1. I’m assuming that the 3rd slide (titled ” Interpretation of Stroboscopy”) refers to the diagrams on the prior slide. If so, you seem to be implying that the position of the mouthpiece on the lips is changed for different registers. I found that the majority of fine brass players do not change the position of the mouthpiece on the lips for different registers and personally prefer to teach my students to keep their placement consistent throughout their entire range.
2. On the first slide titled “B Continuation Normal Embouchure” you wrote, “The lower you play the higher the mouthpiece will shift and reverse.” This again give the erroneous impression that the mouthpiece is shifting to a new position on the lips, whereas what actually happens is that the mouthpiece and lips together will slide along the teeth and gums. The mouthpiece/lips shift to a new position in relation to the teeth and gums. Also, some players will do this in the opposite direction, so some push the mouthpiece and lips together up to ascend while others pull down to ascend. My preferred term for this phenomenon is “embouchure motion.” More on this in a moment.
3. On the same slide you mention using a “pivot.” While your use of this term is consistent with how most other brass players use the word “pivot,” you may want to be aware that the author that coined this term, Donald Reinhardt, defined a pivot as the sliding of the mouthpiece and lips together as a single unit up and down along the teeth and gums. This is why I prefer to use the term “embouchure motion” to describe this, as it is less likely to be confused. Also, you seem to be implying that the angle of the instrument is what determines the air stream direction of the embouchure. This is not accurate. The ratio of upper to lower lip inside the mouthpiece is what causes an embouchure to be upstream or downstream, not horn angle. If a player places the mouthpiece so there is more upper lip inside the cup, the embouchure will be downstream, even if the horn angle is straight out. Likewise, players who place with more lower lip inside have an upstream embouchure, even if the horn angle is tilted down. As far as “straight stream” goes, one lip or another should predominate inside the mouthpiece and the air will be either upstream or downstream. I’ve never observed a player blow straight into the shank without having serious playing issues, although the lower a player plays the closer towards blowing straight the air stream will go.
4. It’s hard to interpret what you say in the second slide titled “B Continuation of Normal Embouchure” without being able to look at the diagrams you seem to be referring to, but I’m confused about a couple of points you mention. First, although you are calling these characteristics “normal” you are also commenting that these normal embouchures are characterized by mouthpieces that are either “too large” or “too small.” You also mention some of these as shifting happens “mostly upwards” or such, but don’t comment on whether this shifting (I assume you’re referring to what I prefer to call the embouchure motion) happens while ascending or descending, which is confusing. In B6 you are calling blowing straight down the shank as normal, which really seems to only be accompanied by players with problems. Again, properly functioning embouchures really appear to either be upstream or downstream, a principle that you can see for yourself if you use a transparent mouthpiece to look at brass embouchures. In B8 you comment on the lip thickness as a determining characteristic of downstream embouchures. In my dissertation research the statistical analysis of lip thickness showed no significant correlation to embouchure type, so I don’t think that this statement can be considered accurate.
5. I’m not certain how to interpret your diagrams of “Embouchure Deviations” and the descriptions you use without more information. For example, you show number 9 of a split tooth and comment that there is some “rustling and hiss” in the sound. There are many fine brass players with significant gaps in their teeth. Two that I can think of off the top of my head are Jon Faddis and Dave Steinmeyer, both who have very focused sounds that I wouldn’t describe as having any hiss in them. I think it’s more important for a player with features like this to learn to work with their tooth structure and it’s definitely possible for players without gaps in their teeth to have some hiss in their sound. It seems to me there must be other factors at work producing this sound, rather than the teeth. You also show one player with an off-center aperture and comment that this results in a “loss of power.” I think if you observe many fine brass players using a transparent mouthpiece you’ll see that off-center apertures are more common than you seem to be implying here and they aren’t really accompanied by a weaker embouchure. Similar to the gapped teeth, many players without an off-center aperture have problems with a loss of power and manny players with an off-center aperture have very strong embouchures. It would appear that these issues are caused by something different, and probably such symptoms are caused by enough different things that it’s not so easy to encapsulate into such a simple cause and effect relationship as you appear to be implying in this presentation.
6. On the first slide titled “D Embouchure Deviations 2” you comment that round teeth arch cause problems. Again, this is not something I’ve ever noticed, but I do agree that your teeth structure are important considerations for building a good embouchure. Much like I commented above, I feel what players who are having issues related to their teeth have to do is work out how to work with those characteristics. This sometimes means placing the mouthpiece very high, very low, an/or off to one side of the lips. Sometimes players without any easily observable anatomical characteristics play better with atypical mouthpiece placements as well, so I’m not certain that there’s a direct cause and effect relationship here either.
7. On your slide entitle “F: Low Tones/Low Play” you mention that the jaw must come forward and the horn tilted up. This is indeed how many players to get into their low register, but I think this is too simplistic in many ways. For example, some players will descend more easily by bringing their horn angle slightly down instead of up. Secondly, I personally don’t advocate doing something in the embouchure, like dropping the jaw and/or bringing it forward to descend, unless it works the opposite way to descend. Many (perhaps most) players will bring their jaw slightly forward to ascend and slightly back to descend. However, at a certain point in their low range (usually extreme low range) they will reverse this by bringing their jaw suddenly forward a great deal. Personally, I think it’s best to avoid this practice as much as possible as this seems to be accompanied by a change in timbre and potentially can cause issues down the road if this practice starts to work it’s way into the middle and upper register. Working with the embouchure motion, jaw position, and horn angle in the middle and upper register can help these players learn how these minute changes work, which then can help them open up the low register without resorting to horn angle and jaw position change you’re advocating here. I should mention, however, that my ideas here are probably not the majority opinion, but I do think the logic that this is based on is sound and have had success helping students learn how to descend in this way.
8. In your next slide you discuss “Non Pivot.” If you define pivot the way Reinhardt did (what I prefer to call the embouchure motion), then all players will pivot to some degree or another. If you’re defining it as a horn angle change, then not all players will tilt their horn to change registers. Of those players who don’t, some will possibly play better if they do learn how to adapt their horn angle according to the register, as long as they learn how to make this work with their anatomy. This is something that is personal to the individual player and hard to generalize or relate to any specific embouchure or physical characteristics.
9. Almost all of your diagrams show a very large mouthpiece over the vermillion (red) of the lips and most seem to be perfectly centered. While a tubist’s embouchure might actually look like this, I’m not certain that this makes for the best or most accurate depiction of how mouthpiece placements work with brass embouchures. It implies that a centered placement is best (not typically true, one lip or another must predominate, sometimes to a large degree). There’s a lot more variation in how brass embouchures work and I’m not convinced that your diagrams make for the best way to present what works and what doesn’t work. While it’s very difficult to capture good photographs and video of players playing into a transparent mouthpiece, in my opinion this is the best way to go and really the only way to accurately document what you will actually see. Drawing diagrams may help present information, but they can also be misleading and I’ve found that many brass authors who rely on drawing diagrams to describe what goes on inside the mouthpiece are frequently wrong and simply imagining what they think should be happening rather than taking the effort to actually look. Philip Farkas is one example, in his book “The Art of Brass Playing” he described air stream direction completely wrong, but then later discovered upstream and downstream embouchures and published these photos in “A Photographic Study of 40 Virtuosi Horn Players’ Embouchures.” Many of your diagrams do match what I’ve observed using transparent mouthpieces, but some do not so I can’t tell how much actual study of functioning embouchures you’ve done to arrive at those depictions.
Criticism aside, there’s a lot in his presentation that I agree with. More importantly, I like that Hans is interested in sharing his information and taking a scientific approach to studying the embouchure, rather than the “arm chair” speculation that passes for embouchure analysis by many brass players and teachers. I think if more people would toss around ideas like this and make it easy for discussion and debate that the field as a whole would move forward more quickly than it tends to.