An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
-
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:37 am
An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
Hi everyone,
I want to start some discussions that require a little bit of exposure to the physics of sound production for those of you who do not already have the background, in this case particularly as it pertains to mouthpiece selection. I will also be posting the same article in the mouthpiece forum so that I can more easily undertake new considerations there with regards to mouthpiece selection.
Ultimately, what I am looking for, is the degree to which your actual experience as a performer corroborates the science. Instead of writing it out myself, I am providing a link to someone else's sight, whose warrant of expertise is actually in the field (where I am only an avid amateur). My hope is that this non-mathematical explanation will bring not only insight, but that it will be received in the spirit of their authority and impartiality.
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/brassac ... l#overview
Its consideration will not contend, challenge, or threaten the expertise of any of our friends who regularly contribute here to our great advantage. It presents another way to come at the problem that we have created ourselves regarding tone and volume. It offers none of the variability or flexibility that are hallmark of the dialing-in-the-tone paradigm, because its goal is only to dial-in-the-sound; the tone being what the tone is!
I will then promote a player lead revolt (not really): an individual return or adoption (based upon the science) to a the healthy, natural, sweet, exciting and red-blooded sound that was once part of all brass instrument performance (and is newly a part of winning auditions), and which is promoted primarily by far greater economy of effort, and a symbiotic interface within a section and ensemble of either orchestral or a jazz instrumentation.
I encourage as many of you as have a reason to invest in your playing future to look through this article(s), in advisement of your own equipment explorations, and possible participation in a the evolution of this forum topic. I know how busy everybody is, so I'll leave it to sit for a week or so after posting, before taking it up again. I think it might prove very interesting.
Tim
I want to start some discussions that require a little bit of exposure to the physics of sound production for those of you who do not already have the background, in this case particularly as it pertains to mouthpiece selection. I will also be posting the same article in the mouthpiece forum so that I can more easily undertake new considerations there with regards to mouthpiece selection.
Ultimately, what I am looking for, is the degree to which your actual experience as a performer corroborates the science. Instead of writing it out myself, I am providing a link to someone else's sight, whose warrant of expertise is actually in the field (where I am only an avid amateur). My hope is that this non-mathematical explanation will bring not only insight, but that it will be received in the spirit of their authority and impartiality.
http://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/jw/brassac ... l#overview
Its consideration will not contend, challenge, or threaten the expertise of any of our friends who regularly contribute here to our great advantage. It presents another way to come at the problem that we have created ourselves regarding tone and volume. It offers none of the variability or flexibility that are hallmark of the dialing-in-the-tone paradigm, because its goal is only to dial-in-the-sound; the tone being what the tone is!
I will then promote a player lead revolt (not really): an individual return or adoption (based upon the science) to a the healthy, natural, sweet, exciting and red-blooded sound that was once part of all brass instrument performance (and is newly a part of winning auditions), and which is promoted primarily by far greater economy of effort, and a symbiotic interface within a section and ensemble of either orchestral or a jazz instrumentation.
I encourage as many of you as have a reason to invest in your playing future to look through this article(s), in advisement of your own equipment explorations, and possible participation in a the evolution of this forum topic. I know how busy everybody is, so I'll leave it to sit for a week or so after posting, before taking it up again. I think it might prove very interesting.
Tim
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 5165
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
- Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
- Contact:
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
This post is extremely difficult to read. I'm not trying to have a go. I actually don't know what you are hoping for people to post about here.
Also, for the benefit of the discussion you are hoping for, having the same topic in two forums will probably hinder "the flow".
Could you be specific with what you want? Why we chose the instrument we play on? You seem already biased towards some notion about the "correct" equipment and "correct" sound (which is subjective and not scientific), and a referenced problem that I don't believe exists beyond an individual scope.
Also, for the benefit of the discussion you are hoping for, having the same topic in two forums will probably hinder "the flow".
Could you be specific with what you want? Why we chose the instrument we play on? You seem already biased towards some notion about the "correct" equipment and "correct" sound (which is subjective and not scientific), and a referenced problem that I don't believe exists beyond an individual scope.
- Burgerbob
- Posts: 5068
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 8:10 pm
- Location: LA
- Contact:
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
Interesting article, but I'm not sure what it has to do with me choosing a mouthpiece. I play the stuff I do because it sounds good, it's comfortable, and I can play all my notes on them.
Aidan Ritchie, LA area player and teacher
- ghmerrill
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:41 pm
- Location: Central North Carolina
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
The original published article (by Joe Wolfe, a professor of physics at the Univ of New South Wales) is titled "The Acoustics of Woodwind Musical Instruments", and is a summary of ... er ... the well known acoustics of wind instruments. It appears in a rather odd (and relatively new) journal. The overview you reference appears to be another version of this. I can't imagine what the point of it is -- except when you get to the acknowledgements, it's clear that it's offered as a product of a research grant funded by the Australian Research Council and supported by Yamaha. I can't imagine why the ARC would have devoted funds to a summary article, but maybe it had money to burn. In the end, the article explicitly references the prior literature being summarized. My speculation is that this article is just an "add-on" to whatever real research may have been done. But it's a good summary. Honestly, though, I'm quite surprised that so much research energy and funding is being devoted to the sorts of papers and results being generated out of this "laboratory" at UNSW (I know -- I shouldn't be).
I think that asking players to "review" such articles and attempt to contribute insight into how they can be used to improve playing (or enlighten our understanding of it) is fruitless. If your goal is to achieve or express that insight or enlightenment, then you should take that as your job and propose some ideas and hypotheses about exactly how this information (of a fundamental scientific nature) is or can be used to improve playing or instrument or mouthpiece design. Asking players (and repair techs, and probably many mouthpiece makers) to provide, or even seriously consider, that goal is unlikely to be at all rewarding. I can follow the physics and math if I have to, but even if i were to do that, I can't see where I'd go from there in applying it to anything about my playing or choice of equipment -- how the knowledge gained from that effort would be helpful to me in those areas. If you sense an interesting and useful research program somewhere in the article, you need to move forward in delimiting and pursuing that -- and fomenting your "revolution".
I believe that this has been illustrated and expressed quite eloquently and succinctly by Burger Bob and harrisonreed. My long-winded contribution here is intended to provide some additional details about what some of the issues in your request may be.
I think that asking players to "review" such articles and attempt to contribute insight into how they can be used to improve playing (or enlighten our understanding of it) is fruitless. If your goal is to achieve or express that insight or enlightenment, then you should take that as your job and propose some ideas and hypotheses about exactly how this information (of a fundamental scientific nature) is or can be used to improve playing or instrument or mouthpiece design. Asking players (and repair techs, and probably many mouthpiece makers) to provide, or even seriously consider, that goal is unlikely to be at all rewarding. I can follow the physics and math if I have to, but even if i were to do that, I can't see where I'd go from there in applying it to anything about my playing or choice of equipment -- how the knowledge gained from that effort would be helpful to me in those areas. If you sense an interesting and useful research program somewhere in the article, you need to move forward in delimiting and pursuing that -- and fomenting your "revolution".
I believe that this has been illustrated and expressed quite eloquently and succinctly by Burger Bob and harrisonreed. My long-winded contribution here is intended to provide some additional details about what some of the issues in your request may be.
Gary Merrill
Amati Oval Euph
1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba
Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone
M/K nickel MV50 leadpipe
DE LB K/K8/110 Lexan
1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Bach 12c)
Amati Oval Euph
1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba
Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone
M/K nickel MV50 leadpipe
DE LB K/K8/110 Lexan
1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Bach 12c)
-
- Posts: 90
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:19 am
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
I'm having Snorsworthy flashbacks
Organologique et plus!
-
- Posts: 3888
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 9:54 pm
- Location: California
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
OK, I read the article (well, actually I scanned and skimmed). Nothing there that prompts me to think I can do anything about "mouthpiece selection." Please help me understand.
Or better yet, let's move on to more practical areas of discussion!
Or better yet, let's move on to more practical areas of discussion!
-
- Posts: 2485
- Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2018 6:10 pm
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
So what mpc should I buy to improve my high register?
-
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:46 am
- Location: Vancouver WA
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
I applaud your desire to attempt some scientific basis for a basic problem that affects all musicians, beginners to professionals. However, I’m not sure that this forum—not just the TC, but a community of players—is the appropriate place to address this part of the question you seek to answer.
Most musicians are practical, and will have an answer like Aidan’s:
Regardless, the point of choosing any equipment is to answer the question, “Which mouthpiece [or instrument or components] provides more of what I want in my sound and makes it easier to produce that sound?” That is, musicians are looking for equipment that is optimal in helping them play with a desired goal in mind, e.g., sound, articulation, range, endurance, etc., but rarely do we find equipment that is the optimum.
Said differently, all equipment is a compromise.
Historically, people have chosen equipment based on fashion (think of sacbuts in the 15-19th centuries vs. the large-bore tenors that came into being in the mid-20th century), teachers (highly influential), manufacturing (what’s available), and artistic considerations (highly individualized). Some of this has been distilled by some people, such as Vincent’s Bach’s or Reynold Schilke’s mouthpiece catalogs, where specific equipment is recommended for specific problems, e.g., thinner rims for thick-lipped players. However, some modern makers (Doug Elliott, Greg Black, David Monette, to name only a few) have radically challenged some mouthpiece dogma in specific ways. That is to say, equipment selection has been based on trial and error from which come recommendations (some of which are being challenged), and personal preference.
Again, I can see the value in rigorous, controlled input to answer the questions you seek. It might give us some answers, such as why dogma is or isn’t correct, and it could help some players select equipment that would help them from the beginning, rather than struggling to produce a characteristic sound on equipment that has been demonstrated to not work well with, say, an individual’s embouchure type. Those are only two of the possible benefits I can see.
Finally, there’s something to be said for this (I’m sorry, but I can’t remember which law, theorem, or whatever its called): Even if we had an algorithm for selecting equipment, there is always the real possibility that some players will not like the resulting sound or response, and will choose equipment that less than optimal based on artistic or personal preference.
Until we have more rigorous, controlled data, though, asking a group of musicians for feedback on their equipment is something like asking a horse why he eats hay. Even if the horse could talk, probably the only intelligible answers we would get are something like, “Because it’s there,” or, “It tastes good.”
Most musicians are practical, and will have an answer like Aidan’s:
Yes, some trombonists will “go down the rabbit hole” by comparing specs, buying equipment and making 1:1 or A:B comparisons. They eventually decide on model E vs. model F on a binary decision, like when choosing glasses. Others will simply try a few different mouthpieces and decide on one, given their desired characteristics, and some feedback from others who have gone down the rabbit hole before them.
Regardless, the point of choosing any equipment is to answer the question, “Which mouthpiece [or instrument or components] provides more of what I want in my sound and makes it easier to produce that sound?” That is, musicians are looking for equipment that is optimal in helping them play with a desired goal in mind, e.g., sound, articulation, range, endurance, etc., but rarely do we find equipment that is the optimum.
Said differently, all equipment is a compromise.
Historically, people have chosen equipment based on fashion (think of sacbuts in the 15-19th centuries vs. the large-bore tenors that came into being in the mid-20th century), teachers (highly influential), manufacturing (what’s available), and artistic considerations (highly individualized). Some of this has been distilled by some people, such as Vincent’s Bach’s or Reynold Schilke’s mouthpiece catalogs, where specific equipment is recommended for specific problems, e.g., thinner rims for thick-lipped players. However, some modern makers (Doug Elliott, Greg Black, David Monette, to name only a few) have radically challenged some mouthpiece dogma in specific ways. That is to say, equipment selection has been based on trial and error from which come recommendations (some of which are being challenged), and personal preference.
Again, I can see the value in rigorous, controlled input to answer the questions you seek. It might give us some answers, such as why dogma is or isn’t correct, and it could help some players select equipment that would help them from the beginning, rather than struggling to produce a characteristic sound on equipment that has been demonstrated to not work well with, say, an individual’s embouchure type. Those are only two of the possible benefits I can see.
Finally, there’s something to be said for this (I’m sorry, but I can’t remember which law, theorem, or whatever its called): Even if we had an algorithm for selecting equipment, there is always the real possibility that some players will not like the resulting sound or response, and will choose equipment that less than optimal based on artistic or personal preference.
Until we have more rigorous, controlled data, though, asking a group of musicians for feedback on their equipment is something like asking a horse why he eats hay. Even if the horse could talk, probably the only intelligible answers we would get are something like, “Because it’s there,” or, “It tastes good.”
Kenneth Biggs
I have known a great many troubles, but most of them have never happened.
—Mark Twain (attributed)
I have known a great many troubles, but most of them have never happened.
—Mark Twain (attributed)
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 5165
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
- Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 194
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 7:36 am
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2018 4:50 pm
- Location: Washington
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
I realize you're just relaying an idea that's prevalent, so I'm not attacking you--just pointing out something that I've pointed out many times before. This search for the "optimal" baffles me. If you'll pardon a crude comparison, it has been determined that the optimal way to stimulate emission from bulls (or any male mammal for that matter) is to use an electric probe, inserted in the backside. Should we all adopt this practice, since it's optimal?Kbiggs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:04 pm
Finally, there’s something to be said for this (I’m sorry, but I can’t remember which law, theorem, or whatever its called): Even if we had an algorithm for selecting equipment, there is always the real possibility that some players will not like the resulting sound or response, and will choose equipment that less than optimal based on artistic or personal preference.
If all one is concerned about is that the sound be optimal, I'm sure braces, counterweights, and other non-essential parts of the horn should probably be removed. The most efficient car imaginable would have no driver, no seat, no steering wheel, etc. A brick wall can outplay a goalkeeper every time. A 16-ounce Monster Energy Drink has more caffeine than a 16-ounce latte. "More efficient" isn't necessarily "better."
From a machine's perspective, (and sadly, a lot of theorists seem bent on learning to think like machines,) the things that make it possible for a human being to interact with a few pounds of brass and nickel all impede the pure production of sound( (generally as measured in single longtones), as do things like mouthpieces that fit human lips, leadpipes that enhance articulation, and components that vibrate in a way that inspires a musician to want to play, and to play expressively.
If one could show that completely isolating the musician from the sounds produced by the instrument being played would enhance the sound, would that musician still be producing music? I think "optimal" has to factor in the human element, rather than trying to eliminate it as a distraction.
- ghmerrill
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2018 4:41 pm
- Location: Central North Carolina
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
Also, the Russians have an old saying (a favorite of Kalashnikov's): The great is the enemy of the good.
To be fair, a similar saying seems to appear in a variety of cultures. It's always good to keep in mind when you find yourself perhaps focused a bit too much on perfection. And of course, as already suggested, optimization is always relative to a set of specified goals -- whose desirability or relative desirability may be contested.
To be fair, a similar saying seems to appear in a variety of cultures. It's always good to keep in mind when you find yourself perhaps focused a bit too much on perfection. And of course, as already suggested, optimization is always relative to a set of specified goals -- whose desirability or relative desirability may be contested.
Gary Merrill
Amati Oval Euph
1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba
Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone
M/K nickel MV50 leadpipe
DE LB K/K8/110 Lexan
1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Bach 12c)
Amati Oval Euph
1924 Buescher 3-valve Eb tuba
Schiller American Heritage 7B clone bass trombone
M/K nickel MV50 leadpipe
DE LB K/K8/110 Lexan
1947 Olds "Standard" trombone (Bach 12c)
-
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:46 am
- Location: Vancouver WA
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
Right. More or less what I implied above. After all, where Pe = performance, Po = potential, and D = distraction:doctortrombone wrote: ↑Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:30 amI realize you're just relaying an idea that's prevalent, so I'm not attacking you--just pointing out something that I've pointed out many times before. This search for the "optimal" baffles me. If you'll pardon a crude comparison, it has been determined that the optimal way to stimulate emission from bulls (or any male mammal for that matter) is to use an electric probe, inserted in the backside. Should we all adopt this practice, since it's optimal?Kbiggs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:04 pm
Finally, there’s something to be said for this (I’m sorry, but I can’t remember which law, theorem, or whatever its called): Even if we had an algorithm for selecting equipment, there is always the real possibility that some players will not like the resulting sound or response, and will choose equipment that less than optimal based on artistic or personal preference.
If all one is concerned about is that the sound be optimal, I'm sure braces, counterweights, and other non-essential parts of the horn should probably be removed. The most efficient car imaginable would have no driver, no seat, no steering wheel, etc. A brick wall can outplay a goalkeeper every time. A 16-ounce Monster Energy Drink has more caffeine than a 16-ounce latte. "More efficient" isn't necessarily "better."
From a machine's perspective, (and sadly, a lot of theorists seem bent on learning to think like machines,) the things that make it possible for a human being to interact with a few pounds of brass and nickel all impede the pure production of sound( (generally as measured in single longtones), as do things like mouthpieces that fit human lips, leadpipes that enhance articulation, and components that vibrate in a way that inspires a musician to want to play, and to play expressively.
If one could show that completely isolating the musician from the sounds produced by the instrument being played would enhance the sound, would that musician still be producing music? I think "optimal" has to factor in the human element, rather than trying to eliminate it as a distraction.
Pe = Po - D
Kenneth Biggs
I have known a great many troubles, but most of them have never happened.
—Mark Twain (attributed)
I have known a great many troubles, but most of them have never happened.
—Mark Twain (attributed)
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 5165
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
- Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
- Contact:
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
LOL. OP vanished. Snorssssworthy-esque.
Or someone from TrumpetHerald hust laughing at all the replies.
Or someone from TrumpetHerald hust laughing at all the replies.
-
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:37 am
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
Hi everyone,
I’m sorry to be so ate getting back to this thread, but I have spent several enjoyable days reviewing everything here about mouthpieces. Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts over the years. I am also happy to confirm that we already have an invaluable and sensible resource in Doug Elliot. The more posts I have read by him, the more I respect his patience, expertise, and balanced, sensible (rather than common sense) opinions.
I am currently still ‘crafting’ my first initial statement of intent for this sensitive topic, but think that you might all be profited by checking out what other progressive thinkers such as Jason Harrelson, of Harrelson Trumpets, https://www.whyharrelson.com/intro-to-mouthpieces.html Scott Hartman, of Hartman Mouthpieces, http://www.hartmanmouthpieces.net/tenor ... to-a-horn/ and Stomvi Art and Technology, https://stomvi.com/en/products/mouthpie ... ne/classic have to say about mouthpiece design. Much of it is similar in tangent to my own thinking, though my end goal is different.
In all three cases, the links posted just direct you to the general resource of the website. I encourage you to look around to see what it is that they have to say. Much of it is simply a more technical explanation of the things that Doug Elliot kindly defines by posting in courtesy of plain language. For my own part, I’m particularly interested in their work because they are all developing modular models (such as trumpet players already enjoy), which will allow me the liberty to prove my thinking on mouthpiece- instrument interface and the pursuit of the ‘realized’ sound, as opposed to a preferred or ‘determined’ sound. Much more later.
Tim
I’m sorry to be so ate getting back to this thread, but I have spent several enjoyable days reviewing everything here about mouthpieces. Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts over the years. I am also happy to confirm that we already have an invaluable and sensible resource in Doug Elliot. The more posts I have read by him, the more I respect his patience, expertise, and balanced, sensible (rather than common sense) opinions.
I am currently still ‘crafting’ my first initial statement of intent for this sensitive topic, but think that you might all be profited by checking out what other progressive thinkers such as Jason Harrelson, of Harrelson Trumpets, https://www.whyharrelson.com/intro-to-mouthpieces.html Scott Hartman, of Hartman Mouthpieces, http://www.hartmanmouthpieces.net/tenor ... to-a-horn/ and Stomvi Art and Technology, https://stomvi.com/en/products/mouthpie ... ne/classic have to say about mouthpiece design. Much of it is similar in tangent to my own thinking, though my end goal is different.
In all three cases, the links posted just direct you to the general resource of the website. I encourage you to look around to see what it is that they have to say. Much of it is simply a more technical explanation of the things that Doug Elliot kindly defines by posting in courtesy of plain language. For my own part, I’m particularly interested in their work because they are all developing modular models (such as trumpet players already enjoy), which will allow me the liberty to prove my thinking on mouthpiece- instrument interface and the pursuit of the ‘realized’ sound, as opposed to a preferred or ‘determined’ sound. Much more later.
Tim
-
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2018 8:37 am
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
Good-bye!
I have decided to take my leave of this forum by thanking its members for the consideration they have shown me during my short visit to the community. I came here looking for some answers and I got them! It was in my mind to leave something in return for the kindness you had shown, and I had undertaken to do so by way of forum contributions like this one, until I realized the conceit of it. Advised by that humility, my gift will be that I will not be completing the threads that I started, so as not to disturb the the good work done by those that have gone before. Enjoy!
Tim
I have decided to take my leave of this forum by thanking its members for the consideration they have shown me during my short visit to the community. I came here looking for some answers and I got them! It was in my mind to leave something in return for the kindness you had shown, and I had undertaken to do so by way of forum contributions like this one, until I realized the conceit of it. Advised by that humility, my gift will be that I will not be completing the threads that I started, so as not to disturb the the good work done by those that have gone before. Enjoy!
Tim
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 5165
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
- Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
- Contact:
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
O Tim! There was so much more we could have been learned of out of you. May the sun shine fore ever more upon your back in your journeyings. We shan't not ever forget thee thine Great Gifts thus bestowethed upon us.
-
- Posts: 229
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 4:52 pm
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
Guess I'm in the minority here, but this kind of badgering of topics players are not interested in really saddens me. I have no problem with people IGNORING topics they don't care for. But here and in TTF it seems required to badger the poster and belitttle any thoughts they might have.
I kept in touch with snorsworthy for a while. He was actually doing some pretty interesting stuff. I could see AND hear what he was talking about. I had to open my mind up a little bit, but once I did, it was rewarding.
Funny thing is, I've had contact witha few people who do original work on brass instruments, and their instruments are well regarded world-wide. Discussions often get into significant and fascinating weeds about the status of aspects of acoustic theory, physical implementation, and artistic impressions and expressions. These guys ask questions a lot like the OP did (but usually a bit easier to understand from a "what's the objective" standpoint.)
This thread could have focused on getting a clearer question from the OP. Instead it was focused on the "....player revolt (not really)..." paragraph.
I'm dissappointed.
I kept in touch with snorsworthy for a while. He was actually doing some pretty interesting stuff. I could see AND hear what he was talking about. I had to open my mind up a little bit, but once I did, it was rewarding.
Funny thing is, I've had contact witha few people who do original work on brass instruments, and their instruments are well regarded world-wide. Discussions often get into significant and fascinating weeds about the status of aspects of acoustic theory, physical implementation, and artistic impressions and expressions. These guys ask questions a lot like the OP did (but usually a bit easier to understand from a "what's the objective" standpoint.)
This thread could have focused on getting a clearer question from the OP. Instead it was focused on the "....player revolt (not really)..." paragraph.
I'm dissappointed.
- harrisonreed
- Posts: 5165
- Joined: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:18 pm
- Location: Fort Riley, Kansas
- Contact:
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
I, too, genuinely lament the woeful passage of this late topic (actually two topics, identical ones, in different foraeiiiaeo) But we cannot ignore the fact that the OP did not actually get to any discernable point. I still am unable to ascertain(e) the meat and potatoes, so to speak, of said topic. The OP essentially cited a resource, said "I won't say what this article is about, but please everyone corroborate this science", and then "let's get'em on back ter the good'ole dayz". After his second post on the thread, and almost a thousand words, he even said he was "still crafting his initial statement of intent on the topic". How could we (royal we) not tanooki the heck out of it?
- greenbean
- Posts: 1850
- Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:14 pm
- Location: San Francisco
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
I have to agree with Boneagain. This behavior is shabby. These two threads were a bit misguided but, heck, when I first picked up a trombone not that many years ago, I had plenty of enthusiasm and was short on subject matter knowledge. No one on TTF knocked the wind out of my sails though. Folks were very encouraging and positive as they tolerated my newbie questions. And I am still playing the instrument and still enthusiastic!
Tom in San Francisco
Currently playing...
Bach Corp 16M
Many French horns
Currently playing...
Bach Corp 16M
Many French horns
-
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:46 am
- Location: Vancouver WA
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
This is a little off topic, but I want to address it after reviewing some of the posts since the OP decided to exit the conversation...doctortrombone wrote: ↑Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:30 amI realize you're just relaying an idea that's prevalent, so I'm not attacking you--just pointing out something that I've pointed out many times before. This search for the "optimal" baffles me. If you'll pardon a crude comparison, it has been determined that the optimal way to stimulate emission from bulls (or any male mammal for that matter) is to use an electric probe, inserted in the backside. Should we all adopt this practice, since it's optimal?Kbiggs wrote: ↑Mon Sep 03, 2018 6:04 pm
Finally, there’s something to be said for this (I’m sorry, but I can’t remember which law, theorem, or whatever its called): Even if we had an algorithm for selecting equipment, there is always the real possibility that some players will not like the resulting sound or response, and will choose equipment that less than optimal based on artistic or personal preference.
If all one is concerned about is that the sound be optimal, I'm sure braces, counterweights, and other non-essential parts of the horn should probably be removed. The most efficient car imaginable would have no driver, no seat, no steering wheel, etc. A brick wall can outplay a goalkeeper every time. A 16-ounce Monster Energy Drink has more caffeine than a 16-ounce latte. "More efficient" isn't necessarily "better."
From a machine's perspective, (and sadly, a lot of theorists seem bent on learning to think like machines,) the things that make it possible for a human being to interact with a few pounds of brass and nickel all impede the pure production of sound( (generally as measured in single longtones), as do things like mouthpieces that fit human lips, leadpipes that enhance articulation, and components that vibrate in a way that inspires a musician to want to play, and to play expressively.
If one could show that completely isolating the musician from the sounds produced by the instrument being played would enhance the sound, would that musician still be producing music? I think "optimal" has to factor in the human element, rather than trying to eliminate it as a distraction.
I believe that the statement you quoted was taken out of context. I am not arguing for the optimum in instrument or mouthpiece selection. Rather, I was suggesting that optimal—the best that can be had under the circumstances, given inherent compromises on equipment, as well as the vagaries and limitations of human flesh—is a more achievable and desirable goal. If you look at these paragraphs from my original response...
... as well as the remainder of my post, you’ll see the distinction between optimum and optimal. Think of it like the difference between excellence and perfection. Perfection is the best that there could possibly be. Perfection is an ideal, something that cannot be achieved, as in “perfect” conditions to achieve outcome x. Since music is an art form, and is the product of human endeavours, perfection (optimum) cannot be achieved.Regardless, the point of choosing any equipment is to answer the question, “Which mouthpiece [or instrument or components] provides more of what I want in my sound and makes it easier to produce that sound?” That is, musicians are looking for equipment that is optimal in helping them play with a desired goal in mind, e.g., sound, articulation, range, endurance, etc., but rarely do we find equipment that is the optimum.
Said differently, all equipment is a compromise.
Optimal—the best that can be achieved, given any human individual’s endeavours, and accounting for a person’s physical abilities, education, training, experience, psychological well-being, what they ate for breakfast that day—these things all contribute to an excellent performance.
I believe this distinction is important because what the OP implied is that there is an optimum instrument and mouthpiece—period. I don’t believe there ever will be such a thing. I believe that some observational rigour and more careful testing (scientific) could be very helpful when making a decision for which horn or mouthpiece to use in certain playing conditions, or the optimal conditions. Reinhardt, Doug Elliott, etc., have already done a lot of work on the process and technical aspects of playing and mouthpiece selection. Experienced teachers also have a wealth of information about mouthpiece and instrument selection. Yes, some of it is misguided, and some of it is wrong, but it is often a place to start.
Optimum could be like the question, “What is the best school for me?” If the answer is one school, and the student isn’t admitted, then what happens? On the other hand, optimal could be something like the question, “What schools have teachers and programs available that can help me do what I want to do?” Selecting the best (not perfect) choice from several options helps build success.
Circling back to topic, it wasn’t and still isn’t clear what the OP wanted. Physics and acoustics certainly help us understand more completely what happens when an instrument is played. It could help to improve certain qualities when building instruments. A lot of that is done with trial and error (part of the scientific method), along with ingenuity, innovation, creativity, craftsmanship, and disciplined work. But I don’t think (I am not sure about this) that that information is necessary to improve as a musician. Some knowledge is helpful. Too much is not necessary, and could be a distraction or perhaps a fool’s errand.
Kenneth Biggs
I have known a great many troubles, but most of them have never happened.
—Mark Twain (attributed)
I have known a great many troubles, but most of them have never happened.
—Mark Twain (attributed)
-
- Posts: 1269
- Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2018 11:46 am
- Location: Vancouver WA
Re: An Advised Persons Guide To The Science of Instrument Selection
I am disappointed that the OP decided to leave the conversation. I am also disappointed with some of the responses. I hope that my original response wasn’t a factor in his decision.
Kenneth Biggs
I have known a great many troubles, but most of them have never happened.
—Mark Twain (attributed)
I have known a great many troubles, but most of them have never happened.
—Mark Twain (attributed)