TubaForum.net

I think mouthpiece buzzing is seriously overrated.

People usually defend it by saying it improves airflow nd helps you “hear the notes before you play it.” But if those are the goals, why not just sing the phrase and then do a breath pattern?

Buzzing on the mouthpiece feels very different from actually playing the tuba. The resistance is different, the feedback is different, and my face has to work differently. Then I put the mouthpiece into the horn and suddenly the whole system changes. So I’m not convinced that spending a bunch of time getting better at free buzzing or mouthpiece buzzing necessarily means you’re getting better at playing the tuba.

If I want better pitch, I can sing. If I want better airflow, I can breathe/blow the phrase. If I want to improve my embouchure and sound production, why wouldn’t I just do that on the actual instrument?

I’m not saying buzzing has zero value. It can probably be useful as a quick diagnostic or for certain specific problems. But the idea that it should be a standard daily exercise for every brass player seems more like tradition than something we should automatically accept.

"Song and Wind" can be accomplished without using the mouthpiece, often with better results. At least for me.

I always put my pinky near the end of the shank to provide the backpressure I am used to feeling from a horn. Otherwise, yeah, it turns into just "how quickly can I empty my lungs" exercise.

Now, is this useful for instruments where the airflow is already restricted simply by the size of the mouthpiece enough? Sure. Possibly. I don't know for certain since my first brass instrument was tuba back in 1985. But, assuming something that works for trumpet will work for tuba is how we get silly things like old school drum corps music all being written in treble clef.

These type of posts can be annoying because almost every one of them eventually becomes the same decades-old argument over whether mouthpiece buzzing is good or bad.

Yes, buzzing a mouthpiece feels different from playing the tuba. The full instrument supplies acoustic impedance and resonant feedback that the mouthpiece alone does not. But that difference does not make buzzing pointless—it is partly what makes it useful. The instrument can help “slot” a pitch, while the mouthpiece leaves the player more responsible for producing and sustaining the intended frequency. That can expose an uncertain pitch target, an unfocused response, or poor coordination between the air and the lips.

Singing and breath patterns are valuable, but they are not complete substitutes. Singing trains the ear and musical concept without using the brass embouchure. A breath pattern moves air without coordinating that air with vibrating lips. Mouthpiece buzzing combines the pitch concept, airflow and lip vibration, although admittedly without the complete instrument attached. These are related exercises serving different purposes not interchangeable versions of the same task.

At the same time, buzzing should not be oversold. A ten-week study involving 43 sixth-grade beginning brass students found no statistically significant improvement in intonation or tone quality from adding a daily teacher-modeled buzzing routine. The results leaned slightly positive, but not enough to establish a reliable effect. That is a limited study of beginners, so it neither proves that buzzing works for everyone nor that it is useless. It does show that claims about universal benefits should be made cautiously.

Source: Jason W. Beghtol, “The Effect of a Researcher Composed Mouthpiece Buzzing Routine on the Intonation and Tone Quality of Beginning Band Brass Students,” University of Mississippi, 2017: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/714/

The practical conclusion is simple: if buzzing produces a measurable improvement in your playing, use it. If it creates tension, distorts your approach or provides no benefit, don’t. It is a pedagogical tool, not a requirement and not a religion.

And there is no reason to drag “Song and Wind” into every discussion of it. Buzzing existed as a brass-teaching practice before the modern “Song and Wind” label, and it is not owned by that particular school of thought. Arnold Jacobs used it as one diagnostic and teaching device among many not as the Holy Grail of brass playing.

We can discuss the assets and liabilities of the tool without either canonizing it or knocking it simply because it does or does not work for one particular player.

I’ve buzzed the mouthpiece for 20 years and I can say that it’s helped me as a player. I’m also confident in saying I can still play the tuba at a high level of quality without doing it.

Porky wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2026 12:57 pm These type of posts can be annoying because almost every one of them eventually becomes the same decades-old argument over whether mouthpiece buzzing is good or bad.

Yes, buzzing a mouthpiece feels different from playing the tuba. The full instrument supplies acoustic impedance and resonant feedback that the mouthpiece alone does not. But that difference does not make buzzing pointless—it is partly what makes it useful. The instrument can help “slot” a pitch, while the mouthpiece leaves the player more responsible for producing and sustaining the intended frequency. That can expose an uncertain pitch target, an unfocused response, or poor coordination between the air and the lips.

Singing and breath patterns are valuable, but they are not complete substitutes. Singing trains the ear and musical concept without using the brass embouchure. A breath pattern moves air without coordinating that air with vibrating lips. Mouthpiece buzzing combines the pitch concept, airflow and lip vibration, although admittedly without the complete instrument attached. These are related exercises serving different purposes not interchangeable versions of the same task.

At the same time, buzzing should not be oversold. A ten-week study involving 43 sixth-grade beginning brass students found no statistically significant improvement in intonation or tone quality from adding a daily teacher-modeled buzzing routine. The results leaned slightly positive, but not enough to establish a reliable effect. That is a limited study of beginners, so it neither proves that buzzing works for everyone nor that it is useless. It does show that claims about universal benefits should be made cautiously.

Source: Jason W. Beghtol, “The Effect of a Researcher Composed Mouthpiece Buzzing Routine on the Intonation and Tone Quality of Beginning Band Brass Students,” University of Mississippi, 2017: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/714/

The practical conclusion is simple: if buzzing produces a measurable improvement in your playing, use it. If it creates tension, distorts your approach or provides no benefit, don’t. It is a pedagogical tool, not a requirement and not a religion.

And there is no reason to drag “Song and Wind” into every discussion of it. Buzzing existed as a brass-teaching practice before the modern “Song and Wind” label, and it is not owned by that particular school of thought. Arnold Jacobs used it as one diagnostic and teaching device among many not as the Holy Grail of brass playing.

We can discuss the assets and liabilities of the tool without either canonizing it or knocking it simply because it does or does not work for one particular player.

I’ve buzzed the mouthpiece for 20 years and I can say that it’s helped me as a player. I’m also confident in saying I can still play the tuba at a high level of quality without doing it.

Porky is consistently posting the most level-headed takes on this forum.

Buzzing is a tool. It's up to you whether it's a tool that works for you. It's not a panacea and it's not completely detrimental, either. Some players incorporate it into their daily routines and their pedagogical approach, some do not. For me personally, I don't do much buzzing and never really have. My teacher in college did not advocate for it so it's nothing I ever did. But I've found that it's useful in some pedagogical scenarios on a student-by-student basis.

In that vein, I think this is a good point:

AvrTuba wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2026 11:13 am I’m not saying buzzing has zero value. It can probably be useful as a quick diagnostic or for certain specific problems. But the idea that it should be a standard daily exercise for every brass player seems more like tradition than something we should automatically accept.

It's a way to hit lips against each other (no instrument) and try to make sounds that are in-tune...but it's not the same thing that we do with our lips when a mouthpiece is inserted into an instrument. I suppose it's close enough (??) to what we do with our lips (when vibrating an instrument's air column) to offer some sort of limited benefits...but it might be best to vibrate the lips (without them touching each other) through the instrument.

Maybe ??) there's some length of tube to add ONTO the end of a tuba mouthpiece (short enough for the fundamental sine wave length of that added tuba to be above the range of the tuba, but long enough to provide enough resistance whereby the lips will vibrate as they ACTUALLY do when playing.

That way, someone could practice creating vibrations as they actually do when playing, while striving to control pitch without the benefit of "leaning on" the pitches defined by the length of a tuba's column of air.

Doing this with a trumpet mouthpiece "works" because trumpet mouthpieces are (in comparison to the length of instrument being played) four times as long...so trumpet players are ACTUALLY vibrating THEIR lips in the same manner that they do (with the mouthpiece only) when playing their instruments.

Of course, since I just described this (above) social media IMMEDIATELY puts THIS picture into my "feed"...

but yeah...this:

I've rarely buzzed with a mouthpiece except when directly instructed. And free buzzing is right out. The main issue I've had with buzzing is that it's too different from the act of playing; being good at buzzing is a separate skill. But back in January I was trying to solve a playing problem on my Willson tubas, namely an unintentional gap between slurred notes, especially G-up-to-B in the staff on CC tuba. I had a deeply seated habit of buzz-glissing, something I got away with on euphonium, baritone and compensating E♭ tuba. Slotting works differently somehow on the non-compensating tubas that I don't have a clear understanding of, and good air support was reducing, but not eliminating the problem. Anyway, my teacher had me do some buzzing exercises, and they didn't help, but I decided to try a BERP to reduce the differences between buzzing and playing. Buzzing with the BERP works for me really, really well; it feels almost exactly like playing, but I can hear if my pitch centering is slow or off. I don't routinely buzz, but the BERP is extremely effective for fixing issues with slotting, whether small or large intervals.

Lest I sound like an advertisement for BERP, let me add that the #6 size is incorrectly sized for Euro shank mouthpieces, and after ruining one with a Morse taper reamer that didn't have the right tip diameter, I spent a princely sum on a correctly sized Jarno taper reamer to make the #6 work correctly. Were I to do it over again, I might manufacture my own BERP-like device from scratch.

BERP offers a potential for supplying a similar amount of RESISTANCE to that which encourages the lips to vibrate JUST AS THEY DO WHEN PLAYING, but - with most any BERP (to achieve this) a large percentage of the available openings need to be shut off.

je wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2026 5:34 pm Anyway, my teacher had me do some buzzing exercises, and they didn't help, but I decided to try a BERP to reduce the differences between buzzing and playing. Buzzing with the BERP works for me really, really well; it feels almost exactly like playing, but I can hear if my pitch centering is slow or off. I don't routinely buzz, but the BERP is extremely effective for fixing issues with slotting, whether small or large intervals.

I like the BERP for practice when the only time I have is when everyone else is asleep. II usually have it on the Conn 20J, which is what I usually use to practice my sousaphone stuff. can have it attached to the tuba, and "play" along with working the valves. It definitely isn't the same as actually playing but it is a good substitute to refresh charts I haven't played in a year or so for an upcoming gig...

If doing the B.E.R.P. thing with the valves and all that stuff and taping over enough of the holes to where it feels the most like playing the instrument and the lips aren't hitting against each other but are vibrating individually as they are supposed to...

About the most insightful thing is to play through an entire etude (not particularly rewarding and pretty taxing) and then check the final pitch and see where you are.

Buzzing for me has been most effective as a tool for encouraging airflow. A lot of people who find buzzing ineffective aren't supporting the buzz enough because it's way way more air than you need on the horn - so it is different from playing a real instrument. Yes, it takes a lot more air to pressurize the mouthpiece for a proper buzz when you don't have the resistance. You have to work pretty hard on flow and control to maintain that air pressure in a line of music. Without it, muscle tension creeps in and that is where buzzing can be detrimental. This happens with young players especially because they lack the self-awareness to tell when their lips are doing the right thing.

BUT if you develop the habit of moving enough air to feel that back pressure consistently and get used to that feeling on the mouthpiece, it becomes super easy on the instrument. It's comparable to the feeling of going back to a horn with a smaller leadpipe after playing a big German horn. It takes a lot less air to play the horn for real, and I find it helps alleviate the face tension that builds up from my bad air habits.

If keeping the air pressure steady and strong is something you struggle with, buzzing (and similar tools like BERP and the short hoses) is great for working on that. But if you're not buzzing with those things in mind, you're likely to run into trouble and find it doesn't help. If you don't have the specific problems that buzzing addresses, there are far better ways to address those - like playing the damn horn.

bloke wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2026 7:16 pm BERP offers a potential for supplying a similar amount of RESISTANCE to that which encourages the lips to vibrate JUST AS THEY DO WHEN PLAYING, but - with most any BERP (to achieve this) a large percentage of the available openings need to be shut off.

Yep, I have two of the four holes covered with electrical tape, and the slider covering something under half of one of the remaining two holes. Resistance feels similar to that of the tuba.

Thumbs up to Porky. IMO, it's a tool...an exercise. Squats and leg presses are nothing like mashing bike pedals but most competitive cyclists hit the gym for some strength training as a part of their routine (sorry if the cycling reference is too off-topic, but it's about the only sport that I'm personally familiar with). I have recommended the tubing solution that bloke shows as it (1) gives a bit of "feedback" at the lips (...I'm a geek, but not a physics geek so I won't speculate on whether it's a standing wave or backpressure...), (2) provides a little amplification so it's easier to hear yourself when buzzing as you drive to the gig, and (3) provides some protection against dribbling spit in your lap when buzzing as you drive to the gig if the "set" in the tubing is aimed at the ceiling.

However, probably the most benefit that I get from buzzing is by trying to buzz as softly and steadily as possible, which feels TO ME like it gets closer to the actual buzz on the horn. Again, another cycling reference--souplesse--effortless, smooth pedaling produced by focusing on remaining supple while doing the same thing over-and-over-and-over again. I feel a benefit to minimizing my air use while keeping my throat open, lips lightly touching, and concentrating on a stable, steady, and efficient buzz. That's very different from what I expect folks who describe buzzing as emptying their lungs as fast as possible.

Anyone else ever try approaching buzzing like this?

I used to be a HUGE buzzer, and now I don't buzz nor teach it.

My best friend was diagnosed with focal dystonia, and after not getting any better, he went to Jan Kagarice, who is a world renown expert on it and has help top level musicians recover. Some of those names that have been open about it have been Phil Smith and David Vining, but there are several equal names from what she has told clients. She said something along the lines that "buzzing is the worst thing you can do as a brass player". I thought this was pedagogical quackery, then I heard Christian Lindberg admit that he stopped buzzing.

My best friend could hear when he suspected brass players buzzed due to slow slur changes and response issues, though I can't always hear it. He challenged me to not buzz for a month and report back, and it was at a time I didn't have many gigs and was just doing a bunch of summer teaching so I decided to try it, while still teaching it.

The month was almost up and I was working with a beginner and I tried to demonstrate buzzing and then played my horn, and the center was off, slurs were slow for several minutes, and I felt the control was uncomfortably different. I tried buzzing again and personally felt this, and ironically, I felt I had more command of my playing (with less time actually able to sit down and practice) than I did when I would buzz 20 or more minutes a day. I was called out for my sacreligious stance on not buzzing, and was told I buzzed wrong, that I did the Chicago style with more pressure, and that I should do the Stamp style that was very "hoo-ey" and low pressure. I tried that, and though it was different, I thought it didn't help, so I stopped buzzing. When I had my students stop buzzing, I didn't hear any negative in their playing, and pedagogically, I would rather them make sound and develop the actual sound on their horn when maximizing their practice time. Those who have to leave on trips before big auditions, I do recommend bringing a mouthpiece, but I have found singing and just listening have done equal effects. I have used it as a tool scarcely in teaching, when I feel it might help or at least trick student's mind, as I believe the way we perceive the sound in our head is how we will produce it. I do wind pattern exercises with students, sing it, and focus breathing exercises off the horn to emulate unrestricted flow.

I have found that many top artists I like and enjoy their sound, such as David Zerkel, colleagues I have played with over the years, don't buzz. There are many who do buzz, and several others that buzz less and less.

I also find that I would rather replicate the horn, and would rather work on the horn than on the mouthpiece, as the back pressure and flow are quite different on the mouthpiece, and I have found that mouthpiece buzzing creates unneeded pressure and tension (and from my years of doing it, I have ingrained pressure on the mouthpiece).

With that being said, I have found a hose at the end does help, but then you are fighting the pitch center of that length of tubing (did a cut garden hose demonstration for a school run out concert with a quintet). We also buzzed a tune on the mouthpieces, and ironically when we put the mouthpieces back in, the trumpets and horn were cracking and splitting notes. I did study with Roger Rocco, who had the original BERP, which was a separate tool to put in the leadpipe that had a slotted opening to let the air out.

My findings are similar to what others have said, I don't feel it helps, and depends on who you ask, it might or might not hurt.

I was once described something about alcoholics. Many alcoholics are so addicted, they want others to drink and become alcoholics. There are plenty of people who drink beer responsibly that aren't alcoholics. I have found some buzzers act like the alcoholic definition--because someone doesn't buzz, then they are doing everything wrong and MUST buzz, while others are able to do it and have no issue nor command others to do such. It doesn't matter what others do if they are able to produce quality results.

Porky wrote: Wed Sep 02, 2026 12:57 pm These type of posts can be annoying because almost every one of them eventually becomes the same decades-old argument over whether mouthpiece buzzing is good or bad.
Yes, buzzing a mouthpiece feels different from playing the tuba. The full instrument supplies acoustic impedance and resonant feedback that the mouthpiece alone does not. But that difference does not make buzzing pointless—it is partly what makes it useful. The instrument can help “slot” a pitch, while the mouthpiece leaves the player more responsible for producing and sustaining the intended frequency. That can expose an uncertain pitch target, an unfocused response, or poor coordination between the air and the lips.
Singing and breath patterns are valuable, but they are not complete substitutes. Singing trains the ear and musical concept without using the brass embouchure. A breath pattern moves air without coordinating that air with vibrating lips. Mouthpiece buzzing combines the pitch concept, airflow and lip vibration, although admittedly without the complete instrument attached. These are related exercises serving different purposes not interchangeable versions of the same task.
At the same time, buzzing should not be oversold. A ten-week study involving 43 sixth-grade beginning brass students found no statistically significant improvement in intonation or tone quality from adding a daily teacher-modeled buzzing routine. The results leaned slightly positive, but not enough to establish a reliable effect. That is a limited study of beginners, so it neither proves that buzzing works for everyone nor that it is useless. It does show that claims about universal benefits should be made cautiously.
Source: Jason W. Beghtol, “The Effect of a Researcher Composed Mouthpiece Buzzing Routine on the Intonation and Tone Quality of Beginning Band Brass Students,” University of Mississippi, 2017: https://egrove.olemiss.edu/etd/714/
The practical conclusion is simple: if buzzing produces a measurable improvement in your playing, use it. If it creates tension, distorts your approach or provides no benefit, don’t. It is a pedagogical tool, not a requirement and not a religion.
And there is no reason to drag “Song and Wind” into every discussion of it. Buzzing existed as a brass-teaching practice before the modern “Song and Wind” label, and it is not owned by that particular school of thought. Arnold Jacobs used it as one diagnostic and teaching device among many not as the Holy Grail of brass playing.
We can discuss the assets and liabilities of the tool without either canonizing it or knocking it simply because it does or does not work for one particular player.
I’ve buzzed the mouthpiece for 20 years and I can say that it’s helped me as a player. I’m also confident in saying I can still play the tuba at a high level of quality without doing it.

This.
Oh, and 186

russiantuba wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 7:58 pm I used to be a HUGE buzzer, and now I don't buzz nor teach it.

My best friend was diagnosed with focal dystonia, and after not getting any better, he went to Jan Kagarice, who is a world renown expert on it and has help top level musicians recover. Some of those names that have been open about it have been Phil Smith and David Vining, but there are several equal names from what she has told clients. She said something along the lines that "buzzing is the worst thing you can do as a brass player". I thought this was pedagogical quackery, then I heard Christian Lindberg admit that he stopped buzzing.

My best friend could hear when he suspected brass players buzzed due to slow slur changes and response issues, though I can't always hear it. He challenged me to not buzz for a month and report back, and it was at a time I didn't have many gigs and was just doing a bunch of summer teaching so I decided to try it, while still teaching it.

The month was almost up and I was working with a beginner and I tried to demonstrate buzzing and then played my horn, and the center was off, slurs were slow for several minutes, and I felt the control was uncomfortably different. I tried buzzing again and personally felt this, and ironically, I felt I had more command of my playing (with less time actually able to sit down and practice) than I did when I would buzz 20 or more minutes a day. I was called out for my sacreligious stance on not buzzing, and was told I buzzed wrong, that I did the Chicago style with more pressure, and that I should do the Stamp style that was very "hoo-ey" and low pressure. I tried that, and though it was different, I thought it didn't help, so I stopped buzzing. When I had my students stop buzzing, I didn't hear any negative in their playing, and pedagogically, I would rather them make sound and develop the actual sound on their horn when maximizing their practice time. Those who have to leave on trips before big auditions, I do recommend bringing a mouthpiece, but I have found singing and just listening have done equal effects. I have used it as a tool scarcely in teaching, when I feel it might help or at least trick student's mind, as I believe the way we perceive the sound in our head is how we will produce it. I do wind pattern exercises with students, sing it, and focus breathing exercises off the horn to emulate unrestricted flow.

I have found that many top artists I like and enjoy their sound, such as David Zerkel, colleagues I have played with over the years, don't buzz. There are many who do buzz, and several others that buzz less and less.

I also find that I would rather replicate the horn, and would rather work on the horn than on the mouthpiece, as the back pressure and flow are quite different on the mouthpiece, and I have found that mouthpiece buzzing creates unneeded pressure and tension (and from my years of doing it, I have ingrained pressure on the mouthpiece).

With that being said, I have found a hose at the end does help, but then you are fighting the pitch center of that length of tubing (did a cut garden hose demonstration for a school run out concert with a quintet). We also buzzed a tune on the mouthpieces, and ironically when we put the mouthpieces back in, the trumpets and horn were cracking and splitting notes. I did study with Roger Rocco, who had the original BERP, which was a separate tool to put in the leadpipe that had a slotted opening to let the air out.

My findings are similar to what others have said, I don't feel it helps, and depends on who you ask, it might or might not hurt.

I was once described something about alcoholics. Many alcoholics are so addicted, they want others to drink and become alcoholics. There are plenty of people who drink beer responsibly that aren't alcoholics. I have found some buzzers act like the alcoholic definition--because someone doesn't buzz, then they are doing everything wrong and MUST buzz, while others are able to do it and have no issue nor command others to do such. It doesn't matter what others do if they are able to produce quality results.

James, I don’t have a problem with you saying buzzing didn’t work for you. If you stopped doing it and you play better now, cool. Nobody can argue with your own experience.

What gets ridiculous is how you take your own experience and turn it into these absolute statements like you’ve somehow figured out brass playing for everybody.

You bring up Roger Rocco constantly like he is the holy grail and the end-all, be-all of brass pedagogy. Roger Rocco is obviously a great player and teacher, and I’m not taking anything away from him, but he is one person with one approach. His way is not the only way to play a brass instrument successfully.

There have been too many great players and teachers throughout history who have used buzzing in some form for you to just dismiss the entire concept as harmful. Jacobs used it. Farkas used it. Stamp used it. Bobo used it. Plenty of great modern players use it too. That doesn’t mean everybody needs to buzz, but it sure as hell means the issue is more complicated than “buzzing is bad.”

And the story about somebody supposedly being able to hear which players buzz because they have slower slurs or response problems? Come on, man. You cannot listen to somebody play and confidently diagnose mouthpiece buzzing as the reason for their problems. There are a thousand things that affect response, articulation and flexibility.

Same thing with focal dystonia. If somebody already has dystonia and a specialist removes certain repetitive activities during rehabilitation, that does not prove mouthpiece buzzing causes dystonia or that buzzing is somehow dangerous for normal healthy players. Those are two completely different things.

And if you and your quintet buzzed for 20 minutes and then cracked notes afterward, all that proves is that you buzzed for 20 minutes and then cracked some notes. It doesn’t prove causation. Hell, 20 minutes of buzzing might just be too much for you. That still doesn’t mean 5 minutes of controlled buzzing for pitch, airflow or embouchure coordination is destroying somebody’s playing.

What I really don’t understand with you is the certainty.

I honestly don’t think I have ever met a player who is so certain about so many things while having so little room for the possibility that somebody else’s approach might work.

You talk like these issues have all been settled and anybody who disagrees just hasn’t figured it out yet. Brass pedagogy doesn’t work like that. Different players have different physical setups, different strengths, different weaknesses and respond to different approaches.

And comparing teachers who advocate buzzing to alcoholics trying to get other people addicted is just silly. That isn’t evidence. That’s just inflammatory language.

If you want to say, “Buzzing screwed me up, I stopped doing it and I got better,” I’ll listen to that all day.

But when it becomes “buzzing ruins response, creates tension, contributes to dysfunction, I can basically hear who does it, Roger Rocco had the answer and everybody else has it wrong,” that’s where you lose me.

There is a massive difference between saying, “This pedagogy works for me,” and acting like your pedagogy is the truth.

That’s the BS I’m calling out.

Buzzing ones lips against each other isn't the same as what happens inside of mouthpiece with the mouthpiece inserted in the instrument, but (even though it's not the same thing) it can sensitize players to creating close to the correct frequencies without having the instrument to lean on. Buzzing long tones for "tone" - with no resistance to imitate the experience of playing the instrument (in my opinionated-ass opinion) is a waste of time, because (being quite redundant here) it's not the same as what happens inside the mouthpiece with the mouthpiece inserted into the instrument.

If they want to do this with buzzing.ok.
If they want to do this with singing, ok too...arguably better.
If they want to do with their mouthpiece inserted in a short length of tubing with their finger covering part of the end of it (until the amount of resistance felt imitates the amount felt when playing the instrument), then they can do it while recreating what actually happens with their lips when they're playing the instrument.

Even quite advanced players who claim to play by "feel" are likely going to run into trouble when their "feel" system has to discern between (as just a random example) a D above the staff and an E above the staff (contrabass tuba), particularly when the previous pitch played was something like A-flat below the staff, and with no point of reference nor context clues (other instrumentalists' pitches to match). What I'm saying is that their imagination needs to be able to hear the E or D above the staff that they are next required to subsequently play, rather than feeling it. This paragraph relates back to an earlier one... Using some sort of pitch generation that's personal, and doesn't require leaning on the instrument.

I do believe that a weakness of many student players is that their brains are not able to imagine the next pitch or group of pitches to be played, and - if and when they master the ability to do this - their ability to play improves by leaps and bounds.

As far as the argument going on is concerned, I'm not in it.

russiantuba wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 7:58 pm I used to be a HUGE buzzer, and now I don't buzz nor teach it.

My best friend was diagnosed with focal dystonia, and after not getting any better, he went to Jan Kagarice, who is a world renown expert on it and has help top level musicians recover. Some of those names that have been open about it have been Phil Smith and David Vining, but there are several equal names from what she has told clients. She said something along the lines that "buzzing is the worst thing you can do as a brass player". I thought this was pedagogical quackery, then I heard Christian Lindberg admit that he stopped buzzing.

My best friend could hear when he suspected brass players buzzed due to slow slur changes and response issues, though I can't always hear it. He challenged me to not buzz for a month and report back, and it was at a time I didn't have many gigs and was just doing a bunch of summer teaching so I decided to try it, while still teaching it.

The month was almost up and I was working with a beginner and I tried to demonstrate buzzing and then played my horn, and the center was off, slurs were slow for several minutes, and I felt the control was uncomfortably different. I tried buzzing again and personally felt this, and ironically, I felt I had more command of my playing (with less time actually able to sit down and practice) than I did when I would buzz 20 or more minutes a day. I was called out for my sacreligious stance on not buzzing, and was told I buzzed wrong, that I did the Chicago style with more pressure, and that I should do the Stamp style that was very "hoo-ey" and low pressure. I tried that, and though it was different, I thought it didn't help, so I stopped buzzing. When I had my students stop buzzing, I didn't hear any negative in their playing, and pedagogically, I would rather them make sound and develop the actual sound on their horn when maximizing their practice time. Those who have to leave on trips before big auditions, I do recommend bringing a mouthpiece, but I have found singing and just listening have done equal effects. I have used it as a tool scarcely in teaching, when I feel it might help or at least trick student's mind, as I believe the way we perceive the sound in our head is how we will produce it. I do wind pattern exercises with students, sing it, and focus breathing exercises off the horn to emulate unrestricted flow.

I have found that many top artists I like and enjoy their sound, such as David Zerkel, colleagues I have played with over the years, don't buzz. There are many who do buzz, and several others that buzz less and less.

I also find that I would rather replicate the horn, and would rather work on the horn than on the mouthpiece, as the back pressure and flow are quite different on the mouthpiece, and I have found that mouthpiece buzzing creates unneeded pressure and tension (and from my years of doing it, I have ingrained pressure on the mouthpiece).

With that being said, I have found a hose at the end does help, but then you are fighting the pitch center of that length of tubing (did a cut garden hose demonstration for a school run out concert with a quintet). We also buzzed a tune on the mouthpieces, and ironically when we put the mouthpieces back in, the trumpets and horn were cracking and splitting notes. I did study with Roger Rocco, who had the original BERP, which was a separate tool to put in the leadpipe that had a slotted opening to let the air out.

My findings are similar to what others have said, I don't feel it helps, and depends on who you ask, it might or might not hurt.

I was once described something about alcoholics. Many alcoholics are so addicted, they want others to drink and become alcoholics. There are plenty of people who drink beer responsibly that aren't alcoholics. I have found some buzzers act like the alcoholic definition--because someone doesn't buzz, then they are doing everything wrong and MUST buzz, while others are able to do it and have no issue nor command others to do such. It doesn't matter what others do if they are able to produce quality results.

My issue isn’t that you dislike buzzing. Plenty of great players do. It’s the certainty with which you take your own experience and a handful of opinions you respect and present them as if the matter is settled. At times it borders on delusional certainty, because these are complicated pedagogical questions and you talk about them as though there is one correct answer and you happen to have found it.

You also bring up Roger Rocco constantly, as though his name somehow ends the discussion. Roger is a great teacher and a great person, but he was never the final authority on brass pedagogy. His ideas deserve consideration, not worship. And frankly, invoking him over and over does not make a weak argument stronger. It just starts to sound like you need his name to give your opinions weight.

That is really the problem with a lot of what you say. The opinions are often far more absolute than they are intelligent. You take anecdotes, personal preferences, and secondhand stories and inflate them into universal truths. The claims about buzzing causing poor response, bad flexibility, tension, or neurological problems are not established facts just because you say them confidently.

The dystonia story proves nothing about healthy players. The idea that someone can “hear” who buzzes by their slurs is absurdly speculative. And a quintet cracking notes after buzzing is not evidence of causation. Those are anecdotes, not proof.

The alcoholism comparison was especially stupid. It did not make the point stronger; it made the whole argument sound juvenile.

You could make a perfectly respectable case by saying buzzing did not work for you and you prefer other methods. The problem is you rarely stop there. You keep taking personal experience and dressing it up as universal knowledge.

JC,

Not sure who you are, but I think you missed the concept of my post and didn’t read to the end, where I specifically said “ It doesn't matter what others do if they are able to produce quality results”.

I also think you didn’t read especially when I mentioned Jan Kagarice, who is the foremost expert on musician health and vocal dystonia recovery, has mentioned the dangers of it, one must think and consider that. She has done extensive medical research on the condition. Some people could eat rat poison every day and live to 100, while others could eat perfectly healthy and exercise and die at 40, but there are trends that go with both. Focal dystonia is still in its infancy of research, but this is something she has noticed and I’m sure a long term student of hers can go into more specifics than I ever could. Many I have known with it were healthy one day, and the next had the issues. It’s something to be aware of, not scared of.

Yes, I have mentioned Roger Rocco a bit over the years, and he buzzes a ton and promotes buzzing. However in this case, as many have mentioned the BERP, I just mentioned I have seen and experienced his original BERP which is a bit different than the modern ones. As I have also said, I have parted from his view directly on this but since it is brought up, I will go in further. As I have mentioned, I have found historically with Jacobs pedagogy, buzzing is the middle man of transferring the singing to buzzing to playing. At the end of Rocco’s ladder of awareness, the secret is “it’s just the singing”. I have adapted it and as I personally see it, cut out the middle man.

Not once did I say my answer was the correct answer or the end all, be all. In fact, I mentioned a few that have vocally mentioned they don’t buzz and several have advocated personally against it to me because there are several people out there that say if you don’t teach buzzing, you are hurting a student. One of the first lectures I did during my doctorate for a brass methods class at another university, the professor of the class wanted to ensure I harped over and over about the importance of buzzing, because the chair, the trumpet professor, didn’t teach it to his students and she wanted to ensure that buzzing was required of all brass players otherwise they would not center notes or effectively play.

I also mentioned that it doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you get the results. I’m sure you will find people who will claim they can tell someone doesn’t buzz and claim all their issues are that (and they may identify people who do buzz as some who don’t, as you claim with me). I use my experiences in teaching and what I have seen, discussions with colleagues, and I have used it very scarcely in teaching since I quit, experiences, some might be ironic like the 3 minutes with the garden hoses after playing the piece and then buzzing, garden hose, then playing the section. Buzzing might help some people in the opposite way.

I have seen very pointed remarks over the years totally dismissing people who don’t buzz as effective pedagogues, and that was my point about addicts. Addicts sometimes feel others need to be addicts. As I get older and the area l live currently, I have seen it. If buzzing works for you, great. But forcing the ideas on others and claiming that not teaching it is bad, that is part of the problem. I never claimed to give an absolute, but showed my side of it.

————————

Effective pedagogy and instruction results in taking information from several sources over the years combined with real world experience, adapt it into my own playing, and specifically adapting it in quick time when teaching. For the most part, I attempt to teach what I practice when modeling plans with students, things like slow practice, drone work, singing, expansive lip slurs. However, a lot of the specific things I teach are things that I don’t do, whether it’s a fingering, a breath or phrase point, an exercise, things I have tried myself and didn’t work, but pulling things out that specifically tailor to a student’s need, pulling it out of my bag of tricks when needed, several options, in order to have a student independently aware of a musical result and as they progress, make and defend the decisions and actions they choose to do.

russiantuba wrote: Thu Sep 10, 2026 9:34 pm JC,

Not sure who you are, but I think you missed the concept of my post and didn’t read to the end, where I specifically said “ It doesn't matter what others do if they are able to produce quality results”.

I also think you didn’t read especially when I mentioned Jan Kagarice, who is the foremost expert on musician health and vocal dystonia recovery, has mentioned the dangers of it, one must think and consider that. She has done extensive medical research on the condition. Some people could eat rat poison every day and live to 100, while others could eat perfectly healthy and exercise and die at 40, but there are trends that go with both. Focal dystonia is still in its infancy of research, but this is something she has noticed and I’m sure a long term student of hers can go into more specifics than I ever could. Many I have known with it were healthy one day, and the next had the issues. It’s something to be aware of, not scared of.

Yes, I have mentioned Roger Rocco a bit over the years, and he buzzes a ton and promotes buzzing. However in this case, as many have mentioned the BERP, I just mentioned I have seen and experienced his original BERP which is a bit different than the modern ones. As I have also said, I have parted from his view directly on this but since it is brought up, I will go in further. As I have mentioned, I have found historically with Jacobs pedagogy, buzzing is the middle man of transferring the singing to buzzing to playing. At the end of Rocco’s ladder of awareness, the secret is “it’s just the singing”. I have adapted it and as I personally see it, cut out the middle man.

Not once did I say my answer was the correct answer or the end all, be all. In fact, I mentioned a few that have vocally mentioned they don’t buzz and several have advocated personally against it to me because there are several people out there that say if you don’t teach buzzing, you are hurting a student. One of the first lectures I did during my doctorate for a brass methods class at another university, the professor of the class wanted to ensure I harped over and over about the importance of buzzing, because the chair, the trumpet professor, didn’t teach it to his students and she wanted to ensure that buzzing was required of all brass players otherwise they would not center notes or effectively play.

I also mentioned that it doesn’t matter what you do, as long as you get the results. I’m sure you will find people who will claim they can tell someone doesn’t buzz and claim all their issues are that (and they may identify people who do buzz as some who don’t, as you claim with me). I use my experiences in teaching and what I have seen, discussions with colleagues, and I have used it very scarcely in teaching since I quit, experiences, some might be ironic like the 3 minutes with the garden hoses after playing the piece and then buzzing, garden hose, then playing the section. Buzzing might help some people in the opposite way.

I have seen very pointed remarks over the years totally dismissing people who don’t buzz as effective pedagogues, and that was my point about addicts. Addicts sometimes feel others need to be addicts. As I get older and the area l live currently, I have seen it. If buzzing works for you, great. But forcing the ideas on others and claiming that not teaching it is bad, that is part of the problem. I never claimed to give an absolute, but showed my side of it.

————————

Effective pedagogy and instruction results in taking information from several sources over the years combined with real world experience, adapt it into my own playing, and specifically adapting it in quick time when teaching. For the most part, I attempt to teach what I practice when modeling plans with students, things like slow practice, drone work, singing, expansive lip slurs. However, a lot of the specific things I teach are things that I don’t do, whether it’s a fingering, a breath or phrase point, an exercise, things I have tried myself and didn’t work, but pulling things out that specifically tailor to a student’s need, pulling it out of my bag of tricks when needed, several options, in order to have a student independently aware of a musical result and as they progress, make and defend the decisions and actions they choose to do.

James, you have a remarkable habit of responding to criticism by insisting that the other person simply “didn’t read” or “didn’t understand” what you wrote. You do it constantly, and at some point you need to consider the possibility that people understand you perfectly well and simply disagree with you.

I read your post. I read it to the end. Repeating “you didn’t read it” is not a rebuttal. It is an incredibly convenient way of avoiding criticism because it allows you to redefine every disagreement as somebody else’s failure of comprehension.

And frankly, this response illustrates the problem better than I ever could.

You now say, “Not once did I say my answer was the correct answer or the end all, be all.” Fine. Nobody needs you to literally type the words “I am unquestionably correct” for your writing to communicate an extraordinary degree of certainty. It is the accumulation of the rhetoric: the repeated warnings, the appeals to particular authorities, the anecdotes about people developing problems, the comparison of buzzing advocates to addicts, and now a comparison involving rat poison. Then, after constructing all of that, you retreat to, “Well, I never said everyone had to agree with me.”

Come on.

You cannot spend paragraph after paragraph loading one side of an argument with language about danger, addiction, focal dystonia, unhealthy behavior, and questionable pedagogy and then pretend you are merely offering a completely neutral “whatever works for you” observation.

The focal dystonia argument is particularly strange. Saying that someone knowledgeable in musician health has “noticed” something is not the same thing as establishing a causal relationship between mouthpiece buzzing and focal dystonia. Those are two enormously different claims. If there is credible research demonstrating that ordinary mouthpiece buzzing increases the incidence of focal dystonia in brass players, then cite it. That would be interesting and worth discussing.

But “many people I have known were healthy one day and had issues the next” proves absolutely nothing about buzzing.

Neither does comparing the situation to people eating rat poison.

That analogy is so wildly disproportionate that it actually undermines the point you are trying to make. Rat poison has a well-established toxic mechanism. You are using it as an analogy for a brass pedagogical technique practiced successfully for generations by countless professional players and teachers. Those things are not remotely comparable.

And this is exactly what I was criticizing in the first place: you routinely take an interesting pedagogical preference and inflate it into something much grander and more ominous than the evidence supports.

The Roger Rocco point is similar. I understand perfectly well what you are saying about the “ladder of awareness,” singing, buzzing, and eventually reaching the musical conception directly. That is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of the pedagogy. What I object to is the way certain names and personal conversations repeatedly get invoked as though they settle broader questions.

Roger Rocco can believe something. Jan Kagarice can believe something. Arnold Jacobs could believe something. Roger Bobo could believe something. They are all human beings with valuable experiences and ideas, not tablets coming down from Mount Sinai.

Brass pedagogy is full of outstanding players who reached extraordinary results through contradictory methods. That should make all of us a little more humble about declaring what is physiologically dangerous, pedagogically unnecessary, or responsible for somebody else’s playing problems.

And the “addict” comparison is still ridiculous.

A teacher who believes buzzing is useful is not analogous to an addict wanting other people to become addicts. That is inflammatory rhetoric masquerading as analysis. You could simply say, “I think some teachers prescribe buzzing too universally.” I would probably agree with you. Instead, you choose the most dramatic analogy available and then seem surprised when people interpret your position as extreme.

That is not people failing to read your posts. That is people reading the words you actually chose.

And for the record, I agree with one thing you keep saying: results matter. Different players may benefit from different approaches. Some players buzz extensively. Some buzz occasionally. Some hardly buzz at all. Excellent players exist in every category.

But if that is genuinely your position, then apply that same tolerance consistently.

You cannot complain about people dogmatically insisting that everyone must buzz while simultaneously constructing elaborate arguments suggesting buzzing may be dangerous, unnecessary, associated with dystonia, or comparable to an addictive behavior.

Those are two sides of the same dogmatic coin.

So please stop falling back on “you didn’t read my post” every time somebody challenges you. I read it. I understood it. I understand this response too.

I just don’t find the argument nearly as convincing as you seem to think it is.

Sometimes disagreement is simply disagreement. It is not evidence that everyone else in the room lacks reading comprehension or understanding.

JC,

If you actually read my post, you would realize that I was giving my experiences, discussions and research I have had on the topic, mentioning my strong background with buzzing, why I pulled away, and even taught it for a while when I did.

Buzzing is a controversial opinion in the brass world. I remember when Christian Lindberg announced he didn’t buzz and seems against it, there were attacks on his pedagogic mockeries. Many people I have met who don’t buzz have been closeted until more recently on the topic because they have been attacked on the topic.

This goes the same in many fields, even science, where people accept something as a truth, a fact, a requirement. Buzzing is sure that. A teacher would say you must buzz this, it makes you better, and anyone who challenges it would be bad. I know this because I was once one of those people. All my professors buzzed, other mentors and pedagogical schools I follow seemed to enforce it.

It was in fact, when my best friend got focal dystonia and went to Jan Kagarice, again the foremost expert on the topic, who mentioned it was a unhealthy practice, that caused me to think about what buzzing does and if it is needed, and though I still defended it and thought the same as you, I tried not doing it. I heard such improvements in his playing. Then, I had positive improvements in mine. Do you personally know or interact with someone who has focal dystonia? It is something I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy, seeing their strong ability take a total dive, and not only that, the mental and personal frustrations that arise from that. I know Jan studies it from the neurological level, and if I recall correctly, it causes certain triggers associated with dystonia. Again, it might not cause it with someone.

Pedagogically, I stopped teaching it because I believe there should be natural flow and input should feel as natural and the same as playing.

I’ve gotten used to it by now where I present something with buzzing, and those who swear by buzzing are triggered by it. I’ve been on both sides, and I feel it is equally important to give the opposing view so others are informed and can decide to make their own views. There is a euphonium player I know who studied with Kleinhammer, and when someone says something or plays something not as Kleinhammer would have said or done, he claims they are wrong and misinformed. Part of collectively growing as a person, but more so as a musician, is learning about multiple ways of doing things that work for several people and being aware of them.

Have you ever read David Vining’s The Breathing Book? I read it this past summer, and he debunks several myths from a scientific standpoint. Some I still teach, others I’ve adopted over the years through research, and some of those I’ve mentioned and received similar responses as this thread. I should warn you, if you are triggered by someone not buzzing, this book might need a warning label.

In fact, I recall you are in Ohio. I would love to meet up with you and discuss more and even give you the breathing book copy I have.