Lifetime quest finally paying off!

Sound Advice

I forgot to list the various musical uses of the "trippa" notes.

Some of these are Youtube videos.

At Maynard Live at Knott's Berry Farm on "Pagliachi" he plays a beautiful and incredibly exciting E/double C at the last note of the piece. An incredible climax to a superb performance. Both band and soloists.

Search "Bud Brisbois, Hang On Sloopy"
Bud twice picks off a terrific F/Double C. Bud also recorded a set of cool duets inc "Higher Meyer". Cleanly pooping an F and G over double C.

Maynard hits a triple C# on some live recording of "Conquistador".

Cat Anderson featured on many "trippa notes" on "The Louis Bellson Explosion" album.the main features of Cat found in the charts are,

"Intimacy of the Blues" &
"Groove Blues"

The liner notes on the album describe Old Cat this way on "Intimacy for the Blues"

"The first solo is by Blue Mitchell but it is UNMISTAKABLY CAT who finishes out the recording".

Kehaulani

I have never sought the super ranges. My role models probably kept things at Double F if not lower. One of my favorite players is Chet Baker. He usually keeps things below a High C, and that only on occasion. OTOH, Jon Faddis plays most of his solos in the upper register. To me his solos are boring and overuse the upper register.

But, and not to belabor it, being able to have control over the upper register means security on your notes below that and is liberating. It means that, although you don't have to use it, you have all the tools you might want. I can see it if it's for security.

I can't see it if the main goal is just to be the baddest dude on the block, especially if it's done at the ignoring of other needed techniques.

Dr GO

@Sound-Advice said in Lifetime quest finally paying off!:

@Dr-GO
And after playing that double C I wasn't worth much to the band afterwards. Because I had expended most of my reserve energy.

In the Stevens-Costello method we set the embouchure to be able to blow this double C...

I knew that I was setting my embouchure as directed by Stevens-Costello... Soon as I could get notes in or around double C I took this same embouchure and worked it down to my concert B flat tuning note.

See, this is what I see more of the goal. Not to lift once that 200 lb weight but to lift that 150 lb weight easily and repetitively. I needed to develop a technique that did not allow me to fatigue playing a 4 hour gig with the Eddie Brookshire Quintet. Double C was not my goal. Lasting 4 hours for high range charts that stayed in the high range (high C to G range for a large potion of songs) was. I found on my own what I call the Phoowwww technique. I developed this as a physician, teaching over a decade of medical biochemistry and physiology to first year medical students. I put the theory behind metabolism and muscle function into practice. It achieved my goal, I can now last through a 4 hour gig with Eddie Brookshire. And a side benefit, I hit that double high C with solid attack, whenever I rarely need it. In this technique, dental position is not an issue. Its all about forming the optimal orbital mouth muscle to diminish fatigue (build up of lactic acid to this and support muscle).

That's what it is all about. Endurance. Not double C, triple C. When one had assured endurance, they play what ever they want to play with mindful security. That is the goal.

@Sound-Advice
I use to play Maynard all the time and it was what I was known for. The sacrifice? My articulation sucked in the normal register. Like I said, high notes at what cost? Can I still play in the stratosphere? Yep. But the vast, vast majority of my playing isn't bombastic anymore. Can anyone find Stevens or Costello playing anything other than examples of playing (music!) with just the horn in the palm of the hand?

Sound Advice

@Dr-Mark
Any of the recordings of Roy Roman or Phil Driscoll are indications of the Stevens embouchure in action. Roy's office wasn't a recording studio. More like a repair clinic. There aren't many of Stevens recordings even on his tribute page. One of the inherent problems in understanding the system comes from the high, wispy statics being produced right at the beginning of the study. The natural assumption people make here is that "the high notes are something that can be learned over night". Wrong!

Costello and Stevens were both emphatic about this. They stated very clearly that the only reason to start out in the double to triple notes is just to make darn certain they are there. Once the student begins to sustain these extremely high notes he then has conclusive proof that he's setting his embouchure correctly.

In my own case I only rarely play notes above high G in practice. Although I've only been on this system a little over four months I'm observing incredible improvement pretty much every day. My goal is to get solid in the middle register. Just like I once was before my injury in Aug '18.

Initially I played the statics every day. However as soon as I could work the embouchure down into the middle register I spent most of my practice time between third space C to D/high C. Only venturing up to high G or A once a day or so. In fact the only reason I blew those high notes was just to make sure they were still there. As this assured me that I still was forming the embouchure CORRECTLY!

The work we do on high notes is largely a test. We're working to make sure that we don't drop our jaw. Or play in a loose, flabby embouchure setting.

There will always be lots of opposition to the Stevens-Costello system. Particularly by those who understand it the least. As the system takes a radical departure from the "evolutionary approach". Stevens-Costello insists that the student prepare himself to play the complete range of the instrument. While the evolutionary method does not.

In the evolutionary method the development of range is left purely to chance and the odds aren't very good are they? Some will succeed. Obviously Maynard Ferguson and Wayne Bergeron are a couple guys who did. However they and those similarly gifted represent perhaps just 1% of the rest of us who struggle.

Instead of leaving range development to chance Stevens-Costello treats the trumpet in a way similar to the demands we place on a clarinetist. Even fairly early in the reed player's development he is taught the fingerings and way to play notes above high C. Not so the evolutionary approach for trumpet players..

Since the average teacher is unaware of even the most basic fundamentals of range production he is absolutely unable to guarantee that his approach will result in the student learning the complete range of the instrument. Plus it is far easier to teach a beginning student the lower register. However by doing this the teacher is inadvertently sealing his student's fate. The odds show that the great majority of trumpet players will never play the complete range on the horn.

Once I discovered why I personally was having a tricky time learning the Stevens system I was finally able to take corrective measures. I needed a different mouthpiece from that I'd previously been accustomed to.

Presently I've got a fine tone on the Stevens system. And like any trumpet player who's only been on a totally new embouchure for a short time I'm still developing accuracy and confidence. However with my upper register in place? All that remains for me to do is to start "hollowing out the rest of the log". I've learned the lower and middle registers before. A long time ago in fact. It's a comparatively simple thing to do. I largely just need to remember to maintain the structure of the embouchure without receding or closing my jaw. It's almost becoming a cinch.

And one of the many fringe benefits to the Stevens system is that the transition to the extreme upper register is virtually seamless. You know that really tricky to slot A/High C? Well it's just another note above high Con the Stevens thing. In fact the high A is about as far up the scale as I practice daily. Because the mere ability to play this note tells me that I've got the embouchure right.

Previously on my receded jaw embouchure I had a Dickens of a time playing the high A. This is one of the various indications of a "limited embouchure".

@Sound-Advice
This might sound snarky (not meant to be) but if this system is the Holy Grail or range development, why isn't it being used, why is it mostly unknown even though its decades old?
What would be neat is to see if the system has validity and reliability. In essence, does the system do what it suppose to do and is it repeatable. Here's an article Fundamentals of Embouchure in Brass Players: Towards a Definition and Clinical Assessment that might help this discussion. Is it a big read? YES! But if we're going to discuss the mechanics of how the mouth behaves when playing, we can't escape the literature and some of it is geeky as hell. Informative, but jargonesque.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311552654_Fundamentals_of_Embouchure_in_Brass_Players_Towards_a_Definition_and_Clinical_Assessment

Kehaulani

The more I read, the more specificity I lose. Just a Yes or No, please. Is the Stevens-Costello a rolled-in embouchure?

"This might sound snarky (not meant to be) but if this system is the Holy Grail or range development, why isn't it being used, why is it mostly unknown even though its decades old?"

The essence of the Stevens embouchure, is rolling in the lips. It can happen gradually, more rolling in the higher one plays, or one can use curled in lips for all registers. An open jaw position will allow the lips to roll in freely. The chin will not be taut as with the Farkas embouchure.

As for me, I've yet to hear anyone use this method and sound musical. If anyone has a clip of someone using this method and playing in the "meat & potatoes" register, please post it.

Kehaulani

Thank you.

ROWUK

This whole thread is just like every other one where somebody thinks that they are on to something and are completely blinded to reality. The long repetitive posts are a sure giveaway.

I posted this once before - if there was ANY killer system, where are all of the killer players using it? All of the blah, blah about teeth, lips may work for a "few" but a disciple is usually the WORST person to have. They simply lack the holistic view of the world as it is.

The biggest joke is the so called opposition to the method. Just because we do not believe "Sound Advice" does not mean that we discredit Stevens or Costello. I generally oppose zealots of any color. Just let him have his rant on this thread. I really see nothing to discuss.

Sound Advice

@Dr-Mark

The reference you posted appears at first glance to be a site requiring considerable examination. Multiple artists have made statements. By posting that site it seems to me (and of course I could be wrong) that you'd like to see the concepts found in Stevens-Costello to be corroborated elsewhere. Okay fine but check this out.

Perhaps 50% of Stevens-Costello rests in one very simple concept. One which I'll get to in a minute. A totally gut easy one to understand and yet one which you'll almost never see posted or spoken of anywhere else. Herein lies a serious problem. Let's say that the concept (from Stevens) that I'm about to state is as easy to understand as a statement like this,

"Most fires need oxygen in order to start and sustain combustion".

Who would disagree? (okay technically you can also burn something with pure fluorine gas too but this is so rare as to almost be irrelevant). But here is the statement which I think comprises about 50% of Stevens-Costello. I'll start with a common quote from Roy Stevens. Something he was well known for saying.

"You can't play on your teeth".

There it is! Granted that the statement of Roy Stevens requires additional explanation. However from my background it is dead accurate and on the money.

The number 1 factor hammered in over & over in the Stevens Costello book is that the upper lip must be exposed to air. Occasionally Stevens uses the word "lip" in plural. His point however mainly refers to the way that the upper teeth can get in the way of the production of sound.

We can't see our teeth when we play. Both pairs form what is called the "Two Aperture Theory". To my mind it's less of a "theory" and more of a concrete fact. The lips form one aperture and the teeth the other. If the teeth close too much OR the upper lip doesn't set slightly below the upper teeth? The sound MUST always cut-off as one ascends into the upper register.

This explains why so many trumpet players can't play above a concert pitch high C. I once chatted online with a distinguished pro. Someone well known for his upper register. Not a major star but a lot of us would know of him. He absolutely insisted that his upper lip did not descend down past his upper teeth. He even further continued that his upper lip stayed even with the rim of the mouthpiece.

I responded that what he said may be so but I'll bet that just as soon as he sets his embouchure and places even a mild amount of mouthpiece contact pressure on his lips that at this point at least some small portion of his upper lip was remaining free to accept the force of air through it. Indeed there could be considerable variance in the amount of upper lip needed to receive the air flow. Perhaps the described fellow had a very elastic texture in his upper lip. As such only a small portion of it needed exposure to air.

But you can take Roy's statement to the bank. No trumpet player can produce a tone without first exposing his upper lip to air. Much of the Stevens system is locked up in this simple observation. It's not rocket science and doesn't require a blue ribbon panel to issue a peer review.

In fact before I switched totally over to the Stevens embouchure I still found it very helpful. Crucial in fact. In order to blow in connected registers up to high G.

Good luck all.

@ROWUK said in Lifetime quest finally paying off!:

This whole thread is just like every other one where somebody thinks that they are on to something and are completely blinded to reality. The long repetitive posts are a sure giveaway.
I posted this once before - if there was ANY killer system, where are all of the killer players using it? All of the blah, blah about teeth, lips may work for a "few" but a disciple is usually the WORST person to have. They simply lack the holistic view of the world as it is.
The biggest joke is the so called opposition to the method. Just because we do not believe "Sound Advice" does not mean that we discredit Stevens or Costello. I generally oppose zealots of any color. Just let him have his rant on this thread. I really see nothing to discuss.

Hi Rowuk,
Just trying to give S-A the benefit of a doubt, who knows, the fellow might be on to something but I must admit, he's brought forth a lot of stuff with little evidence (that sucks!). I have to agree that if this is the Holy Grail of systems, we'd be using it. As for Stevens-Costello system, I've read the stuff and it comes across as bullshit to me. However, I've been fooled before so giving S-A a more than reasonable opportunity to support what he's advocating about Stevens-Costello seems reasonable. However, at this point (and it's been a long post with lots of opportunities to support his claims with nothing to date) what seems more reasonable is just ignoring his claims. He can't pony up any supporting evidence. At the risk of sounding ethnic; "No Ticket, No Laundry"
I'm outta here on this post. As far as Stevens-Costello, I don't want it and I don't need it.
One neat thing out of all of this is a journal I discovered;
Fundamentals of Embouchure in Brass Players:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311552654_Fundamentals_of_Embouchure_in_Brass_Players_Towards_a_Definition_and_Clinical_Assessment

Enjoy!

Dr GO

Cool article Dr. Mark. This is what I came away from, fist summarizing the author's conclusion: "A new definition for embouchure is the process needed to adjust the amount, pressure, and direction of the air flow (generated by the breath support) as it travels through the mouth cavity and between the lips, by the position and/or movements of the tongue, teeth, jaws,cheeks, and lips, to produce a tone in a wind instrument."

What is cool about this article is it just presents the fact. No suggestion as to methodologies, systems, programs, and just brings the point home that there are a lot of variables, and what ever works, works.

@Dr-GO
What I got from this article was that it was based on meta analysis about dysfunctional embouchures (a bunch of studies packed into one) and that possibly a new definition for the term "embouchure" should be proposed. Instead of the embouchure being a "thing" it is suggested that it is "a process."
"Peer-reviewed information about the fundamentals of dysfunctional embouchure is scarce and sometimes contradictory. A new definition for embouchure is proposed: embouchure is the process needed to adjust the amount, pressure, and direction of the air flow (generated by the breath support) as it travels through the mouth cavity and between the lips, by the position and/or movements of the tongue, teeth, jaws, cheeks, and lips, to produce a tone in a wind instrument. An integrative overview is presented which can serve as a transparent foundation for the present understanding of functional and dysfunctional embouchure and for developing an evidence-based multi-item assessment instrument.

Kehaulani

"A new definition for embouchure is the process needed to adjust the amount, pressure, and direction of the air flow (generated by the breath support) as it travels through the mouth cavity and between the lips, by the position and/or movements of the tongue, teeth, jaws,cheeks, and lips, to produce a tone in a wind instrument."

Maybe I'm overlooking something but . . what's new about this?

Dr GO

@Kehaulani said in Lifetime quest finally paying off!:

"A new definition for embouchure is the process needed to adjust the amount, pressure, and direction of the air flow (generated by the breath support) as it travels through the mouth cavity and between the lips, by the position and/or movements of the tongue, teeth, jaws,cheeks, and lips, to produce a tone in a wind instrument."

Maybe I'm overlooking something but . . what's new about this?

To me the newness is keyed in the word "process". A process of many actions, not just the lips. The embouchure is built around many things including the external variables (mouthpiece and equipment) as well as the intrinsic variables, lips, tongue, teeth....

@Dr-GO said in Lifetime quest finally paying off!:

To me the newness is keyed in the word "process". A process of many actions, not just the lips.

Yes! That's what I got from this. Think about it.
When did you ever hear of someone speak of the embouchure as a process (Google library- a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end) verses, speaking of the embouchure as a thing with a French linage (Wiki- The word is of French origin and is related to the root bouche, 'mouth'. Proper embouchure allows instrumentalists to play their instrument at its full range with a full, clear tone and without strain or damage to their muscles.)
Definitely geeky and way too long but look what we learned because of S-A's post!
Sometimes an idea (even a silly one) can open up other ideas that are new and interesting. I've never thought of the embouchure as a process. Now the question arises, Is an embouchure a thing or is an embouchure a process?

Kehaulani

Man, talking about over-analysis. If one wants to get technical, embouchure is from the French "la bouche", meaning "the mouth". Not "the airstream" or "the teeth". The mouth.

@Kehaulani,
Like a neutered dog, you just don't get it. The major twist or "Ah-Ha" is approaching the embouchure as a process instead of thing.
"Sometimes an idea (even a silly one) can open up other ideas that are new and interesting. I've never thought of the embouchure as a process."

Kehaulani

You're pretty condescending, you know, Dr. Mark. I get it completely. I'm not stupid. I just don't see redefining things.

You can't say airplane and mean the process of taking off, flying and landing, maybe experiencing some turbulence, en route. There are other words to describe it. But airplane is airplane.