[Trombone-l] Acoustics of brass instruments

[Chris Tune]

Another science buff (amateur. . .a status I protect strongly. . .and I'm 
mainly a jazz guy. . now--Allen Hermann is too see the end) chiming in:

Different minds work different ways, but the underlying brain activity is 
ALWAYS MODELLING, and always making use of models, although this is done 
mostly unconsciously.   For example:

When you first looked up at the sun, you didn't really probably understand 
or know what it was (I'm assuming you looked at it near the age of 1year. . 
some might have been in a carriage pushed by mom. . .others might have seen 
it coming across the sky thru the window). . .you sensed the light and heat 
and that was it.

Later, after mom and dad had given you a ball. . .and you put it in your 
mouth and you felt it over and over, you had a MODEL of a sphere and also 
the model of a circle (since a sphere looks circular when viewed).

Then, when you looked briefly at the sun you saw it as a circle or sphere. 
Because your brain had a MODEL in it--a "circle and sphere" model.  It's 
hard to believe, but it has been well established that much of thought 
itself is based upon the brain being able to model things and recover these 
models instantly.  Your model of spheres has facts in it like "no sharp 
edges unless it is a flat circular thing, then maybe the edge is sharp". 
Each model has potentially huge amounts of cumulative information as you 
learned throughout life.

Perhaps the tendency to want to understand the way I'm doing it here, is 
more developed in me, than in another. . .say Sam.  Sam has other ways of 
understanding and taking in info and amending his models that I don't have, 
or don't have to the degree that Sam does.  So we are different in how 
information goes in and out and around in the brain.  Some would be very 
comfortable with precision, perhaps with numbers, etc.(I'm like that, even 
though I've been tested and it was found that I'm highly verbal)  Others may 
emphasize esthetic considerations or sensory impressions of one sort or 
several sorts, and may excel in that area.  Some may have enhanced abilities 
in both, some may be somewhat impeded in both, but all have a model. . .of 
each thing they have ever seen. . .each thing they have heard. . each thing 
they have touched.

I'd suggest that Sam has good info.  "Model the sound with your ears"  good 
advice. . .assuming that it works for you. . .if it does not then model it 
other ways, but don't be afraid to model.  You will be anyway.  Perhaps 
thinking about the model is a good thing.  For some it will come with less 
conscious thought, for others it will come primarily out of conscious 
thought.  Find your own way to success.  Not every mind is the same.  Not 
everyone learns the same way.  Not everyone feels rewarded by the same 
thing.

Chris

PS-about styles. . .these don't really "peg" you--Allen Hermann is on an 
album called "The Jazz Trombone" he is a friend of Carl Fontana and he's in 
this band as a duo with Carl (at this time slipping a little, but still 
quite good).  Allen is PHENOMENAL (on trombone--i.e. Frank Rosolino class).! 
He also was Professor of Physics at Tulane University where he was 
co-discoverer of the world's highest temperature superconductor (at the 
time). He also was Prof of Physics at Univ Colorado at Boulder.  Allen has 
other equally impressive science and music CV items.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Daniel Pliskin" <daniel_pliskin at hotmail.com>
To: <TROMBONE-L at server5.SAMFORD.EDU>
Sent: Friday, June 02, 2006 2:09 PM
Subject: Re: [Trombone-l] Acoustics of brass instruments


>
>
>>Model your sound with your ears.
>>
>>Much better than a machine.
>>
>>Seriously.
>
> Sam and all,
>
> I certainly understand the frustration of those who have to put up with a
> world that wants to slap numbers on everything, rather than trying to hear
> differences.  I basically wound up with an electrical engineering degree,
> while trying to figure out why sound synthesizers don't sound real.
>
> There are wonderful uses for models.  Let's say I decide to see whether a
> trombone will sound darker if the slide is longer and the tuning slide is
> appropriately shorter.  I can take a hacksaw to my trombone or I can alter
> my model.  If I like what the model shows me, I'll still take a hacksaw to
> my trombone, but just maybe my model is correct and I'll get what I'm 
> after.
>  If my model isn't correct or if it isn't accurate enough, I then go back
> and change my model, until it starts being a better predictor of what does
> what to the sound.
>
> At that point, I'm free to check out all kinds of things.  How come a
> drilled-out mouthpiece takes on a whispery tone?  What should I first look
> for in the way of a new leadpipe?  The model directs me to where to can
> start looking.  And every time I use it, the model gets updated to make 
> sure
> that it is as accurate as it can get it.
>
> Even if the model is scarcely a first order approximation of what a 
> trombone
> sounds like, it still directs me towards several solutions.  At that 
> point,
> I know where to look for the real, audible answer.
>
>
> If I thought I wanted a larger aperture in my mouthpiece but I didn't want
> to potentially screw up my favorite mouthpiece, I'd start with a model. 
> I'd
> try drilling out another mouthpiece, to see whether it did, to that
> mouthpiece, what I wanted to do to my favorite mouthpiece.  That would be
> using the second mouthpiece as a model.
>
> But I also sense a thread of anti-electronics, almost anti-technology, 
> here.
>  Let all who are anti-technology, go back to using machine oil for slide
> oil.
>
> DanP
>
>
>


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> _______________________________________________
> Trombone-l mailing list
> Trombone-l at maillists.samford.edu
> http://maillists.samford.edu/mailman/listinfo/trombone-l
>