feedback

Sorry about neglecting my site! It seems impossible that almost a year has passed since the last entry on these pages. Too many irons in the fire, I guess.

I was originally going to write something else for the first Soapbox, but fate intervened. ITG published a review of my book, and while some of you will think that I am nit-picking, I feel a need to clarify some "small" misrepresentations presented by the journal reviewer.

But first, I want to thank ITG for asking to look at the book, and for publishing a relatively neutral review. Considering how easy it is to put anything in a negative light, I appreciate that John Korak (the reviews editor) attempted to stick with exposition rather than opinion.

ITG has rather strict policies about reprinting articles, so I will merely excerpt a few of the reviewer's points here, that in my view are - at least - borderline inaccurate. The reviewer was Arthur Molitierno, who I have never met, from Wright State University.

Point by point:

1. The book review opened with the reviewers statement, "Designed primarily for middle school and high school players..." This is incorrect. It's true that my "lab" is mostly players in that age group, but the book is designed for anyone who craves a powerful embouchure. Of course, it's a big plus when players in their formative years gets exposed to these exercises. But there is very little in the book which specifically targets beginners or younger players.

2. Next the reviewer says: According to the author, the player can in most cases... "throw out the Arban book, the Clarke book (although he does suggest exercises from it in his lesson plan), and all other books of etudes because they have nothing to do with the basic problem, which is lip position."

That is a little misleading. The quote is correct, but he left out the first part of the paragraph, which begins with, "When struggling with embouchure mechanics..." Obviously, Arban and Clarke have their place in the trumpet world. It kind of bugs me to have to make this point, as it seems obvious, but he makes it sound like I consider the books to be worthless. Further, he implies that I use Clarke's exercises as part of my embouchure development method. That's false. I mentioned the Clarke technical book (but no specific exercises) in the suggested lesson plan section, not for chops building, but for fingering and general technique.

3. "As a practicing teacher, Smiley owes much to Jerome Callet, Claude Gordon, and Louis Maggio, and indirectly, to Donald Reinhardt."

Can't figure out how Reinhardt got in there! I guess that it sounded good to the reviewer, as Reinhardt was mentioned (for other reasons) twice in the book. But, he had virtually zero impact on me, as I was unaware of his approach until recently.

4. "While acknowledging a number of players and friends, he does not provide a bibliography or cite others who have developed similar techniques."

Huh? On the contrary, I believe in giving credit where credit is due. I specifically cited Callet for the pedals, Gordon for the holding out notes, Maggio for breathing exercises, and so on. So, I really don't understand what he means here. Yes, there is no formal bibliography. I didn't target the book to "scholarly researchers," or put in a lot of BS to impress somebody with my great knowledge. Instead, it's written to be down-to-earth readable, and practical to use.

Does a book on embouchure really need a bibliography?

5. "Smiley claims to have first discovered the roll-in technique in 1973 from a friend. The technique, and that of extending the jaw forward, anchoring the mouthpiece on the bottom lip, and blowing upward, however, can be found in the work of William N. Costello in the 1930's."

This is far off base. The reviewer latched onto a small point in the troubleshooting section (you know, where the bag-of-tricks techniques are located for players who are really struggling to figure it out) and made it sound like the core of my approach!!!!

Why would he do this?

The truth is, I was expecting it. As part of his bias, I learned beforehand that the reviewer is apparently quite an expert on Costello/Stevens. Sure enough, he felt compelled to bring Costello into my book review, even though the connection is tenuous at best. There were better correlations to be made. For example, had he instead brought some Ghitalla philosophy into the mix, as an example of similarity, I would have said, "Hey, this guy knows his stuff." But now I feel that he was using the opportunity to further his agenda as a fan of Costello.

I apologize if that sounds harsh. But I think that it is true.

To his credit, the reviewer also made some points that were right on, and he included several useful details that will most likely encourage players to visit this website.

They say in marketing that all publicity is good publicity. Still, I feel the need to pay close attention, and point out the uniqueness of my position, especially when scrutinized by a periodical as influential as the Journal. With a little more effort on their part, the similarities and differences between BE and other approaches could have been more clearly understood.

If we're not going for clarity, then what are we doing?

Note - some of this was originally posted on the Trumpet Herald BE forum.

Progress is a precious commodity, as those players who have been stuck on one level for years can testify

The BE exercises trigger breakthroughs, sometimes small, sometimes large. The exercises are the content.

It is the responsibility of the player to recognize the significance of these breakthroughs (consciously or unconsciously), to maximize their effect, and to eventually group the breakthroughs together into tangible, usable progress. This whole process is the context.

Some players are good at focusing on the content, but have poor contextual skills. Maybe they are young, and haven't developed them yet. Or, maybe they are severely left-brain dominant. Major researchers have concluded that the dominant right-brain context function is more primary to higher states of consciousness, and to an understanding of the world around us, than is the dominant left-brained content function.

Players who are too focused on content embody the Churchill quote in the book, about stumbling over truth without recognizing it. For some, having a private lesson teacher is the way to go, as the teacher can point out the context for them.

To learn from the BE book requires a certain amount of contextual skills.

The question is, can you recognize and maximize small breakthroughs? Or, do positive effects simply appear and then disappear, without your understanding how to replicate them?

For example, if you manage to get the RI exercises to work a single time, then you will eventually get them to work every single time if you have good contextual skills.

Contextual skills are critical. The obvious question is, how do you go about developing context skills, especially if such skills are largely unconscious? There will be an entire chapter devoted to this in my next trumpet book - whenever that is.