University of Illinois Press Council For Research in Music Education

Council for Research in Music Education
Music Majors' Perception of Flugelhorn and B, C, E, and Piccolo Trumpets

Author(s): John M. Geringer and Clifford K. Madsen
Source: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 166 (Fall, 2005), pp. 7-15
Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music Education
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319276 .
Accessed: 07/10/2014 16:19
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
.
University of Illinois Press and Council for Research in Music Education are collaborating with JSTOR to
digitize, preserve and extend access to Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 216.87.207.2 on Tue, 7 Oct 2014 16:19:26 PM
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Music
Majors' Perception
of
Flugelhorn
and
Bb, C, Eb,
and Piccolo
Trumpets
Geringer
and Madsen
Perception
of
Trumpets
John M.
Geringer
and Clifford K. Madsen
Center for Music Research
The Florida State
University
Tallahassee,
Florida
ABSTRACT
We
investigated
whether
university
music
major
students would be able to discriminate
among
the
flugelhorn,
and the
Bb, C, Eb, and Bb
piccolo trumpets. Sixty university
music
majors
listened
to
practice examples
and an
ascending
and
descending
one-octave scale
performed
on all
trumpets
in the same octave. Music
major
listeners were able to
identify
the
flugelhorn
(80% correct),
but
correct
responses
were near chance levels in
identification ofC,
Eb, and
piccolo trumpets,
with
the Bb
trumpet responses only slightly
more correct Written
descriptions of perceived differences
between the
trumpets
were
generally
similar with the
exception of
the
flugelhorn.
Because the
pic-
colo
trumpet
has a
different
tessitura,
it contributes
uniquely
to the
repertoire.
However,
it
may
be that
Bb, C, and Eb
trumpets
do not
provide idiosyncratic
elements to the sound
of
the
trumpet.
Further
study utilizing
actual
performance repertoire
should be
pursued
to address this
question.
INTRODUCTION
Western art music includes
repertoire
for
Bb, C, D, Eb,
and
piccolo trumpets. Composers
may specify
or indicate a
preference
for the
trumpet
to be used for a
particular passage
or
movement,
and ensemble conductors
occasionally
have
suggestions
as well.
However,
professional trumpet players may
believe that
they
are more
acquainted
with the cir-
cumstances under which a choice for or
against
a
particular pitched
instrument should
be made. Buckner
(1989)
reported
a
variety
of criteria used
by
orchestral
trumpeters
who are involved in substitution
options
that included
accuracy, range,
endurance,
intonation, timbre,
technical
requirements, transposition,
and balance. Other factors
relevant to substitution were noted also:
availability
of
instruments,
psychological
ele-
ments,
influences of other
trumpeters,
and
experimentation.
To what extent do the
various
trumpets
contribute
uniquely
to listeners'
perception
of sound? In the
present
study,
we
investigated
whether
university
music
major
students would be able to dis-
criminate
among
the
flugelhorn,
Bb, C, Eb,
and Bb
piccolo trumpets.
There have been a number of
empirical investigations regarding
some of the factors
cited
above,
including
studies of
trumpet
tone
quality
and intonation and additional
7
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2005 No. 1 66
factors
influencing judgments
of listeners. In an
early study,
Webster
(1951)
attempted
to
investigate
whether
poor trumpet
intonation is a factor
primarily
of the instrument
or the
performer.
Five
trumpet players performed
on the same instrument and intona-
tion differences as
large
as 28 cents were noted.
Experienced players
were found to com-
pensate
for the tendencies of the instrument whereas
inexperienced players
followed the
dictates of the instrument more
closely.
More
recently, Kopiez
(2003)
found no differ-
ences in the intonation of
professional trumpeters playing along
with
accompaniment
in
just
intonation or
equal temperament.
Fewer deviations were observed in the
equal
temperament
condition.
Figgs
(1981)
asked
university-level trumpet
students and ensemble directors to
discriminate
among trumpets
in three
price ranges.
Listeners were able to rate
particular
trumpets consistently,
but
preferences
were not consistent in
comparisons
of
excerpts
and isolated tones. Hanson
(1988)
compared
acoustical differences in
professional
quality
Bach and Monette C
trumpets,
and
subjective
comments on the tone
quality
of the two brands of
trumpets
were solicited from
principal trumpet players
in
major
American orchestras.
According
to acoustical
analyses,
the Monette
trumpet generally
produced
more
harmonics,
contained more
energy
in
high frequency regions,
and
provided
a more consistent
spectrum
than the Bach
trumpet. Subjective impressions
of the
professional players appeared
consistent with
objective analyses.
Kusinski
(1984)
investigated
the effects of
mouthpiece cups
and bores. Acoustical
analysis
of the wave-
forms
produced by mouthpieces
with different
cups
and bores showed little difference
in
amplitudes
or
strengths
of harmonics one
through
twelve in the sets of tones used.
Listeners were not able to
correctly identify trumpet
tones
performed
with different
cup
depths
or backbore
shapes.
Madsen and
Geringer
(1976)
and
Geringer,
Madsen,
and
Dunnigan
(2001)
stud-
ied listeners'
preferences
for intonation and tone
quality
in
trumpet performance.
In
the earlier
study,
listeners
preferred good
over bad
quality
in
unaccompanied
contexts,
however,
quality preferences
in the
accompanied
context were not
significantly
dif-
ferent. Preferences were
clearly
influenced
by
the intonation conditions to a
greater
extent than the
changes
in
quality.
In the 2001
studies, however,
tone
quality ratings
in
accompanied performances
were
generally higher
for the
good quality examples
across
intonation conditions. It was concluded that both intonation and tone
quality appear
extremely important
in listener
judgments. Slightly sharp
and in- tune
performances
were rated
higher consistently
than
very sharp
and all flat
performances.
Clark
(1995)
surveyed performance practices among leading
orchestral
trumpeters
to determine what
trumpets
and
mouthpieces
were
being
used
by
second
trumpet-
ers in U.S. orchestras in the
performance
of late-
19th-century
music and the factors
that affect the decision to use a
particular trumpet.
Buckner
(1989)
attempted
to
establish the criteria that are used
by
orchestral
trumpeters
to select an instrument for
particular passages
or
pieces
and to
identify pieces
for which most
trumpeters
use the
same substitute instrument. Buckner found that the reasons for substitution
given by
8
Geringer
and Madsen
Perception
of
Trumpets
trumpet professionals
included
primarily
the desire to increase
accuracy,
reduce
physi-
cal
demands,
and
provide
a wide
variety
of tone color. Little
consistency
was
reported
in instrument
usage
other than a trend to utilize
piccolo trumpets
for the most dif-
ficult
baroque repertoire
and for selected
twentieth-century compositions
that
specify
soprano
instruments.
In the
present study
we asked whether listeners are able to discriminate
among
various-
pitched trumpets.
Would
university
music
major
students be able to
identify
differences
among
the
flugelhorn
and
Bb, C, Eb,
and Bb
piccolo trumpets?
Of
particu-
lar interest was whether listeners would be able to
a)
identify
the
specific
instruments
correctly,
b)
provide
verbal
descriptions
of
perceived
differences between
them,
and
c)
whether
ratings
of intonation and tone
quality
would differ between the instruments.
METHOD
Performances
using
the various
trumpets
occurred in a studio
designed
for
making
audio
recordings
of small ensembles and solo
performers. Recording equipment
includ-
ed a Shure 57A
microphone
and a
Sony
59ES
digital
audio
tape
recorder. A
professional
trumpet player
with more than 1 5
years
of
experience
on the instruments
performed
two-octave concert Bb scales on
flugelhorn
and
Bb, C, Eb,
and Bb
piccolo trumpets.
A
metronome was used to
give
a
suggested tempo
for the scales to be
played
(80
beats
per
minute),
but was turned off
during
the actual
performance
session. A
tuning
meter
calibrated to
A4
=
440 Hz was also
provided
to the
performer during
the
recording
ses-
sion as a reference
point
for
tuning. Digital recordings
of the individual
trumpets
were
transferred
directly
to
computer
files via coaxial cable and a
24-bit, 96 KHz sound card
(M-Audio Audiophile
2496).
Sound files were edited to
produce
an
experimental
CD
with two
practice examples
and an
ascending
and
descending
one-octave scale in the
same
octave,
concert
Bb4
to
Bb5
(third
line in the treble clef to the octave
above)
on each
of the
trumpets.
Sound files were
analyzed using
the software
program
Praat
(2004).
Praat allows detailed
analysis
of
frequency
and waveform,
and is
extremely
accurate in
frequency analysis
(
.0001 Hz
according
to
Boersma, 1993).
Sound files were
sampled
by
Praat at a rate of 200 times
per
second in the
present study.
Participants
in the
perception aspect
of the
study
were 60
university upper-division
undergraduate
and
graduate
music
majors.
Listeners were tested in the same
regular
classroom and heard the
presentations
in one of four counterbalanced orders to
pre-
vent conceivable effects of
presentation
order. The music students were
given prepared
response
sheets and asked to
a)
identify
the
particular trumpet performing
each
scale,
b)
give
the
degree
of confidence that
they
had in each of their
identity judgments,
c)
provide
written
descriptions
of
perceived
differences,
and
d)
rate each scale
performance
regarding
intonation and tone
quality.
9
10
Geringer
and Madsen
Perception
of
Trumpets
Figure
1 .
Spectrograms
of scales for
A)
Bb
trumpet, B)
C
trumpet, C)
Eb
trumpet, D)
Bb
piccolo
trumpet,
and
E) flugelhorn.
RESULTS
We first
analyzed
the various
trumpet
scale
performances
for acoustical similarities and
differences. These
analyses
showed little difference in
performances
across the
trumpets
regarding
intonation
(mean
cent deviation
ranged
from 3-12 cents
per trumpet
with
standard deviations of
approximately
7
cents).
As is shown in
Figure
1,
analysis
of
spec-
trograms
of each
trumpet
for the scale
degrees
revealed consistent
similarity
between
the
Bb, C,
and Eb
trumpets (Figures
1A-1C).
The
flugelhorn spectrogram (Figure
IE)
reveals a
characteristically
"darker"
quality
(fewer
higher
harmonics
compared
to the
other
trumpets)
across the
ascending
and
descending
scale. The Bb
piccolo analysis
(Figure
ID)
shows
slightly "brighter" quality (greater higher
harmonic
energy compo-
11
nents),
and
particularly
in the
descending portion
of the
scale,
there is
energy
visible at
additional
partials compared
to the other
trumpets.
Initial
analysis
of
perception
data of the 60 listeners revealed that totals for the
individual
trumpets
were near chance levels
regarding
identification:
only
the
flugelhorn
was identified
correctly consistently (responses
were 80%
correct).
We decided to use
correct identification of the
flugelhorn
as the criterion for inclusion in the final data set.
Therefore,
responses
from
only
the 48
participants
who
correctly
identified the
flugelhorn
were used in the
analysis
summarized here. As can be seen in Table
1,
responses
from these
subjects
were
only slightly
above chance levels in correct identifications of the
piccolo
(23%),
Eb
(31%),
and C
(29%)
trumpets.
It can be seen that
responses
were more correct
for the Bb
trumpet
(56%),
although nearly
the same
percentage
(50%)
mislabeled the
C
trumpet
as the Bb.
Analysis
of correct
responses
showed that listeners did differentiate
overall,
X2 (9>
N=
192)
=
37.83,/?
< .001.
However,
there were no differences in
response
frequencies
between the Bb
trumpet
and C
trumpet, X2 (3,
N
=
96)
=
1.18,
p
> .75 or
between the Eb and
piccolo trumpets, X2 (3,
N=
96)
=
0.88,
p
> .80.
Response frequency
comparisons
for the individual
trumpets
showed no differences across
categories
for the
Eb and
piccolo trumpets (p
>
.40),
while
significant
differences
(using
the Bonferroni cor-
rection for
multiple comparisons)
were found for the Bb and C
trumpets (x2 (3,
N
=
48)
=
31.17,
/>
< .01
and^2 (3,
N
=
48)
=
20.67,
p
<
.01,
respectively).
Table 1
Response Percentages
of Listeners
Note: Numbers in bold
along diagonal
indicate correct
responses. Percentages
based on 48 listeners who
correctly
identified
flugelhorn.
Respondents
were asked to rate their
degree
of confidence in
identifying
the trum-
pets
on a
7-point
scale. Confidence
ratings
were similar for all
trumpets except
for the
flugelhorn.
Means for the
Bb, C, Eb,
and
piccolo trumpets
were between 3.3 and
3.7,
and standard deviations were also in a narrow
range
(1.4
to
1.7).
The mean
rating
of
confidence for the
flugelhorn
was
higher
(5.1).
The overall difference in confidence
ratings
was
significant
between the
trumpets,
F
(4, 188)
=
21.92,/?
< .001
(partial rf
=
.32),
with
only
the
flugelhorn significantly
different from the others. The listeners'
degree
of confidence was
relatively
accurate for the
flugelhorn,
but was not related to
correct identification for the other
trumpets.
12
Response Percentages
Actual Stimulus Bb
Trumpet
C
Trumpet
Eb
Trumpet
Bb Piccolo
Bb
Trumpet
56.3 29.2 6.3 8.3
C
Trumpet
50 29.2 12.5 8.3
Eb
Trumpet
16.7 25 31.3 27.1
Bb Piccolo 16.7 33 27 22.9
Geringer
and Madsen
Perception
of
Trumpets
Analysis
of
ratings
for intonation and tone
quality
showed no differences in
ratings
between intonation and tone
quality,
and no interaction between the five
trumpets
and
type
of
rating.
However,
there was a difference between
aggregate ratings
for the five
trumpets,
F
(4, 188)
=
6.35,
p
< .001
(partial rf
=
.12).
The overall
judged
intona-
tion/tone
quality
mean for the C
trumpet
(5.03)
was
significantly
different than the
means for Eb
(4.57),
piccolo
(4.77),
and
flugelhorn
(4.51),
but not different from the
Bb
trumpet
(4.88).
Listeners were also asked to
give
written
descriptions
of the reasons for their iden-
tification of the
trumpets. Responses
were
unique only
for the
flugelhorn,
for which
there were 28 comments related to "darker" and "mellow" tone
quality.
Written com-
ments
given
for the other
trumpets
were similar to each
other,
particularly
for the Eb
and the
piccolo
(22
comments related to
brightness
and
highness
and 4 to a "forced"
tone).
Comments for the Bb and C
trumpets
also were in accordance
(18
comments
also concerned
brightness,
and 3 referred to a
"bigger"
sound
compared
to the other
trumpets).
DISCUSSION
There
appears
to be a
good
deal of "folk wisdom" that is in-common and
"passed-down"
within various music cultures
including
the sub-culture of
performing trumpeters.
Not
only
are various instrument brands identified as
being superior,
but
lively
debates
ensue
concerning
the
superiority/inferiority
of
mouthpieces,
materials,
different
bores,
backbores,
bell flares and so on. The
epistemological
basis for much of this is often an
"appeal
to
authority"
wherein the
receiving person
is
expected
to
just accept something
as
true,
or the method of a
priori,
where one is first told that there will be a difference
between
examples,
a "demonstration" is
given
and the
person/student
for whom the
demonstration is made is then
expected
to concur with the initial
premise.
Of
course,
most of this information is not
subjected
to
any
scientific
methodology by
which an
outcome can
possibly
be falsified.
Another issue
directly
related to music education is the
importance
of selection and
retention of
students,
especially
those who are
"economically disadvantaged."
While
many
students come from socio-economic
backgrounds
where
parents
are
easily capa-
ble of
purchasing
instruments, others,
especially very poor
children are often excluded
because the student's
parents
are not able to
purchase
an instrument.
Additionally,
as
students
progress through
a music
program
there is constant and sometimes unrelent-
ing pressure placed
on students to
up-grade
their instrument in order to
"progress
to the
next level" unencumbered
by
an "inferior" instrument.
Unfortunately
this often comes
from well-intentioned teachers but it also it also
permeates
the entire music education
culture. Indeed,
the exhibit arena connected with
many
music festivals and conferences
is one of the most well-attended and
largest
attractions of the entire event. Even a cur-
sory
walk
through
these exhibits will be
accompanied aurally by
the distinctive sound
13
of
yet
another
very eager
and
seemingly quite
confident
trumpet player testing
a new
instrument,
often
along
with a test of his
increasing range.
This business
culture,
which
is concomitant with most school music
programs,
is
ubiquitous
and
provides
continu-
ing pressure
on
every
student who attends such events.
In the
present study
most music
major
listeners were able to
identify
the
flugel-
horn,
but were unable to discriminate
consistently
between the
Bb, C, Eb,
and Bb
pic-
colo
trumpets.
Because the
piccolo trumpet
has a different
tessitura,
it would
appear
to
contribute
uniquely
to the
repertoire.
Schlabach
(1991)
suggested
that the real advan-
tage
of the
piccolo trumpet
is that it
places
the
lower,
more secure harmonics an octave
higher
than does the
B-flat,
which facilitates the
higher range.
Schlabach noted
also,
however,
that
players
do not have
substantially
more
range
on the
piccolo
than on the
standard B-flat. It seems reasonable to
speculate
that the
Bb, C,
and Eb
(and
perhaps
D
trumpets
as
well)
trumpets
do not
provide idiosyncratic
elements for the sound of the
trumpet
when embedded within music contexts. Further
study utilizing
actual
perfor-
mance
repertoire
should be
pursued
to address this
question.
It
may
be that the
primary
criteria for
selecting
a
particular trumpet
should be
performance accuracy
and
performer
comfort.
Although
there are
many
other different
studies that
ought
to be done
investigating using
different
examples, subjects, perform-
ers, instruments,
and so
on,
this
study clearly
illustrates that most musician listeners
are not able to differentiate between the
various-pitched trumpets.
The
flugelhorn
was
clearly
differentiated from the others. In a less discrete
separation,
the Bb and C
trumpets
were
judged by
some listeners as
slightly
different than the Eb and
piccolo.
Although
some
subjects'
verbal
descriptions
evidenced some
perceived
differentiations
(which
were also evidenced on the
spectrographic analyses),
this
study
did not find the
evidence that would
underpin
the assumed distinctions that are found within the trum-
pet
culture
concerning
the different timbres of these instruments.
Indeed,
scientific
literature is
replete
with demonstrations
indicating
that
many apparently
discernible
properties
of sound in
isolation,
and which can be identified
acoustically,
cannot be
discriminated when
occurring
within a musical context. Such is
perhaps
the case in this
study.
Further
investigations
need to
pursue
the manifold
topics concerning
this and
other issues of
perception
within a musical context.
REFERENCES
Boersma, P.
(1993).
Accurate short-term
analysis
of the fundamental
frequency
and the
harmonics-to-noise ratio of a
sampled
sound. IFA
Proceedings,
1/ \ 97-1 10.
Buckner, J.
R.
(1989).
Substitution of
trumpets
in orchestral music:
Origins, development,
and
contemporary practices.
Dissertation Abstracts International, A 51 (01),
13.
Clark,
P. K.
(1995).
The characteristics of the instrument used
by
second
trumpeters
in American
orchestras to
perform
late
nineteenth-century
orchestral literature. Dissertation Abstracts
International, A 56" (08), 2925.
14
Geringer
and Madsen
Perception
of
Trumpets
Figgs,
L. D.
(1981). Qualitative
differences in
trumpet
tones as
perceived by
listeners and
by
acoustical
analysis. Psychology of
Music, 9
(2), 54-62.
Geringer, J.
M., Madsen,
C. K., &C
Dunnigan,
P.
(2001).
Trumpet
tone
quality
versus intonation
revisited: Two extensions. Bulletin
of
the Council
for
Research in Music Education, 148,
65-76.
Hanson,
E E.
(1988).
Trumpet
timbre: A
comparative investigation
of the tone
quality
of two
professional
C
trumpets.
Dissertation Abstracts International,
A 49
(08),
2013.
Kopiez,
R.
(2003).
Intonation of harmonic intervals:
Adaptability
of
expert
musicians to
equal
temperament
and
just
intonation. Music
Perception,
20
(4),
383-410.
Kusinski,
J.
S.
(1984).
The effect of
mouthpiece cup depth
and backbore
shape
on listeners'
categorizations
of tone
quality
in recorded
trumpet excerpts.
Dissertation Abstracts
International,
A 45 (04),
1065.
Madsen, C. K. &
Geringer, J.
M.
(1976).
Preferences for
trumpet
tone
quality
versus intonation.
Bulletin
of
the Council
for
Research in Music Education, 46, 13-22.
Praat
[Computer
software]. (2004). Amsterdam,
The Netherlands: Institute of Phonetic Sciences,
University
of Amsterdam
(Version 4.2).
Schlabach, J. (1991).
Piccolo
trumpet misconceptions.
Instrumentalist, 46
(5),
52-55.
Webster, J.
C.
(1951).
Measurable differences
among trumpet players.
Music Teachers National
Association 1949
Proceedings,
43, 134-152.

University of Illinois Press Council For Research in Music Education

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

University of Illinois Press Council For Research in Music Education

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Council for Research in Music Education

Music Majors' Perception of Flugelhorn and B, C, E, and Piccolo Trumpets

Anda mungkin juga menyukai