to memorize ranges for 3 different brass instruments you memorize 1 range and transpose by octaves. French horn, of course, is different and you’ll need to learn their range if you’re going to write for that instrument effectively.