General Principles of Embouchure?

[CaptEquinox]

The instrument isn't really an "amplifier." The sound we're hearing is the oscillating column of air inside the instrument.

Ever hear a 5th grader yell into a bell section? It's an amplifier. The 5th grader plays a middle F. It sounds pinched because it is pinched. Yes, there's a standing wave. The pinched vibrations are restricted by the length of tube the child is blowing into.

Relatedly, the aperture is the result of a ratio of air to lip tension. I don't think Kleinhammer is saying that there can only be one aperture for any given note, he's saying an aperture results "of a size" in any given note produced (presumably at any given dynamic).

[Wilktone]

One analogy that can be useful sometimes is to think of the lips as the string on a cello and the air as the bow. If you want a smooth legato sound, for example, the "bow" (air) must move continuously across the "string" (embouchure). But it's not the lip buzz that we hear as the tone, it's the oscillating column of air inside the instrument. A more accurate analogy would be that the air is more like the arm moving the bow, the lips are the hair of the bow, and the column of air inside the instrument is the string. (That analogy is imperfect too, however, but let's forget about that for now.)

It is true that in a small part the trombone works like an acoustic horn amplifier (think of the cone on an old phonograph), but the instrument is primarily serving as the "pegs" of the "string" (vibrating column of air inside the instrument). Lengthen the string to lower the pitch, etc. Kleinhammer's quote clearly states that the instrument is amplifying and improving the musical sounds of the vibrating lips. That's sort of like saying that the sound box on the cello is amplifying the musical sounds of the bow, not the string. Again, this analogy is imperfect, which is why I feel it's better to simply discuss the principals of the brass instruments on their own terms as they actually function.

As far as Kleinhammer's description of the aperture size as producing the specific pitch goes I think you're probably correct in what he meant, but that's not what he wrote. His whole chapter on embouchure was not too bad for 1963, but as I pointed out earlier in this thread, there was a lot already available back then that would have made his discussion much more complete.

One case in point I already mentioned.

I find those discussions interesting, but most books that try to describe this tend to post an anatomical diagram of the muscles of the face, maybe call out the names of the muscles of the lips, and then stop as if there's something useful to be gained there.

Kleinhammer wrote a bit about the muscles used and has an entire page of the anatomy of the face and lip muscles, but other than some discussion about what a muscle is and how the facial muscles connect to each other he doesn't put them into any practical context about how they should be used or which muscles should be engaged when playing. He makes some points that could be helpful if explained in more detail, but on its own it's filler. It does make it seem more scientific.

All that is fine, though. I did say that these were "quibbles." We can use Kleinhammer as a starting point, but we do need to recognize that even as a general description of embouchure it's not very complete. I've long advocated that the embouchure pedagogy that I've learned from Doug Elliott, and others like his teacher Donald Reinhardt, can be discussed in a way that is no more complicated that something like Roman numeral analysis or music history. If we find that learning music theory and putting the music we perform into historical context is useful then I think we can also argue that going beyond the very basic descriptions that Kleinhammer and others provide will be helpful as well - particularly for anyone who teaches brass. The first step in that process is probably to quibble about the details and look for ways we can expand and improve on those starting points.

[Savio]

Some general principles of emboushure could be what we say to beginners? Like form the mouth like a Mmmm and keep the corners engaged? Keep the muscles around the mouth firm enough to make a buzz when blowing air through the lips? Everyone is different so it's not easy to put words on. I'm definitely not an expert but mostly these words seems to work ok with the kids I teach.

The biggest problems I often see is some kids think they have to do some really weird things with the mouth, and some don't understand it's the air that make lips vibrate. And some others are so loose that there is air bubbles around the mouth. Still, it's easy to fix if done immediately before bad habits start to grow.

Leif

[CaptEquinox]

The biggest problems I often see is some kids think they have to do some really weird things with the mouth, and some don't understand it's the air that make lips vibrate. And some others are so loose that there is air bubbles around the mouth. Still, it's easy to fix if done immediately before bad habits start to grow.

Yes, and this illustrates a divergence between all the acoustical phenomenon that occurs and actually teaching someone to do the things that will produce the result we think of as correct. It can be an easy fix, or it could be a little harder, depending on the student. In any case, that's the actual teaching.

Here's a misgiving: a lot of this discussion seems like specific principles of brass embouchure.

Dave, I mean this in the best possible way, but I feel as though anytime someone says "embouchure" on The Web, you appear, again, to explain the 3 basic brass embouchure types. (It's sort of like saying "Beetlejuice" 3 times.) You also disagree with other sources of embouchure information, which is fine, but then you'll say things like, "It's been a long time since I read that, but it's wrong . . ." Really, if you're going to present yourself as a scholar on these things, you need to explain exactly where, and not vaguely where, other sources went wrong, while giving them reasonable credit for what they got right. (To your credit, I think you do some of that, but it can often feel begrudging.)

[Wilktone]

Yes, and this illustrates a divergence between all the acoustical phenomenon that occurs and actually teaching someone to do the things that will produce the result we think of as correct. It can be an easy fix, or it could be a little harder, depending on the student. In any case, that's the actual teaching.

Yes, exactly! One thing that is important for us teachers to understand (and when we're offering advice in an online forum) is that much of the actual instructions that end up being effective depend in a large part to what the student is currently doing and where she need to go.

Like form the mouth like a Mmmm and keep the corners engaged?

In the recent topic here about the Chop Shop video this description came up, and I've recently read comments on my blog that also reject the idea that the lips should come together and touch as if saying, "mmm." From a teaching standpoint, if a student is playing with their lip center too clamped, then instructing them to say "mmm" might work against them. On the other hand, if they are too flabby and pinning their lips open with the mouthpiece rim, this might do the exact trick.

The broader question that I'm interested in is at what point do we acknowledge the literal descriptions of a well functioning brass embouchure and either avoid or qualify our advice when it fall into the realm of playing sensation or analogy? There's probably not a hard and fast line there, but I do consider this important to music students at the college level to start dealing with, at least.

Dave, I mean this in the best possible way, but I feel as though anytime someone says "embouchure" on The Web, you appear, again, to explain the 3 basic brass embouchure types. (It's sort of like saying "Beetlejuice" 3 times.)

In my defense, I do consider the mouthpiece placement (and by extension the player's air stream direction) and the player's embouchure motion to be essential pieces to understand with even a basic understanding of brass embouchure. I've seen players wrecked by advice that contradicts their natural tendencies. Perhaps my personal experience going down that exact same dead end for years of frustration and struggles have made me more evangelical about that information, but I consider it vital.

You also disagree with other sources of embouchure information, which is fine, but then you'll say things like, "It's been a long time since I read that, but it's wrong . . ." Really, if you're going to present yourself as a scholar on these things, you need to explain exactly where, and not vaguely where, other sources went wrong, while giving them reasonable credit for what they got right. (To your credit, I think you do some of that, but it can often feel begrudging.)

Point taken, Captain. I'll work on doing better. In the mean time, if there's a place where I haven't sufficiently done so already please call me out and I'll try to clarify or correct.

But again, in my defense, I say things like, "It's been a while..." in order to let everyone know the context so that you can decide whether or not to trust my judgement. I also do try to qualify my statements very carefully to make it clear when I'm stating something that I judge to be fact (e.g., "The mouthpiece placement determines the air stream direction.") and speculation (i.e., "It *appears* that...," "I feel...," "I prefer...," etc.).

(Both Wick and Fink acknowledge the existence of upstream players, by the way.)

Can you confirm that Fink did acknowledge the existence of upstream players? I don't have access to that book, only my literature review:

The citation of Fink I have in my paper states:
...the trombonist must at least mentally aim the airstream at the lower part of the mouthpiece cup (Fink, 1977 p. 12).
I didn't write anything in my paper that Fink acknowledged upstream embouchures and since that was directly relevant to the paper would probably have mentioned it if I saw it. I could have gotten sloppy and missed it or just neglected to cite that info though.

Here's a misgiving: a lot of this discussion seems like specific principles of brass embouchure.

I'm not sure if you have already gone to my blog post I linked to earlier. That was my best attempt, so far, to describe general principles. I only briefly mention the three basic types in there, but I do discuss upstream and downstream embouchures and the embouchure motion. Those are principles that exist in all brass embouchures, even if they can be opposite from player to player. We could get more specific by looking at how an individual's embouchure motion can be tweaked in order to work more efficiently, but that gets even more personal to the player very quickly.

[VJOFan]

Some discussion above is about setting the aperture. And more specifically for beginners. If I had the chance to go back in time I would stop using the "em" lips at all. To get a good note start, I think, the lips are actually just slightly apart so the rush of air from the articulation pulls them toward each other. The the muscular tension pulls them back apart (with the help of air pressure? That part I am unclear on.) and the cycle continues. I would probably have beginners start with their lips too far apart and then carefully move them together over an airstream until a solid buzz starts. Cuing soft center all the while.

Further on this idea, it sheds light on part of why playing soft effectively feels like a balancing act. The lips would need to be extremely close together for the reduced air stream to cause them to move but still could not touch. That takes control.

[CaptEquinox]

Can you confirm that Fink did acknowledge the existence of upstream players? I don't have access to that book, only my literature review:

Here's the pertinent passage in Reginald H. Fink's book, The Trombonist's Handbook. Admittedly, he hedges a bit, and (maybe) doesn't quite get that you could be an upstream player and not have an underbite.

Direction of the Airstream
The bump on the gums makes the embouchure appear to recede even though the teeth may be properly aligned. Examine the photographs of the trombonists in Farkas, The Art of Brass Playing. Also take special note of the embouchures of older players whose playing has
endured and matured through the years. (At a recent national workshop for trombonists, whose ages ranged from 18 to 79, only a few of the 142 embouchures did not recede. The large majority had some degree of recession.)

With the usual receding embouchure, the air stream tends to leave the lips in a slightly downstream angle. The underbite player is the exception to this rule. The underbite player tends to be an upstream player. Though photographic studies and various other tests tend to prove that some players do not play downstream, I recommend that for teaching and playing purposes that you think downstream. I suggest that you mentally aim the air stream at the lower part of the mouthpiece somewhere near the throat of the mouthpiece, rather than attempt to direct the airstream directly at the throat of the mouthpiece. (This is confirmed by Reinhardt, Pivot System and disagreed with by Farkas, The Art of Brass Playing.)

[Savio]

Some discussion above is about setting the aperture. And more specifically for beginners. If I had the chance to go back in time I would stop using the "em" lips at all. To get a good note start, I think, the lips are actually just slightly apart so the rush of air from the articulation pulls them toward each other. The the muscular tension pulls them back apart (with the help of air pressure? That part I am unclear on.) and the cycle continues. I would probably have beginners start with their lips too far apart and then carefully move them together over an airstream until a solid buzz starts. Cuing soft center all the while.

Further on this idea, it sheds light on part of why playing soft effectively feels like a balancing act. The lips would need to be extremely close together for the reduced air stream to cause them to move but still could not touch. That takes control.

I thought the air stream open up the lips and make the buzz. I think the focus on one aspect of playing is not healthy. It’s a combination of lips, slide, air, musicianship’s, coordination. And much more…….

Leif

[brumpone]

Isn't it the case that the air stream causes the lips to move? And the action of the lips moving (they tend to want to come back to face due to elasticity but are constantly being blown back open) introduces vibrations into the air stream

No air flow, the lips stay still. Undisturbed air flow produces no sound

[Basbasun]

I thought the air stream open up the lips and make the buzz. I think the focus on one aspect of playing is not healthy. It’s a combination of lips, slide, air, musicianship’s, coordination. And much more…….

Leif

A very simple explatation of the bernoulli effect on air flow.
https://www.teachengineering.org/activi ... _activity1
I used for many years two empty drink cans (coccola jars or what ewer.) and used a straw to blow air between them to explain the airflow effect, that is the same for singing saxophone oboe and brass playing.

Well if you close the lips with the"M" the airflow opens the lips, the open lips permitt the airflow to create a wacum between the lips and the lips close, (and the air flow open the lips and airflow close the lips and so on), You can also start with the lips open and the ariflow close the lips. That needs the buzzing firmnes in the lips though. The lips dont flap uncuntrolled like jelly

Many saxophone players thinn out the reed for geting their sound, if you blow an airstream between the reed and the top of the mouthpiece the reed close to the top of the mouthpiece, if the reed is firm enough it opens and the buzz goes on, if the reed is to thin it close but does not open.

Many kids do not hold their lips parted, instead they close the lips harder and they do get a sound that way. After some practise and listening to good players they start to hold the lips slightly parted while the air stream do make the buzz. Most players never think about it, just play, even some of the best proffesional players dont know what they are doing with the lips as you dont know what you are doing with your vocal chords when you sing or talk.

To get the airflow to start the buzz the lips must be ready to buzz. Some firmness is needed, opening to get the aiflow to close the lips, and open the lips. The lip muscles do hold the lips in position, slightly open.

[Wilktone]

Here's the pertinent passage in Reginald H. Fink's book, The Trombonist's Handbook. Admittedly, he hedges a bit, and (maybe) doesn't quite get that you could be an upstream player and not have an underbite.

Thanks, Captain. I got the part about he suggesting *thinking* downstream in my paper's lit review, but left out other pertinent info. That probably shouldn't have snuck past me or my committee.

Regarding the aperture and whether it's better to have the lips closed or open when the note starts:

It's definitely true that the Bernoulli effect is responsible, in part, for the lips getting drawn back into their closed position. But there must be some level of muscular contraction of the player drawing the lips back against the teeth and gums. The higher the pitch being played the more muscular effort of drawing the lips back there is.

My preference is to start the pitches with the lips touching, but not clamped, and blow them open on the initial attack. I think that intentionally holding them open requires a little more effort to get the lips into the position where they will be vibrating at the proper frequency for the desired pitch than starting with them closed. Of course it is possible to have them too tight before commencing the blowing, so it's a matter of finding the Goldilocks zone of where they are "just right."

Sam Burtis has written about the idea of the lips as the swinging doors on a saloon. That could make a good teaching analogy in this case. The doors are in their closed position, just touching. When the cowboy goes through the door they are easily pushed open.

[CaptEquinox]

I can't see the huge drawback with starting with the basic 'M' shape when teaching a beginning embouchure. There are important add-ons, though, like firming the corners, maybe opening the jaw a little, and flattening the chin.

What aperture gets created once the blow starts? R H. Fink feels it should be "round." Again from the The Trombonists's Handbook. Probably also controversy warning:

The shape of the aperture of your embouchure is important. The aperture should be as round as possible To change the shape of an elliptical aperture to a round one, pucker in and open the jaws still further. Holding the lips in a stretched manner, with a long elliptical aperture, tends to make the tone airy and buzzy. The tone is usually improved immediately and quite noticeably when the player thinks of rounding his embouchure and rounding the aperture of the buzzing portion of the lips.

Relatedly, Fink also has an interesting section in his book called Anatomy of a Trombone Tone where he talks about the ratios of "Lip Tension" and "Breath Pressure." it begins with Robert Weast's experiment with rubber lips:

In an experiment with rubber lips and an air pressure tank, Robert Weast was able to determine what lip tension and what air pressure was needed to produce a note on a brass instrument. He could set the lips at a certain tension and then adjust the air pressure until he got a certain note. He then plotted this point on a graph.

***

He found more than one point to be plotted, and that by decreasing the lip tension and increasing the breath pressure he got the same note as before. Thus, within certain limits, he could plot several combinations of lip tension and breath pressure for the note B flat. There was not just one point on the graph, but several points which could be connected with a straight line

There's more to the section, but it doesn't take too much reflection to see how the variables used would affect the aperture created by the air, as well as the resultant sound.

[Kbiggs]

Sam Burtis has written about the idea of the lips as the swinging doors on a saloon. That could make a good teaching analogy in this case. The doors are in their closed position, just touching. When the cowboy goes through the door they are easily pushed open.

I remember on the old TF when Sam asked who originally proposed the “swinging doors” analogy of the lips. At the time, I suggested Philip Farkas Art of Brass Playing (1962), p. 22. However, IIRC, another TF member at the time suggested a different origin, but… I don’t remember which TF member wrote that, or (more importantly) who they suggested.

The search function for this site isn’t very specific, and I can’t remember how to do a google search for specific things within this forum, otherwise I’d search for it myself…

[VJOFan]

How can we describe the Goldilocks zone of "lip togetherness" before sound is initiated?

I think the sensation I describe earlier in the thread as not quite touching may be more Goldilocks.

I think the "open" I feel is that if I blow a gentle air stream it escapes my lips easily. The buzz only starts when the stream is juiced slightly with a harder puff or an articulation.

So maybe I have no idea if they are truly touching or not, but they are soft enough that air can pass through the buzzing area easily. On the other hand there is enough focus that air doesn't spill out (too far) away from what becomes the playing aperture.

[brumpone]

In this OTJ article, Sam Burtis attributes it to Carmine Caruso
https://trombone.org/articles/view.php?id=154

[afugate]

The search function for this site isn’t very specific, and I can’t remember how to do a google search for specific things within this forum, otherwise I’d search for it myself…

Google site search syntax is:
site:trombonechat.com search terms

For example:

Code: Select all

site:trombonechat.com mute corks

--Andy in OKC

[Wilktone]

Edit up front - For some reason the hyperlinked images I'm trying to embed aren't working. I'll include just the image links too so you can at least see them out of the context of this post.

Edit No. 2 - I figured out the issue, but will leave the links.

What aperture gets created once the blow starts? R H. Fink feels it should be "round."

I suspect that the shape of the aperture will vary from player to player. Maybe "oval" would be a better description, but even that might not be accurate for many players. Here's a screen shot taken from "A stroboscopic study of lip vibrations in a trombone," written by David C. Copley and William J. Strong and published in 1995.



http://wilktone.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... uchure.png

I rotated the images to put the top lip on top, which is why the text is sideways. At any rate, I suspect that this particular trombonist (a faculty member at BYU, where the authors teach physics, I believe) would be one of the downstream embouchure types. If you look at the lower lip in the photos you can see that it is more stable and fixed in place than the upper lip. In downstream players there is more rim contact on the lower lip and the lower lip vibrates with less intensity than the upper lip. So while the top lip is opening in a oval, the lower lip stays more in place and serves as a stable surface for the upper lip to vibrate against. It's maybe closer to a single reed instrument where the upper lip (in this case) is the reed and the lower lip is the mouthpiece.

Also from that paper:

For the sake of comparison, several student players were observed. Perhaps the most noticeable difference was the placement of the lips. The expert player’s embouchure was situated such that the mouthpiece contained approximately two-thirds upper lip and one-third lower lip. In contrast, a wide range of upper lip to lower lip ratios were observed in the students. One student was observed to produce tones with virtually all upper lip. Despite the differences, the students’ lips exhibited the same general trends as explained above. Casual analysis revealed slightly less regular lip openings and sometimes more or less penetration into the mouthpiece. It is quite possible that similar variations would be seen if data from several expert players were compared.

The bold emphasis is mine, just to call attention both to the care that the authors used to qualify their conclusions as well as agree that we would probably find variations among expert players as well. For example, many downstream players will get their lip compression more from the top and bottom lip coming together up and down. I suspect that the stroboscopic photos above would fit that model.

Other players will increase their lip compression more from a forward and backward of the upper lip and lower lip coming together. Here's a photo from a trombonist that I think would fit into this particular category more than the photos above. The pitch being played is a low Bb, same pitch as the above photos, but we're just seeing the aperture captured where it happened to be when I snapped the photo.



http://wilktone.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... ront-1.jpg

Here's the same player from the side, where I think I caught the aperture a little more open than the front view. We can't really say for sure with this angle, but would you agree that the lower lip seems to open a bit more into an oval shape as well as the upper lip? I wonder if players that fit this embouchure type might happen to fit Fink's "round" aperture idea better.



http://wilktone.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... 1lowBb.jpg

As an aside, players belonging to the embouchure type of the trombonist in the above two photos tend to have a tone that is well suited to orchestral playing. I couldn't find any photos or video of Fink playing, let alone something that would give us enough information to guess his particular embouchure type. I wonder if Fink's embouchure happened to fit this particular type. If so, I wonder if his recommendation to think of the aperture as "round" might be more effective to players of this sort of embouchure.

Upstream players will tend to derive lip compression with an up and down coming together of the lips, but their aperture can look opposite of the stroboscopic photos above where the top lip is a little more flat and the bottom lip opens into sort of an oval-like shape. Here's a photo of an upstream player playing a low Bb.



http://wilktone.com/wp-content/uploads/ ... bfront.jpg

Again, we're just seeing the aperture at the moment where the photo happened to be taken, but I think that we can sort of see how the upper lip position is held a little more in a straight line and the lower lip is opening in the the oval shape.

Dave, I mean this in the best possible way, but I feel as though anytime someone says "embouchure" on The Web, you appear, again, to explain the 3 basic brass embouchure types.

So yes, I've managed to take a discussion of "general" embouchure principles and put them in the context of the three basic types. I hope I've been clear enough to show how that is relevant to put a discussion of aperture shape, though. Even within the difference that we'd see between players who have different embouchure patterns, I think we're going to see some variation in aperture shape among players belonging to the same type. And that doesn't even get to the point of where we might look at whether or not it's working well for the particular player. It does make things a little more complicated, but hopefully not too much so.

Dave

[CaptEquinox]

I see all the photos. I reckon, based on everything Fink says about embouchure, including aligning the upper and lower teeth and placing the mouthpiece "as high on the upper lip as is comfortably possible,"* that he's IIIA, Very High Placement. It's similar with Wick, and this conveniently happens to be the most common type from what I've gathered here and elsewhere.

As far as a truly round aperture goes . . . Maybe on a low enough note with a loud enough dynamic?


*I'm thinking that even with IIIA, vertical mouthpiece placement is going to be an individual matter. I'm unsure how a player would find an optimal placement in that context, except by just trying it.

[Kbiggs]

The search function for this site isn’t very specific, and I can’t remember how to do a google search for specific things within this forum, otherwise I’d search for it myself…

Google site search syntax is:
site:trombonechat.com search terms

For example:

Code: Select all

site:trombonechat.com mute corks

--Andy in OKC

Thanks.

[Kbiggs]

In this OTJ article, Sam Burtis attributes it to Carmine Caruso
https://trombone.org/articles/view.php?id=154

From Sam Burtis, this makes perfect sense.

A tangent to this thread: I’m not sure whether the “swinging doors” or “saloon doors” analogy (whether from Farkas or Caruso) can be considered a general principle of embouchure. It makes sense to me, but that’s not the same as being supported by observation and analysis.

Another tangent that is only of academic importance: attribution. I don’t who first thought of the “swinging doors” analogy—Carmine Caruso or Philip Farkas. Farkas’s book was published in 1962. From the very little I’ve read about Caruso, he was teaching in NYC beginning in the 1940’s, but didn’t publish anything until the late ‘60’s.

[Wilktone]

I reckon, based on everything Fink says about embouchure, including aligning the upper and lower teeth and placing the mouthpiece "as high on the upper lip as is comfortably possible,"* that he's IIIA, Very High Placement. It's similar with Wick, and this conveniently happens to be the most common type from what I've gathered here and elsewhere.

Yes, that makes sense. IIIA/Very High Placement does appear to be the most common embouchure type and a lot of method books recommend characteristics that match how this embouchure type would want to play (2/3 upper lip inside the mouthpiece, align the teeth with a horn angle close to straight out).

As far as a truly round aperture goes . . . Maybe on a low enough note with a loud enough dynamic?

I've cued up Leno's film to when George Roberts plays a pedal F.



Some of the apparent shape of the aperture that we will see here is no doubt influenced by the angle of the camera, but it still appears to me that the lower lip (in this case, Roberts is a downstream type player, probably Very High Placement/IIIA) doesn't open so much in a curve. The upper lip does round out more, but I still see it as more of an oval shape.

*I'm thinking that even with IIIA, vertical mouthpiece placement is going to be an individual matter. I'm unsure how a player would find an optimal placement in that context, except by just trying it.

Yes, I think for all players, regardless of which embouchure type they are best suited for, mouthpiece placement is going to be individual. Some players do best with a very high or very low placement. Others can still belong to the same embouchure type but have mouthpiece placement not so extreme. Placement over to one side or another is also not uncommon.

A tangent to this thread: I’m not sure whether the “swinging doors” or “saloon doors” analogy (whether from Farkas or Caruso) can be considered a general principle of embouchure. It makes sense to me, but that’s not the same as being supported by observation and analysis.

It's really just an analogy to describe what could be a principle. The principle is that the lips should not be held too loose or too clamped in order to have a clean attack and focused tone. The analogy that can be useful is to think of the lips as the saloon doors.

Another tangent that is only of academic importance: attribution. I don’t who first thought of the “swinging doors” analogy—Carmine Caruso or Philip Farkas. Farkas’s book was published in 1962. From the very little I’ve read about Caruso, he was teaching in NYC beginning in the 1940’s, but didn’t publish anything until the late ‘60’s.

Anyone have easy access to the Farkas book? I don't. I remember his analogy of the drawstring bag pulled over a coffee can, but not any swinging doors analogy from that book.

Regardless, it's probably one of those things that just gets around.

[Kbiggs]

Sam Burtis has written about the idea of the lips as the swinging doors on a saloon. That could make a good teaching analogy in this case. The doors are in their closed position, just touching. When the cowboy goes through the door they are easily pushed open.

I remember on the old TF when Sam asked who originally proposed the “swinging doors” analogy of the lips. At the time, I suggested Philip Farkas Art of Brass Playing (1962), p. 22. However, IIRC, another TF member at the time suggested a different origin, but… I don’t remember which TF member wrote that, or (more importantly) who they suggested.

The search function for this site isn’t very specific, and I can’t remember how to do a google search for specific things within this forum, otherwise I’d search for it myself…

Emphasis added.

[PaulTdot]

Found it.

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... ment_sound

That's quite fascinating, thanks, Dave!

I also note how interesting it is that they observe "tract geometry" as applying about 20 cents' worth of pitch difference, which could explain why upper register playing and things like lip trills feel so different from partial changes in the lower register.