Perfect pitch is a curse not a blessing. If you have perfect pitch A=440, what happens when the orchestra tunes to 441, 442, 445? What happens when playing outdoors and the pitch drops to A=438, 435? What about if you are playing in any historical pitch (A=415, 420/430).
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.
@Kehaulani said in Change in paradigm?:
When I started reading this thread and it clumped trumpet technology/sound in a 50 year grouping, my mindset was as if I was reading about something historical, antique, distant past. Then I realized that last 50 year clump wasn't in the historic, distant past. It was within my lifetime!
I most certainly agree! I started playing in 1966 over 50 years ago.
Unfortunately, we only have audio documentation for the last 100 years or so. The instruments in museums and in the hands of very gifted players however are showing the 50 year turnover on style/construction/technical possibilities. I do not have instruments from every epoque, but I have natural trumpets from the Rennaissance, early baroque, late baroque and classical periods. I have valved instruments from around 1880 to very modern Monette. Even the approach to playing these instruments is different.
I think that you guys are getting off track - like on so many threads here. I prefer hammering the shit out of people (thank you Dr. Mark!)
Here is where I would disagree on many counts. The „vintage“ recordings offer a lot more insight - even more than today where the homogenization and pasteurization in the studio changes the „facts“. The vintage recordings have all of the „bite“ and „substance“, we just need decent playback to make it work.
I would also disagree on Bb vs C comparison. To me it is the musicality of the player, not the slight difference in overtones. C Trumpets have been popular in US orchestras since the 1950s. I do perform romantic german music on a rotary Bb however. The vintage german instruments did NOT have a consistent sound throughout the registers. The lower octave is big, dark and resonant. The middle octave is very clear and articulate, the upper register is very „brilliant“. Using the old horns for Mahler, Bruckner, Strauss or Wagner presents a very different picture. Funny enough, the US horns have never had this effect. Modern rotary trumpets have become very close to their US piston siblings.
@grune said in Change in paradigm?:
@ rowuk...A pity the recording technology back in the 40s and 50s was rather primitive: we cannot hear the true sound of the big bands and symphony orchestras. I do prefer the timbre of a Bb trumpet over C. When I hear today Copeland's Fanfare performed with C trumpets, it is lacking something compared to the sound of ensembles in the 60s when Bb trumpets were the norm; and when, as you say, Bach was primarily the norm.
I think that a trumpet generation throughout history has lasted about 50 years. If we look at the medievil trumpets, then Rennaissance, early baroque, late baroque, keyed trumpet, valved trumpet, ever higher pitched trumpets, you can follow the development.
Even if we only look at the 20th/21st centuries and classical music)we see how the first half of the 20th century was dominated by certain types of instruments. The second half of the 20th century was „dominated“ (in the US at least) by Bach C trumpets. Enter the 21st century: things change - Yamaha starts to dominate with the Xeno sound which is considerably different than the traditional Bach. There is a similar development in Germany/Austria too, but the focus was elsewhere.
One thing that we should not confuse however is the luxuries that we have basically since the beginning of the 21st century. We have many historically informed performance that certainly require the modern trumpeter to be more flexible than in previous decades.
Part of the legacy though was driven by recordings. The player started to focus more on „security“. Smaller trumpets became more popular for this reason.
So, in my opinion, the paradigm has changed in roughly 50 year intervals for many centuries.
@Dr-GO I do not think that I am selling myself short. All of my students get a „well rounded“ education and most of them get opportunities to gig with me (for money). The aspiring lead player will not get the opportunity to gig with me in that genre. I still play the occasional studio or jazz band gig, but never with the opportunity to bring a student along.
My personal history has been one of opportunity. I send my students where they can get „opportunities“. If they want to play lead, they can still be my students, but they benefit greatly with direct exposure to real lead players.
I do consider the requirements for an orchestral first trumpet to be far different than a first trumpet in a jazz band in regards to tone, chops management, timing, ability to move in and out of the orchestral fabric. In addition, the improvisation that they get from me is for the rennaissance and baroque periods, not 20th/21st century jazz.
Here we go again - uncontrolled empirical evidence called a "solution".
I have no personal grief with any embouchure method. I do have trouble with players that attain upper register without the common sense required to use it.
One thing that I would like to offer here:
If there is any truly killer method for developing the stratospheric register: WHERE ARE ALL OF THE KILLER LEAD PLAYERS USING IT?
Think about this for a minute. Any of the popular methods have hundreds - if not thousands of followers, but we still do not have hundreds of killer lead players. Why might that be? I have thought for at least 40 years about this and here is what I came up with:
My own teaching searches for the goals of the player. If one of my students wants to be a lead player, then I am the wrong person to bring them there. I can give them enough basics and range, but then they need a real lead player for attitude and context. I do not preach any embouchure method dogmatically and in my over 50 year career, I know of more players worse off than before after attempting to "change their embouchures". The most success has been through evolution, not revolution. I avoid teachers preaching revolution.
