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: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319276
Accessed: 22-09-2019 18:08 UTC

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40319276?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

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.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

University of Illinois Press, 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

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geringer and Madsen Perception of Trumpets

Music Majors' Perception of

Flugelhorn and Bb, C, Eb,
and Piccolo 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 d
the flugelhorn, and the Bb, C, Eb, and Bb piccolo trumpets. Sixty university mu
to practice examples and an ascending and descending one-octave scale perform
in the same octave. Music major listeners were able to identify the flugelhorn
correct responses were near chance levels in identification ofC, Eb, and picc
the Bb trumpet responses only slightly more correct Written descriptions of pe
between the trumpets were generally similar with the exception of the flugelho
colo trumpet has a different tessitura, it contributes uniquely to the repertoir
be that Bb, C, and Eb trumpets do not provide idiosyncratic elements to the sou
Further study utilizing actual performance repertoire should be pursued to add

INTRODUCTION
Western art music includes repertoire for Bb, C, D, Eb, and piccolo t
may specify or indicate a preference for the trumpet to be used for
or movement, and ensemble conductors occasionally have suggestion
professional trumpet players may believe that they are more acquai
cumstances under which a choice for or against a particular pitched
be made. Buckner (1989) reported a variety of criteria used by orc
who are involved in substitution options that included accuracy,
intonation, timbre, technical requirements, transposition, and ba
relevant to substitution were noted also: availability of instruments
ments, influences of other trumpeters, and experimentation. To
various trumpets contribute uniquely to listeners' perception of sou
study, we investigated whether university music major students w
criminate among the flugelhorn, Bb, C, Eb, and Bb piccolo trumpet
There have been a number of empirical investigations regarding s
cited above, including studies of trumpet tone quality and inton

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2005 No. 1 66

factors influencing judgments of listeners. In an early study, Webster

to investigate whether poor trumpet intonation is a factor primarily of
or the performer. Five trumpet players performed on the same instrum
tion differences as large as 28 cents were noted. Experienced players we
pensate for the tendencies of the instrument whereas inexperienced play
dictates of the instrument more closely. More recently, Kopiez (2003) f
ences in the intonation of professional trumpeters playing along with
in just intonation or equal temperament. Fewer deviations were obser
temperament condition.
Figgs (1981) asked university-level trumpet students and ensemb
discriminate among trumpets in three price ranges. Listeners were able
trumpets consistently, but preferences were not consistent in compari
and isolated tones. Hanson (1988) compared acoustical differences i
quality Bach and Monette C trumpets, and subjective comments on
of the two brands of trumpets were solicited from principal trumpet
American orchestras. According to acoustical analyses, the Monette tr
produced more harmonics, contained more energy in high frequenc
provided a more consistent spectrum than the Bach trumpet. Subject
of the professional players appeared consistent with objective analyses.
investigated the effects of mouthpiece cups and bores. Acoustical analy
forms produced by mouthpieces with different cups and bores showed
in amplitudes or strengths of harmonics one through twelve in the set
Listeners were not able to correctly identify trumpet tones performed wi
depths or backbore shapes.
Madsen and Geringer (1976) and Geringer, Madsen, and Dunniga
ied listeners' preferences for intonation and tone quality in trumpet
the earlier study, listeners preferred good over bad quality in unaccom
however, quality preferences in the accompanied context were not s
ferent. Preferences were clearly influenced by the intonation condit
extent than the changes in quality. In the 2001 studies, however, tone q
accompanied performances were generally higher for the good quality
intonation conditions. It was concluded that both intonation and ton
extremely important in listener judgments. Slightly sharp and in- tun
were rated higher consistently than very sharp and all flat performanc
Clark (1995) surveyed performance practices among leading orchestr
to determine what trumpets and mouthpieces were being used by s
ers in U.S. orchestras in the performance of late- 19th-century music
that affect the decision to use a particular trumpet. Buckner (198
establish the criteria that are used by orchestral trumpeters to select an
particular passages or pieces and to identify pieces for which most tru
same substitute instrument. Buckner found that the reasons for substi
8

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geringer and Madsen Perception of Trumpets

trumpet professionals included primarily the desire to in

cal demands, and provide a wide variety of tone color. Lit
in instrument usage other than a trend to utilize piccol
ficult baroque repertoire and for selected twentieth-cent
soprano instruments.
In the present study we asked whether listeners are
various- pitched trumpets. Would university music majo
differences among the flugelhorn and Bb, C, Eb, and Bb
lar interest was whether listeners would be able to a) iden
correctly, b) provide verbal descriptions of perceived dif
whether ratings of intonation and tone quality would dif

METHOD
Performances using the various trumpets occurred in a studio designe
audio recordings of small ensembles and solo performers. Recording equip
ed a Shure 57A microphone and a Sony 59ES digital audio tape recorder. A
trumpet player with more than 1 5 years of experience on the instrume
two-octave concert Bb scales on flugelhorn and Bb, C, Eb, and Bb picco
metronome was used to give a suggested tempo for the scales to be pl
per minute), but was turned off during the actual performance session. A
calibrated to A4 = 440 Hz was also provided to the performer during the
sion as a reference point for tuning. Digital recordings of the individual
transferred directly to computer files via coaxial cable and a 24-bit, 96 K
(M-Audio Audiophile 2496). Sound files were edited to produce an expe
with two practice examples and an ascending and descending one-octa
same octave, concert Bb4 to Bb5 (third line in the treble clef to the octave
of the trumpets. Sound files were analyzed using the software program
Praat allows detailed analysis of frequency and waveform, and is extreme
frequency analysis (± .0001 Hz according to Boersma, 1993). Sound files
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
undergraduate and graduate music majors. Listeners were tested in the
classroom and heard the presentations in one of four counterbalanced
vent conceivable effects of presentation order. The music students were
response sheets and asked to a) identify the particular trumpet perform
b) give the degree of confidence that they had in each of their identity
provide written descriptions of perceived differences, and d) rate each sca
regarding intonation and tone quality.

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2005 No. 1 66

10

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geringer and Madsen Perception of Trumpets

Figure 1 . Spectrograms of scales for A) Bb trumpet, B) C trump

trumpet, and E) flugelhorn.

RESULTS
We first analyzed the various trumpet scale performances for acoustical
differences. These analyses showed little difference in performances acros
regarding intonation (mean cent deviation ranged from 3-12 cents per
standard deviations of approximately 7 cents). As is shown in Figure 1, an
trograms of each trumpet for the scale degrees revealed consistent simila
the Bb, C, and Eb trumpets (Figures 1A-1C). The flugelhorn spectrogr
reveals a characteristically "darker" quality (fewer higher harmonics co
other trumpets) across the ascending and descending scale. The Bb p
(Figure ID) shows slightly "brighter" quality (greater higher harmonic

11

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2005 No. 1 66

nents), and particularly in the descending portion of the scale, there is ener
additional partials compared to the other trumpets.
Initial analysis of perception data of the 60 listeners revealed that tot
individual trumpets were near chance levels regarding identification: only th
was identified correctly consistently (responses were 80% correct). We de
correct identification of the flugelhorn as the criterion for inclusion in the fin
Therefore, responses from only the 48 participants who correctly identified th
were used in the analysis summarized here. As can be seen in Table 1, responses
subjects were only slightly above chance levels in correct identifications of
(23%), Eb (31%), and C (29%) trumpets. It can be seen that responses were m
for the Bb trumpet (56%), although nearly the same percentage (50%) mi
C trumpet as the Bb. Analysis of correct responses showed that listeners did
overall, X2 (9> N= 192) = 37.83,/? < .001. However, there were no differences
frequencies between the Bb trumpet and C trumpet, X2 (3, N = 96) = 1.18
between the Eb and piccolo trumpets, X2 (3, N= 96) = 0.88, p > .80. Response
comparisons for the individual trumpets showed no differences across catego
Eb and piccolo trumpets (p > .40), while significant differences (using the Bon
rection for multiple comparisons) were found for the Bb and C trumpets (x2
= 31.17, /> < .01 and^2 (3, N = 48) = 20.67, p < .01, respectively).

Table 1
Response Percentages of Listeners

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

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

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geringer and Madsen Perception of Trumpets

Analysis of ratings for intonation and tone quality show

between intonation and tone quality, and no interaction b
type of rating. However, there was a difference between
trumpets, F (4, 188) = 6.35, p < .001 (partial rf = .12). T
tion/tone quality mean for the C trumpet (5.03) was sign
means for Eb (4.57), piccolo (4.77), and flugelhorn (4.51),
Bb trumpet (4.88).
Listeners were also asked to give written descriptions of
tification of the trumpets. Responses were unique only fo
there were 28 comments related to "darker" and "mellow
ments given for the other trumpets were similar to each o
and the piccolo (22 comments related to brightness and
tone). Comments for the Bb and C trumpets also were
also concerned brightness, and 3 referred to a "bigger"
trumpets).

DISCUSSION
There appears to be a good deal of "folk wisdom" that is in-comm
within various music cultures including the sub-culture of pe
Not only are various instrument brands identified as being super
ensue concerning the superiority/inferiority of mouthpieces, mat
backbores, bell flares and so on. The epistemological basis for mu
"appeal to authority" wherein the receiving person is expected to
as true, or the method of a priori, where one is first told that th
between examples, a "demonstration" is given and the person/
demonstration is made is then expected to concur with the init
most of this information is not subjected to any scientific me
outcome can possibly be falsified.
Another issue directly related to music education is the impor
retention of students, especially those who are "economically
many students come from socio-economic backgrounds where
ble of purchasing instruments, others, especially very poor child
because the student's parents are not able to purchase an instru
students progress through a music program there is constant an
ing pressure placed on students to up-grade their instrument in o
next level" unencumbered by an "inferior" instrument. Unfortu
from well-intentioned teachers but it also it also permeates the
culture. Indeed, the exhibit arena connected with many music fe
is one of the most well-attended and largest attractions of the en
sory walk through these exhibits will be accompanied aurally by

13

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education Fall 2005 No. 1 66

of yet another very eager and seemingly quite confident trumpet play
instrument, often along with a test of his increasing range. This busine
is concomitant with most school music programs, is ubiquitous and p
ing pressure on every student who attends such events.
In the present study most music major listeners were able to identi
horn, but were unable to discriminate consistently between the Bb, C,
colo trumpets. Because the piccolo trumpet has a different tessitura, it
contribute uniquely to the repertoire. Schlabach (1991) suggested tha
tage of the piccolo trumpet is that it places the lower, more secure har
higher than does the B-flat, which facilitates the higher range. Schl
however, that players do not have substantially more range on the picc
standard B-flat. It seems reasonable to speculate that the Bb, C, and Eb
trumpets as well) trumpets do not provide idiosyncratic elements for t
trumpet when embedded within music contexts. Further study utilizin
mance repertoire should be pursued to address this question.
It may be that the primary criteria for selecting a particular tru
performance accuracy and performer comfort. Although there are many
studies that ought to be done investigating using different examples, su
ers, instruments, and so on, this study clearly illustrates that most m
are not able to differentiate between the various-pitched trumpets.
was clearly differentiated from the others. In a less discrete separati
trumpets were judged by some listeners as slightly different than the
Although some subjects' verbal descriptions evidenced some perceived
(which were also evidenced on the spectrographic analyses), this study
evidence that would underpin the assumed distinctions that are found w
pet culture concerning the different timbres of these instruments.
literature is replete with demonstrations indicating that many appar
properties of sound in isolation, and which can be identified acoust
discriminated when occurring within a musical context. Such is perhap
study. Further investigations need to pursue the manifold topics con
other issues of perception within a musical context.

REFERENCES
Boersma, P. (1993). Accurate short-term analysis of the fundamental frequency and
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, dev

contemporary practices. Dissertation Abstracts International, A 51 (01), 13.

Clark, P. K. (1995). The characteristics of the instrument used by second trumpeter

orchestras to perform late nineteenth-century orchestral literature. Dissertation
International, A 56" (08), 2925.

14

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Geringer and Madsen Perception of Trumpets

Figgs, L. D. (1981). Qualitative differences in trumpet tones as per

acoustical analysis. Psychology of Music, 9 (2), 54-62.

Geringer, J. M., Madsen, C. K., &C Dunnigan, P. (2001). Trumpet

revisited: Two extensions. Bulletin of the Council for Research in
65-76.

Hanson, E E. (1988). Trumpet timbre: A comparative investigation

professional C trumpets. Dissertation Abstracts International, A

Kopiez, R. (2003). Intonation of harmonic intervals: Adaptability

temperament and just intonation. Music Perception, 20 (4), 383
Kusinski, J. S. (1984). The effect of mouthpiece cup depth and ba
categorizations of tone quality in recorded trumpet excerpts. Diss
International, A 45 (04), 1065.

Madsen, C. K. & Geringer, J. M. (1976). Preferences for trumpet

Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 46, 13-2

Praat [Computer software]. (2004). Amsterdam, The Netherlands:

University of Amsterdam (Version 4.2).

Schlabach, J. (1991). Piccolo trumpet misconceptions. Instrument

Webster, J. C. (1951). Measurable differences among trumpet play
Association 1949 Proceedings, 43, 134-152.

This content downloaded from 192.70.186.247 on Sun, 22 Sep 2019 18:08:54 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms