Is Playing the Horn Natural?

Over the last few weeks I’ve been reading a series of posts by Bruce Hembd at Horn Matters on his own personal study of embouchure function.  You can read all the posts by following the links below.

Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV

As an analyzer myself I found Bruce’s posts insightful and logical. Although I may not think about my own embouchure function in exactly the same terms as he describes, as a teacher I am always interested in different approaches to the instrument.  Recently the brass blogging world has been buzzing with numerous comments regarding the topics covered in these posts, including a related post by Julia Rose (Associate Principal Horn of the Columbus Symphony), and multiple comments on Part IV of Bruce’s series.  To wrap up this summary – I feel a bit like a sports reporter giving the “blow-by-blow” details – Bruce has posted a follow-up article addressing, among other things, the concept of horn playing being a “natural” act.   In true blogging fashion, reading and attempting to digest these various points of view has encouraged me to focus my own thoughts, and attempt to get at least some of them down in writing.  The following are some of the main points that came to mind for me as I read (and re-read) this material.

I think that one can consider horn playing a “natural” act, but only up to a certain point. After all, our muscles are designed to contract, our lungs to inhale and exhale air, and our lips and oral cavities to form various shapes.  Beyond that point, however,  I think the instinctual side of things has to be refined through training and at least some analysis. Of course the balance between instinctual and analytical playing will vary from player to player, teacher to teacher, and situation to situation.  In short, I think there is a place for both paradigms, and honestly I don’t think they are mutually exclusive.

Dr. John Ericson (and I’m sure others as well) have written about this issue – but I think it bears repeating as it seems to come up inevitably in any discussion of brass pedagogy.  As teachers we often come up with little phrases to prompt students, often substituting a few words for what is in reality a series of complex physical and mental processes.  For instance, one might tell students “when playing in the low range, think x, and when playing in the high range think y,” and so on.  Many prominent teachers use these types of phrases, and they have been proven to be very effective for a large number of students.  However, they may not in fact accurately describe what is happening with the embouchure/airstream/throat, or whatever.  Now, the real question is – does it matter?  If thinking x in the low range (for example) works, is it really necessary to understand in detail exactly what is going on to produce a strong, reliable, and in-tune low register?  For day-to-day playing and teaching, maybe not, but I think this kind of research, if you will, is important to our field, and helps drive future developments in pedagogy, like new method books, etude collections, etc.  Without experimentation and trial and error, we risk stagnation as performers and teachers.

Does this mean we should change mouthpieces once a month, or try different techniques just for the sake of it when our current practices have already proven successful?  Absolutely not – but I do think it is important to constantly evaluate our current methods and paradigms, if for no other reason than to reinforce our own ideas about what works for us and our students.

Advertisements

About the Author

Posted by

4 Comments

Happy to see this post, as I’ve been reading and rereading Bruce’s post as well. I’m with you in thinking, “there is a place for both paradigms, and honestly I don’t think they are mutually exclusive”.

I hope to do a post of my own on Bruce’s post once I sort out my thinking. Partly, I think it’s a little like the Mac vs. PC thing where people are more talking about what they think the opposition is thinking than what the opposition is really trying to say, often very poorly.

There’s also all the neuroscience telling us our consciousness is just part of the picture.

I also get tripped up reading the word “natural” because I really do think some folks are natural players, which is not to say they don’t have to work at it (!)

If you go with the right/left brain model, surely using a bit of each to inform the other is a possible approach?

Thanks for the spotlight. I do agree that there is room for both approaches and my latest post doesn’t reflect that very well – there was a little emotion behind it.

I totally agree with the points you make. I am not trying so much to delineate sides so much as point out some fallacies… maybe I overdid it, but such is the nature of blogging. 🙂

Add a Response

Your name, email address, and comment are required. We will not publish your email.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

The following HTML tags can be used in the comment field: <a href="" title="" rel=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <pre> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Pinkgbacks & Trackbacks

%d bloggers like this: