This ability to play a single sustained note for 59 minutes is a game changer for me,

I thought I had too few tunes in my set when gigging, I see now that I dont need more tunes I just need longer notes.

Circular breathing opens the door to 30 minute notes for me and a larger paycheck for less effort.

I could make a tune last 24 hours with this approach.

I may pick up the drum sticks and repeat the 2370 beats per minute of that 10 year old who beat the old record, Who needs to learn rhythm when you can kick out almost 3000 beats per minute.

This performance and the 59 minute sustained note are clearly pushing the boundaries of music.

Some say we have lost real music to the sideshow but I say I cant wait until we have the 3 hour sustained note and the 10,000 beats per minute drum solo,

In your dreams Buddy Rich and Miles you guys hadnt got a clue about real music.

There are many reasons why this could be happening, but lets assume the instrument should play and you have the right valves for the instrument.

I assume from your post that the air is being blocked somehow so I will address that.

There could be some blockage in for example the ports between the valves.

Let us first try to make sure the valves are in the right chambers.

Remove all the valves.

Now blow into the mouthpipe and see if air freely exits the mouthpipe into the third chamber with no restriction.

If it does place the third valve in its chamber and secure it with valve guide located. Then blow again into the mouthpipe. If the air is blocked then you have a wrong valve or a valve wrongly fitted.

Reseat the valve 180 degrees apart and see if the air now blows through.

If you cannot get the air to blow through then it is probably a wrong valve try the others and see if the air will blow through.

If the air blows through with the third valve fitted then move on to the second.

Fit the second valve and try to blow through, if you cannot blow through then try the valve 180 degrees the other way.

If you can blow through then fit the first valve and try to blow through.

I know it sounds a bit daft but this method should reveal if the air will move through the instrument with no valves pressed, and also will check all ports between valves are clear.

Once the air blows through you can test there is no blockage in the valve slides by blowing through and then as you blow press a valve.

Once you have made sure air passes through the instrument with no valves pressed and with each valve pressed then there is no blockages.

I assume that one of these tests will reveal a blockage somewhere.

If no blockages exists then you should have the valves all correctly fitted and the instrument should then play.

If this excellent recording by the Leningrad brass sounds this good and this powerful due to their use of home made poorly manufactured instruments made from old car and truck parts then let us all play on such instruments.

I have seen so called musicians complain that they have never managed to get a decent sound out of any bach instrument and likewise other musicians say similar things of shilke or martin or conn.

I have also seen a good musician deliver a superb performance from a so called communist wall-hangar ornament.

I also believe that the communist regime were obsessed by a need to show the superiority of the communist workers over the decadent west and if the instruments really were compromising the performance and making the musicians task impossible then they would have corrected that situation.

I believe that a great musician can make even a stove pipe sound great.

A brass instrument is just a tube, it is the musician that is the heart and soul of a great performance, he does not need some thirty thousand dollar instrument to sound great. The instrument just makes it easier to sound great.

@Kehaulani

Or maybe we dont perform as well as we used to.

I think there are lots of reasons, I like your direct and no messing about way of expressing yourself Kehaulani, it is very refreshing.

Ok first of all dont panic it may be that the instrument is gunged up and needs a really good clean.

I would also suggest that the corks are falling apart, and the water valves corks are probably leaking.

Bad or leaking corks can make an instrument sound strangled. I would take it to a good tech and ask them to make it playable, basically a cork and felt replacement and that should only cost a few dollars and will make a world of difference.

Also they will check the valves are all seated correctly and working correctly.

The instrument sounds like a Reynolds Medalist trumpet these were a premier student trumpet from a great manufacturer and they had many features of professional instruments. It sounds like you have a very good instrument there that is well worth having a tech check it over and it will help you to develop for many years.

@Dale-Proctor

That is very interesting and very revealing Dale

I guess that examining the mid 1800's at which time, with the recent invention and application of the perinet valve in 1838, the recent creation of the cornet and the lack of any standardisation in pitch makes for huge uncertainties as to what is and what is not a true authentic cornet sound.

I think that we in the modern age are so used to very well designed and well built instruments that we assume that all earlier instruments must have played as easily and as well as our modern instruments do.

The truth is that there were many challenges and many failures in those early days of instrument design and this made playing on these early instruments quite difficult compared to todays modern instruments.

Perhaps we should not take from this any conclusions about instrument design in those early years of cornet/trumpet, but instead simply marvel at the muscianship and abilities of the players of the day in being able to play those early instruments as well as they did in the face of what are in todays terms monumental challenges.

Life today must be easy compared to life in the mid 1800's, and we truly stand musically today on the shoulders of giants.

Additionally I think we should recognise the musicianship and commitment of those modern players like yourself Dale who rise to the challenge to play successfully on those difficult early instruments and are able to recreate the authentic period music on authentic period instruments.

You got me on a technicality

I deeply suspect that your conductor had no idea of your quality and that of your daily driver instrument.

Flugels I am led to believe can be somewhat skittish and variable. I must admit somewhat shamefully that I have never played on one.

Just having the name Bach or strad on an instrument is not an absolute guarantee of quality and beauty of tone even though the strad 135 is well respected, especially if the instrument is the worst for wear and has suffered a hard life.

It seems to me that if he knew about flugels he would have recognised your courtois 154r as one of the very best you can play. (going by reputation here).

I like that he reversed his decision when faced with the truth.

Is it possible for Bix to exist today with the internet and music resources so widely available.

Bix could not read music other than on a rudimentary level.

He was not trained in cornet or any brass instrument

He had to work out how to play and used alternate fingerings because he did not know correct fingerings

This led to a number of things, he developed a unique phrasing and style, and he did not write down his improvs or use licks.

In his last appearance he stood and was unable to play anything his improvs deserted him. If he were a modern player with licks a plenty and a strategy for jazz improv he would not have had a problem but instead would have made it through that performance.

He was replaced in the band because of being unable to play when called upon to do so.

If he were born today he would have access to theory training and software that would have moulded him to use correct technique correct fingering a huge number of licks and jazz phrases plus access to Jamey Abersold.

Would he have any chance of becoming the great man that Bix became in his lifetime.

Possibly, but I doubt it.

Students learn to be as their teacher, Bix had no teacher and was free to develop to his full potential in areas that mattered.

I believe that if he was born today Bix would not be Bix.

I believe that the saying keep a fighter hungry applies, Bix was hungry for Jazz and when he couldnt find what he needed he invented it and we all benefit from that.

Long live Bix, the musician the seeker the inventor the ground breaking Jazz man.

Forever we will be in his debt

I would counter that there was nothing communicated throughout this clip between 0:43 to 2:41

0:43 to 0:50 was the exactly same as 1:10 to 1:30 and exactly the same as 2:10 to 2:30 in content it was the musical equivalent of repeatedly saying

Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago
Four score and 17 years ago

Yes the audience went wild but audiences have gone wild over my performances and that reaction in itself does not mean anything was communicated, other than surprise.

I can make audiences cheer due to surprising them as well as anyone but it is not an aspiration of mine to make a career from simply surprising or shocking people.

They were impressed by trombone shortys ability but there was no communication at all that I could detect beyond "I can do the same thing over and over and over and over again without stopping"

I agree trombone shorty was skillful but being skillful is not communication.

Any politician could have given a speech at ghettysburg, but Abraham Lincoln communicated a message that inspired a nation.

Just repeating the same few notes over and over again for 2 minutes or for 2 hours or for 2 days does not move me at all.

I can listen to an entire performance of The Magic Flute, that is 3 hours and 5 minutes and be entertained from beginning to end but 2 minutes of trombone shorty had me losing the will to live.

@barliman2001

My information is slightly different, so I offer it.

He was baptised Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart

At its root, Amadeus comes from the third of his long line of middle names, Theophilus: a Greek name meaning ‘lover of God’ or ‘loved by God’. In its German form, it translates as ‘Gottlieb’ while in Latin, it becomes ‘Amadeus’.

During his lifetime, Mozart did sign some letters in mock Latin as ‘Wolfgangus Amadeus Mozartus’, adding ‘us’ to the end of each name that lacked it presumably to make all his names sound latin-ish. If we reject Mozartus as being a comic affectation of Mozart should we not also reject Amadeus as a comic affectation of Amade.

He also morphed his name it is said into Wolfgango Amadeo, which later became Wolfgang Amade from about 1777.

He signed his name ‘Wolfgang Amade Mozart on his marriage certificate so perhaps this is the more correct name - Amade, as you say.

It was deemed pretty normal to translate your name into other languages in Mozart’s day but I feel we really should use only the names appearing in official documents where possible, as we have seen it quickly becomes very messy if we dont, particularly if the man himself uses many alternates as Mozart appears to have done.

Later upon his death the magistrate registering his death in Vienna entered this into his records - Wolfgang Amadeus.

I suspect that the magistrate in Vienna did not have the benefit of knowing he was baptised Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart, and lacked the inclination to research it, and perhaps saw no problem using the name often given to Mozart of Amadeus, and Mozart was not around to correct the magistrate and set the record straight.

And after that it all collapsed when Amadeus became the usual and accepted name for Mozart in society.

So which should we use, his Birth name, his name upon death entered into the documents of his passing, translations in other languages, his preferred name, or the name that society has decreed he be called.

I do not feel confident enough with all the confusion to disagree with your contention, you seem to have good sources, but I feel things are too confused to completely agree with you on this topic of what Mozart was really called given the time that has elapsed since his death and the confusion of history.

I guess all we can deduce is, his parents liked Theophilus, he himself liked both Amade and Amadeo, and the public liked Amadeus.

Perhaps then like so many things, when asked what his real name was, the only answer that can be correct is, - it depends.

And for me, if the viennese magistrate who registered his death did it wrongly as that of the death of Wolfgang Amadeus instead of his correct name of Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart. then surely we can argue that Johannes Chrysostomus Wolfgangus Theophilus Mozart did not die, and he therefore lives on.

I have no issues with a Cafe calling itself Amadeus considering that Mozart was not officially called or named Amadeus, other than in after his death.

The name was simply a nickname that was used when discussing Mozart and it means loved by God.

Although I understand that Mozart himself did once call himself Amadeus.

I cant think of a better name for a Cafe than the Loved by God Cafe. Seems appropriate if you make really good food.

I applaud the thread and the attempts to understand jazz/swing but I question the wisdom of it.

I do not think that we can come to understand jazz by separating it into parts and analysing those parts any more than we can hope to understand a cat by separating it into its parts.

We will have its parts, a head, a body a tail, four legs and perhaps can understand those. But it will yield nothing of value of the entire cat. We wont see a cat anymore all we will see is a dead cat. Life will be missing.

As in walking we all know how to walk but if we try to examine walking as we do it, and then try to improve our walking by thinking of all the activities we do as we do them, shifting the weight swinging the leg placing the heel rolling the foot shifting the weight lifting the other foot, we end up stumbling and can no longer walk well. Life will be missing.

Paralysis through analysis means just that and I have heard enough jazz that has benefitted from analysis to know where problems appear when we base jazz upon analysis.

A series of well studied runs, a bunch of licks and short phrases borrowed from well known musical cliches sounds artificial and unmusical. Once more, life will be missing.

I would trust the words of kehaulani on jazz even if my life depended upon it, "jazz" as he so eloquently said "is an aural art" and I believe it can only be truly understood if studied as a whole all together and not analysed and studied in parts.

Scientists are very fond of analysis but not all things can be analysed with any hope of attaining understanding. We can analyse sunflowers by Van Gogh, we can come to understand the colours, the forms, the brush strokes, but the beauty of the work and how it is created eludes us.

We cannot understand beauty or life in art by studying the mechanical methods of its construction.

And so it is with Jazz.

Jazz can be copied emulated and duplicated, but none of these copies is at all convincing, there is life and soul present in jazz that is missing in these copies, and it is I think this life and soul that Miles tried so hard to capture in recordings through his career.

Louis Armstrong did not try to break jazz down into parts he understood I think that trying to analyse and describe jazz in parts is a tempting trap that can lead nowhere, and he refused to fall into that trap, his words ring loud in my ears. "Jazz, you will know it when you hear it".

Word

from rowuk

Pardon me for jumping in on the question of the difference between martin committee and martin deluxe committee instruments but I may have some valid comments.

Trent Austin of Austin Custom Brass who I regard as an authority on horns has said that the martin committee deluxe trumpet was produced with additional nickel parts that were not present on the committee trumpet.

The martin committee cornet was also produced in two variants plain brass committee cornet and brass with nickel elements on the committee deluxe cornet.

Trent has said that the addition of more nickel parts on instruments makes the horns play slightly brighter.

This is certainly true with the Olds Special trumpet the special was produced as an all brass instrument and later as an all nickel plated instrument. It is said that the nickel plated version played brighter than the all brass model.

As I understand it many players prefer the darker smoky sound of the all brass committee and this could perhaps explain the higher prices commanded by the original all brass martin committees over the deluxe models with nickel plated parts.

I have never played on any martins so dont roast me on this opinion.

@administrator your posts are very welcome and come from personal experience honestly stated.

I value your comments and they have as much merit as anyones.

I love this site because we all have our own experiences and we share them and our collective knowledge grows because of it.

Personally speaking I love to be disagreed with, I usually learn something new.

I would go so far as to say that your experiences and similar comments from others perhaps will contribute to better instrument design in the future that could result in better playing american cornets. I think it is important to make these experiences visible so the industry can act upon them.

I want to add this as well your experience of american cornets sounding too like trumpets and stuffiness and tuning issues are experienced is far too common amongst players for us to be dismissive of it and I am glad you stated that.

We cannot run from issues we must face them and your comments helped us face those issues.

long may you keep posting administrator.

@J-Jericho aint that the truth.

There is the additional element of driver that is critically important and the drivers mouthpiece choice is part of the mix and can defeat the whole enterprise or enhance it.

We talk of cornet and trumpet as though they are different and to some extent they are but I liken this to different cars

A station wagon is different to an offroader a daytona 500 racer is different to a drag racer and all are different to a formula1 but they are all cars and all require different driving styles.

Is a maybach an automobile and a bmw 500 series is a car, both do the same job but both drive differently.

It seems churlish to say if you want a car you have to buy a bmw because a maybach is not really a car.

Shepherds crook cornet players often say an american long cornet is not really a true cornet, so it must be a trumpet or a flugel or should we make up a new name for it.

As far as I am aware the civil war cornets did not play the same as shepherds crook cornets do today so it is reasonable to ask, if a civil war cornet is a real cornet how can it be claimed that a modern shepherds crook cornet is a real cornet.

Or are we going to claim that whatever we like is the real deal and in a few years when we prefer something else we will ditch the shepherds crook cornet as not being a real cornet after all.

I think the truth is many people claim that the instrument they like is the only authentic instrument and all the others are not. It is a kind of oneupmanship.

Should we invent a new name for peashooter trumpets because they are not real trumpets, and if we change the mouthpiece so the instrument plays differently must we change the name of the instrument, "I am not playing a trumpet I am now playing a mariachi mumpet"

I am all for simplifying things not making them more complex. all vehicles are cars, all trumpets are trumpets all cornets are cornets.

And the committee cornet is a fine instrument.

First of all there is no doubt that the members in here are all of a very high quality and any difference is not going to be due to any lack or otherwise of skills.

My own experience is that all instruments are different and that goes for differences between trumpets and trumpets between cornets and cornets and between cornets and trumpets.

They do play differently there is no doubt but it is subtle and can easily trip me up.

When I grab a cornet or a trumpet and begin to blow the instrument can easily say to me, whoa buddy just who do you think you are then it opposes me and squeeks at me. But if I blow sympathetically the instrument rewards me and plays beautifully. It can sometimes take a lot of work,

The venerable long cornet Conn 80a, sold 24,000 units over a 50 year period, you dont sell that many units if the instruments fundamentally are out of tune or stuffy. I would look elsewhere for the explanation of why.

I would suggest that maybe it is the approach of the player, the differences in air support, the embouchure, the blow, the tonal concept, the articulation, and a heap of other things that we bring to our performance that is where the main differences between the cornet and the trumpet lie.

What works on a trumpet does not always work on a cornet and vice versa.

Here are three players cutting a rug, Al Hirt on trumpet Pete Candoli on trumpet and Red Nichols on cornet.

I am not sure the instruments that Pete and AL played on in this clip but I believe Red played on his regular 1937 Olds Super L.A. cornet.

I dont see how trumpet players would have a problem with a cornet they have the same range and both have the same 3 valves that work in the same way.

Why should they be different as long as the mouthpiece for each is selected with care.

And on the topic of the thread, I believe there is no reason to believe the committee cornet to be in any way inferior to the committee trumpet

Yes it is a very good way of preventing workers from disappearing but it is also a very good way of tying workers to their employer preventing them from ever leaving and forcing them to stay without any pay rises forcing them to stay even if they never get paid at all for their work. This is bonded slavery in all but name.

It is open to abuse and is used in arabic countries to force americans who leave america looking for a good life to stay in a company without receiving any pay having been promised huge pay great conditions and a great lifestyle but when they get there they find their documents held permanently with no pay in poor conditions and it is illegal for them to leave their employer or the country, it is easy to say if americans dont like it they shouldnt have gone to work there but that is avoiding the issue. If the company had no intention of paying westerners for their work they should not have employed them and enticed them to leave their home country.

I dont wish to turn this into a political debate, but these things have to be faced, Japan is not perfect they can be restrictive and abusive toward foreigners and simply because one has not seen abuse while there does not mean it doesnt exist and it doesnt happen.

There is modern white slaving and slavery happening in my own home town in england one of the most developed nations in the west.

If there is a system however well intentioned, that can be used to abuse people, then evil people will use that system to abuse people. It happens in arabia it happens in england it happens in france it happens in germany it happens in america and it happens in japan, it doesnt just happen in the places we dont like.

It is usually hidden from public gaze and hidden from us so we dont even know it is happening.

And Japan mistreats its native japanese workers as well. There are thousands of unemployed and unemployable japanese who have worked but will never get a job and work again, the Japanese system is not constructed to help japanese people back into work it is never envisaged you will ever lose your job, and those who do and suffer are hidden from public gaze so foreign visitors never know they exist and never know it is happening.

I am not bashing Japan I am not making political points here, I am saying Japan has its problems as do the arabian states as does the west all nations have issues and problems and these can only be addressed and made better if we recognise they exist.