RE: [Hornlist] B.E.R.P and a mouthpiece report...
The B.E.R.P. is a great tool. I use it myself and with my students. It allows you to buzz and finger phrases simultaneously It is very helpful in diagnosing how your lips vibrate between the notes, and is a bit more realistic than when you hold just the mouthpiece. I strongly recommend it. O. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Spillman Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 12:01 PM To: Hornlist Subject: [Hornlist] B.E.R.P and a mouthpiece report... Has anyone on the list used the B.E.R.P.? Was it a good idea? I have been buzzing on the mouthpiece for the last month or so, and it seems to help me. I have read what Wendell and Arnold Jacobs have had to say about buzzing and they have convinced me it's a good idea. I plan on continuing. However, one thing I miss when buzzing is the tying together buzzing with the fingerings of the music. My wife, who is a certified language therapist, has convinced me that many people (me included) learn best in a multi-sensory way, i.e., visually, tactually and through sound. When buzzing, I can get visual and auditory feedback, but I miss the fingerings. What is your experience? B.E.R.P. is not particularly expensive and I think I'd like to try one, but I thought I would try and take advantage of the collective experience of other horn players. BTW, it's a little early to tell, but it appears that my MP change from a Schilke 30B to a Yamaha 34C4 was successful. Herb Foster had mentioned on the list that many older horn players (that certainly fits me -- I'm 76) benefit from a MP with a larger diameter. Herb's advice on the type of horn to buy was good for me, so I thought I'd try his MP advice as well. I have had the new MP only about 1 1/2 weeks, so it is a little early to tell, but it seems that it is better for me. The extra width does seem to help me. It seems to be more free-blowing and the tone sounds better to me. I'll ask my section-mates at our next rehearsal. Wendell's MP is 18.5 mm on the inside (see p 165 of his book), and my new one is 17.88 mm, and my Schilke is 16.92 mm. Such a little difference seems to have a big effect. If anyone is interested, I'll post more to the list when I get a little more time with it. Regards... Tom -- Thomas M. Spillman, Jr. Asst. Professor (retired) Information Technology MBA Program School of Management St. Edward's University Austin, TX ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/pandolfi%40deerfield.edu ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
[Hornlist] Re: NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision
One manifestation of mathematical precision in Bach's music is the tendency toward exact repetition of fugue and canon themes (or nearly exact, when a particular theme dictated a tonal rather than a real answer). His contemporary, Handel, would often break the fugue if exact repetition made the voice range uncomfortable. So, in this sense, one could anticipate (or duplicate) certain features of Bach's music. Jay Hilfiger http://users.penn.com/~jhilf/ message: 8 date: Fri, 02 Mar 2007 16:36:28 -0500 from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] subject: Re: [Hornlist] NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision ofBach The description 'mathematical' implies that if one knows, and applies the rule, the outcome will always be duplicated. Thus, if you know Bach, you can duplicate Bach, a feat yet to be accomplished. Interesting how this compares to a commonly accepted definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome. Just as the same people describing Bach as 'mathematical' do so over and over. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: horn@music.memphis.edu Sent: Fri, 2 Mar 2007 1:03 PM Subject: RE: [Hornlist] NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision ofBach It sounds like a phrase tossed out by some nescient talking head type, and I assume that even if its roots are substantiated in a demonstrated mathematical precision, most that use it would have no idea what they meant, anyway. I suppose for a specific type of precision to need to be characterized as mathematical, there would have to exist a type of precision that is not mathematical, or be unable to be measured in such a way that would require mathematics. Absent that type of precision, I suppose one could prove that the phrase is meaningless or superfluous. Perhaps what is meant is something more like mathematical rigorousness, which could be described as the strict adherence to a set of rules upon which the music is built. John Baumgart -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Gross Sent: Friday, March 02, 2007 2:22 PM To: 'The Horn List' Subject: [Hornlist] NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision ofBach One of the phrases tossed about when discussing Bach is the mathematical precision of his music. Just what exactly does that mean? Is it the rhythm or something else, or perhaps is it just a phrase that someone used once and has become a toss off line with no real meaning? ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
[Hornlist] B.E.R.P.
Tom, I use a B.E.R.P. to do most of my warming up backstage before concerts. I like to do my usual routine of scales and arpeggios and finger the notes (as much as feasible) to emulate actual playing. I guess one of the reasons I use the B.E.R.P. is to score some Brownie points with the string players because it's soft. They all really like me now. They all wish all the other brass players would warm up on the B.E.R.P. Seriously, there are many other reasons, one being I can't get into a warm-up competition with anyone else backstage (higher, louder, faster). I usually want to save my embouchure for the actual performance. I don't want to waste it getting sucked into a blastfest session just before the concert. Another advantage is other players don't really know if you are missing any notes. They really can't tell what note you are playing (nor I for that matter!). The true advantages of using the B.E.R.P. on a daily basis is that it can be set for varying amounts of back pressure. There is an adjustable plastic sleeve to cover as many holes as one desires. One can cover almost all the holes for a lot of back pressure (good for embouchure building) or leave all the holes uncovered to work on air speed and air volume. Regardless, this device is instrumental for toning my embouchure in ways that cannot be achieved otherwise. It's a bit like the cross training serious athletes do. I do not play more than 1/2 hour per day on the B.E.R.P. It's for the same reasons I never play for more than 1/2 hour on a practice mute, no matter how good the quality. The danger here lies in getting stuck with a small sound that won't carry to the back of the hall. People who only practice in small, dry practice rooms face the same dilemma when they get on stage and saybut it sounded good in the practice room. Let's face it, nothing can replace good solid horn practice (without any encumbrances) in the big hall. Gerald Onciul Assistant Principal Horn Edmonton Symphony Professor of Horn University of Alberta ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Hornlist] B.E.R.P.
Thanks, Gerry for the /very/ helpful comments... Regards... Tom Gerry Onciul wrote: Tom, I use a B.E.R.P. to do most of my warming up backstage before concerts. I like to do my usual routine of scales and arpeggios and finger the notes (as much as feasible) to emulate actual playing. I guess one of the reasons I use the B.E.R.P. is to score some Brownie points with the string players because it's soft. They all really like me now. They all wish all the other brass players would warm up on the B.E.R.P. Seriously, there are many other reasons, one being I can't get into a warm-up competition with anyone else backstage (higher, louder, faster). I usually want to save my embouchure for the actual performance. I don't want to waste it getting sucked into a blastfest session just before the concert. Another advantage is other players don't really know if you are missing any notes. They really can't tell what note you are playing (nor I for that matter!). The true advantages of using the B.E.R.P. on a daily basis is that it can be set for varying amounts of back pressure. There is an adjustable plastic sleeve to cover as many holes as one desires. One can cover almost all the holes for a lot of back pressure (good for embouchure building) or leave all the holes uncovered to work on air speed and air volume. Regardless, this device is instrumental for toning my embouchure in ways that cannot be achieved otherwise. It's a bit like the cross training serious athletes do. I do not play more than 1/2 hour per day on the B.E.R.P. It's for the same reasons I never play for more than 1/2 hour on a practice mute, no matter how good the quality. The danger here lies in getting stuck with a small sound that won't carry to the back of the hall. People who only practice in small, dry practice rooms face the same dilemma when they get on stage and saybut it sounded good in the practice room. Let's face it, nothing can replace good solid horn practice (without any encumbrances) in the big hall. Gerald Onciul Assistant Principal Horn Edmonton Symphony Professor of Horn University of Alberta ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/tspillman%40austin.rr.com ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Hornlist] Re: NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision
Personally, I reject the entire concept of mathematical as applied to the essence of music. Yes, you can count bars and add up movements: that part is mathematical. But the music that fills those bars and movements defies mathematics, whether it's Bach or Mahler. 2+2 in music never equals 4. Never. And don't point to the scores. Scores are simply the conceptual skeletons of music stashed away, much like bones in the catacombs. No life until humans (and musicians are humans, some opinions to the contrary) put those bones into motion. That's the invisible part of the equation, if you want to take the math metaphor any further, that completely changes any possible predictable outcome. Richard in Seattle ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Hornlist] NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision ofBach
I thought close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades. I wish I'd had you as a professor, or are you disagreeing you're a 'mathemathician' sic. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: horn@music.memphis.edu Sent: Sat, 3 Mar 2007 1:01 PM Subject: Re: [Hornlist] NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision ofBach The description 'mathematical' implies that if one knows, and applies the rule, the outcome will always be duplicated. Thus, if you know Bach, you can duplicate Bach, a feat yet to be accomplished. I am a mathemathician, and disagree completely. -- Daniel Canarutto mathematical physicist dedicated amateur hornist http://www.dma.unifi.it/~canarutto/ ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/billbamberg%40aol.com AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
[Hornlist] RE: NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical
Actually the feat has been accomplished. There's a fellow with a computer program that composes new music by Bach fairly successfully. The program simply analyzes WWBD, quantifies the tendencies and churns out new music that sounds like the real thing. No problem. - Steve Mumford from: [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: subject: Re: [Hornlist] NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical Percision ofBach The description 'mathematical' implies that if one knows, and applies the rule, the outcome will always be duplicated. Thus, if you know Bach, you can duplicate Bach, a feat yet to be accomplished. Interesting how this compares to a commonly accepted definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different outcome. Just as the same people describing Bach as 'mathematical' do so over and over. ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
Re: [Hornlist] RE: NHR but Music Related - The Mathematical
Hello- Steve and others, As a current undergraduate studying physics, mathematics, and scientific computer programing, (in addition to majoring in Horn Performance) I will assure you that this would NOT be no problem to accomplish. I would be extraordinarily skeptical of any successful attempts to do such a thing as generate music of Bach's creativity, beauty, and genius. Computers could (and I may infact be involved in writing software which does this in a few years) do simple things like check four part chorale writing for errors such as parallel perfect fifths and other things which don't follow a set of pre-defined rules. I suppose you could write a program to turn out rudimentary chorales and maybe even simple counterpoint which followed extremely defined, pre-determined formulas of harmonic progression and voice leading. but Bach? NO WAY. How would you evaluate the success of such a thing anyway? How would you suggest to write an algorithm which analyzes Bach and then spits out new stuff? I'd like to know. I don't think most people realize what computers can and cannot do. Computers are very good and very fast at following simple, simple instructions -like multiply 10 million numbers by 10 million other numbers. But even something like sorting a list of numbers from smallest to greatest can take a lot of instructions. Could a computer ever (at least in my life time and I am betting I am a lot younger than most of you) innovate, be creative, or beautiful. No. No. No. Anytime you see a computer draw something which looks beautiful, or do something clever- which computers for us do all the time- it is not the computer doing it; the computer can only follow simple instructions. Someone had to tell it a list of extremely simple instructions to create that effect, and it could never generate a new one on its own. Sorry for the rant and I don't mean to attack anyone, but personally I've found this whole discussion of Math/Bach quite ridiculous. People are not defining what they mean when they say 'mathematical' or whatever. This leads me to conclude that they don't know what they are talking about really. Goodnight, I have to get back to writing in a numerical array processing language to solve a system of damped, coupled harmonic oscillators -using a very dumb, very fast computer mainframe (which doesn't know any Bach yet for sure) ! Dave Meichle Lawrence University FREE Reminder Service - NEW from AmericanGreetings.com Click HERE and never forget a Birthday or Anniversary again! http://track.juno.com/s/lc?s=197335u=http://www.americangreetings.com/products/online_calendar.pd?c=uol5752 ___ post: horn@music.memphis.edu unsubscribe or set options at http://music2.memphis.edu/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org
