Chapter Six

Audience Perception of the Trumpet & Trumpeters

This thesis has so far considered the industrial manufacture of mouthpieces and the

importance placed on different designs by trumpet players. This chapter will explore

to what extent different designs produce perceptively different tones. In doing so it

aims to identify, albeit within a relatively small sample group, to what extent

mouthpieces have a distinguishable impact on sonic production for the listener or

whether the design qualities are of primary importance to the player in terms of

comfort and security when playing, stamina or the production of a better overall

tone. In addition to a three-part listening test involving three separate audiences this

chapter describes a survey carried out to examine reactions to visual images of

performance. The possible connection between the listener’s perception of trumpet

tone, visual semiotics and sonic coding is also considered within this chapter.

Tone Descriptors within the Listening Test

Having discussed trumpet performance from the perspective of the trumpeter this

chapter concentrates on how trumpet performance is perceived by listening

audiences. Since this research is aimed at identifying changes in trumpet tone that

may have been brought about through changes in mouthpiece design it is important

to attempt to identify the extent to which audiences actually detect the detail in tone.

Are they able, for example, to hear variances in the tone of different trumpets or

trumpeters? If so, how do they choose to describe or categorise the different tones?

Furthermore, are they able to detect any of the differences that may be created

212

through a change of mouthpiece? It is possible that the most influential factor to

affect tone was the vogue for shallower mouthpiece designs in the 1970s and 1980s.

Are audiences therefore able to recognise the effects of shallow mouthpieces? If so,

is there a preference amongst audience members for one type of tone or another?

Certainly mouthpiece companies incorporate into the design of mouthpieces features

that they claim have the effect of producing a wide range of trumpet tones, as these

examples show:

This mouthpiece produces a rather large tone with a good center (Schilke n.d.1)

Produces a rich fat tone (Callet 1990:18)

Tremendous projection in upper register (Wick 1997:4)

Very successful ‘screamer’ jazz model (Wick 1997:4)

Produces the mellow, rich lyric cornet tone favored by players of the Italian school (Bach 1989:20)

…provides good endurance with a brilliant tone (Schilke n.d.10)

In considering trumpet tone the issue of how audiences hear and perceive that tone is

crucial. Responses from what might be termed as being from ‘both sides of the

business’, that is, the ‘supply’ side (i.e. trumpeters, designers, manufacturers etc) and

the ‘demand’ side (the audience) may give a far more balanced view than if the

responses of only one side are considered. Additionally, the views of the audience

are unaffected and uncluttered by a mass of technical information. Seen in this

respect theirs is perhaps a ‘purer’ response; one formed on the basis of what they

hear and not what they expect to hear as a result of knowing what effect a particular

design change might have on the tone. If, therefore, audiences are able to

differentiate between changes in tone and as a result make choices based on what

they hear, then the benefits of the investments in mouthpiece design assume much

213

greater aesthetic value than if audiences are unable to detect any change. Clearly in a

situation where audiences record no change in tone then the whole issue surrounding

mouthpiece design becomes restricted to trumpet players and the more commercial

issues of the mouthpiece business.

From my experience within jazz and big band circles it is possible for me to draw a

parallel between the way in which descriptors are used by manufacturers and the

language regularly used by performers. From this I decided to include within the

listening test a section that employed the terms in regular parlance within jazz and

big band circles and to ask listeners to attribute these descriptors to the sounds they

heard. Through the listening test it therefore becomes possible to consider whether

the words that trumpet players use to describe trumpet tone are useful for listeners

and whether they might apply the same terminology – when supplied to them within

the parameters of the listening test – to the same sonic events.

In order to examine the ability of audiences to perceive differences in trumpet tone,

respondents were asked to listen to performances produced on mouthpieces of

differing designs. Since the listeners were not informed about the types of trumpet

mouthpieces in use, or what effects each might be expected to generate, the listening

test helps to evaluate from the perspective of the audience whether there is a

perceptible difference in tone from different mouthpieces. The test also examines

how listeners categorise the various trumpet tones present in a selection of

commercial recordings of trumpet players. As can be seen from references cited by

Tagg and Clarida (2003:106) such reception tests have quite a history. Recent

comparative research involving listening tests and popular music include that by

214

Serge Lacasse (2000), Karen Collins (2002) and Nicola Dibben (2003). As with the

work of Lacasse, this listening test does not attempt to provide ‘definitive and

immutable results’ (ibid:144), instead it aims to identify ‘clues’ and ‘possible

tendencies’ on how trumpet tone is perceived by the listener. Collins (ibid:241)

explains that ‘Tagg’s model of communication expands on a basic premise that

music communicates a message (or number of messages) from a transmitter (or

transmitters) to a receiver (or receivers).’ Clearly, in these tests the trumpeter is the

transmitter, the tone produced is the message and the listener is the receiver.

Since much is made by mouthpiece companies of the ways that improved design

provides the player with enhanced performance characteristics (the likely result of

which is increased demand of a particular model or range of mouthpieces), the

listening test is of considerable value in assessing not only how tone may be affected

by mouthpiece design but also, to some extent, the accuracy of the manufacturers

claims. This test, whilst small, will attempt to recognise how dramatic the difference

is in tone. Additionally, with reference to the demand for mouthpieces by

instrumentalists in pursuit of improvements in performance, the test aims to identify

if these improvements are perceptible.

A section within the listening test examines the audience response to boosters, which

allegedly help with the projection of sound, and in particular whether there is a

perceptible difference in tone when a booster is used. A mouthpiece booster is a

heavy metal sleeve that is designed to fit tightly over the existing mouthpiece shape.

It is held in place by the tightness of fit and a rubber washer that sits against the

mouthpiece body. Boosters were introduced during the late 1980s and early 1990s

215

and appear to have had moderate success. Dizzy Gillespie used one during his later

years as did the veteran American trumpeter Doc Cheatham. Although the

mouthpiece booster was for many an entirely new development, photographic

evidence suggests that as early as the 1920s a similar device was incorporated into

mouthpiece design and used by Louis Armstrong (see fig.81.).1

Observations have shown that some players such as Terence Blanchard and Jon

Faddis use boosters or heavyweight mouthpieces on a permanent basis while others,

such as Arturo Sandoval, after a period of using a booster returned to using a more

conventional design:

At first I [Sandoval] really liked the sound that I was getting using a booster but gradually it seemed to have less and less effect. In the end, the booster seemed to be making me work harder and so I switched back to my original mouthpiece (personal communication 1998).

1 This photograph is the only one of this particular mouthpiece that could be located. Despite being of poor quality, its inclusion was considered important at this point.

216

Weight added to design of mouthpiece

Fig.81. Early mouthpiece with booster

Comments on boosters by KO Skinsnes of the Bob Reeves Company relate directly

to the experiences encountered by Sandoval:

At our company we have a simple rule – ‘If it works use it’ and sure heavier mouthpieces do work in changing the sound but the player has to pay for it too. The heavier the mouthpiece, the harder the player has to work. It’s likely that players use the heavier model for a while and then they realise they are working harder and put the mouthpiece back on the shelf (personal communication 1999).

As confirmed by Skinsnes ‘from an acoustical viewpoint strange things happen

during the performance of high notes, especially at loud volumes, making it even

more difficult for the player’ (personal communication 1999). The need to be able to

hear oneself, therefore, becomes even more crucial. Under loud conditions and in

order to execute notes in the high register a player needs all the assistance possible.

As Hallquist points out:

When a player is required to play notes above the staff the resonance characteristics of the trumpet are not nearly as helpful. In this range there may be only one or two resonance frequencies to aid the player in producing the note and as the frequency of the note increases, the amplitude of the helpful resonances decreases. In the extreme high range of the trumpet the player’s lips are forced to do most of the work and the trumpet is more like a megaphone that amplifies and projects the sound (1979:14).

In the event that participants in the listening test do not detect differences in tone it

does not necessarily follow that this equipment is not aiding the performer. For

example, a mouthpiece may produce increased stamina for a player, or a particular

mouthpiece may prove to be extremely comfortable on the player’s lips. Clearly,

such characteristics would not be detectable in a listening test.

Additional to the listening test is analysis of a survey of reactions to visual images of

performance. In this analysis the connection between performance and visual

semiotics, as well as sonic coding, is examined.

217

Methodology

Three listening tests were conducted with 72 respondents aged from 11 to 70. The

tests all followed exactly the same format and were conducted with different groups

representing different ages and levels of engagement with jazz and big band music.

One of the listening groups comprised people who had responded to letters of

invitation sent to over two hundred members of the Wigan Jazz Club. This listening

test took place at the Mill at the Pier, Wigan: a venue regularly used by the Wigan

Jazz Club, where the participants were familiar with the acoustics and the

listening/watching experience. Although a small number of the attendees had some

experience of playing musical instruments, none were professional players. As with

the listening tests conducted by Collins (2002), the use of a venue familiar to the

listeners was considered important in the delivery of these tests. Referring to what

Tagg regards as the ‘difficulty in conducting tests without destroying the frame of

mind generally enjoyed when listening to music,’ Collins (2002:247) places

importance on ‘listening to the music in places or situations familiar to their listening

practices’.

A total of 33 members of Wigan Jazz Club participated in the test (26 males, 7

females). Of these, 30.31% were non-players, 69.69% had played an instrument at

some time and 36.36% of the audience had some experience of playing brass

instruments. The second listening test was conducted with members of the Wigan

Youth Jazz Orchestra. This session took place on a different date and fifteen

members of the Orchestra participated (10 male, 5 female) of which 46.7 % were

brass players. All played musical instruments of some type. The final listening test

218

was conducted with a class of pupils from Year Seven (aged eleven and twelve) at

Fred Longworth High School, Tyldesley. Of the 24 pupils (12 male, 12 female) who

took part in the listening test, 54.2 % played musical instruments, only one of whom

(4.2%) was a brass player. It was intended that the members of Wigan Youth Jazz

Orchestra and the class of pupils would provide useful comparisons on how

musicians hear and describe trumpet tone, how ‘younger ears’ categorise trumpet

tone and how trumpet tones would be categorised by listeners unfamiliar with these

particular tones and holding no preconceived views. By contrast, it was anticipated

that most of the Wigan Jazz Club members taking part in the test would have heard

many trumpet players before. It was also considered possible that they may have

read or discussed issues of tone in relation to trumpet players and thus be aware of

commonly used descriptions such as Maynard Ferguson’s ‘big fat sound’. In

describing the listening test it is acknowledged that the sample size is fairly small.

Rather than being seen as statistical, the results should therefore be regarded as

indicative.

The test was organised in three parts. Parts One and Two featured pieces specially

recorded for the purpose of the listening test and Part Three featured commercial

recordings. In this case the recordings used were contained on commercially

produced albums that at one time or another had been on sale in record shops. The

use of commercial recordings was avoided in Parts One and Two because of the

difficulty in determining which models of mouthpiece had been used. Photographs

can provide the evidence that a player used a mouthpiece by a particular

manufacturer; however, there is absolutely no way of telling if that mouthpiece was

used on a particular recording or, since many mouthpieces by one manufacturer

219

appear identical, exactly which model of mouthpiece was being used. Furthermore,

any alterations that may have been made to the internal dimensions of a mouthpiece

cannot be identified from photographic evidence. It is impossible to control these

operative parameters. For these reasons, recordings were made for use in the

listening test. That way it became possible to focus on the variables of shallow or

deep, booster or no booster. Details of the three parts of the listening test are as

shown in Figs.82 and 83.

Player Details of Pieces RecordedPart One Part Two

Malcolm Melling My Man Bill Stardust

Ian Darrington Mallorca As Long As He Needs Me

Andrew Greenwood And The Angels Sing Once in a While

Philip Nicholas You’re My Everything Misty

Georgina Bromilow The Spirit of St. Frederick You Made Me Love You

Graham Justin Carnival of Venice Mahler Symphony No.51st Movement

(Opening theme)Test Recordings

Malcolm Melling In The Mood

Ian Darrington We’ve Only Just Begun

220

Fig. 83. List of Sixteen Excerpts Used in Part Three of the Listening Test

Fig.82. List of Pieces Used in Parts One and Parts Two of the Listening Test

Player Title of Track Title of Album Year

Maynard

Ferguson

Born Free Ballad Style of Maynard

Ferguson

1969

Bobby Shew My One and Only Love Bobby Shew with the

Metropole Orchestra

1995

Kenny Baker What’s New Tribute to the Great

Trumpeters

1993

Chet Baker She Was Too Good To Me She Was Too Good To

Me

1974

James Morrison You Are My Sunshine Snappy Doo 1990

Roy Hargrove The Nearness of You Family 1995

Bill Chase Open Up Wide Chase 1971

Doc Severinson Shenandoah Brand New Thing 1977

Harry James I Think I’m Goin’ Out of

My Head

Trumpet Toast 1965

Miles Davis Concerto De Aranjuez Live Miles 1961

Chris Bõtte On The Night Ride First Wish 1995

Maurice Andre Concerto in D Major

(Michael Haydn)

Trumpet Concertos 1967

Tony Fisher Don’t Cry For Me

Argentina

Trumpets in Gold 1977

Maynard

Ferguson

Over The Rainbow Dimensions 1955

Paul Cacia Elton John Medley Not Known 1980

Jon Faddis Into The Faddisphere Into The Faddisphere 1980

Process of the Listening Test

221

Recordings were chosen in preference to live performances for the listening test.

There were a number of reasons for this decision. Chiefly, as live performance

varies, its use is therefore not ideal for controlled experiments focusing on relative

parameters. Secondly, it was imperative to maintain consistency of note production

as split notes2 in 'live' performance may affect the listener’s assessment of the tone.

Recordings also eliminate any visual influences. On seeing an alteration such as a

change of mouthpiece, it is likely that a listener would expect a difference of some

kind to be produced. Furthermore, the use of recorded excerpts would ensure that the

identity of the players was not revealed. All the players used in the excerpts were

known to the jazz club audience members and to the Jazz Orchestra members. Each

player has a reputation for playing in a particular way and with a particular style. It

was felt that this knowledge might affect responses inappropriately. Finally, the

recorded format of the test enabled it to be conducted in an identical manner for

three separate audiences and on three separate occasions.

The Trumpet Players

The identity of the six trumpet players used in the series of recordings was at no

point revealed to the audience members. The players were:

Malcolm Melling: freelance professional lead trumpet player & session player;

Trumpet: Smith-Watkins (Large Bore)3

Mouthpiece: Marcinkiewicz Paul Cacia Model (shallow)

2

? Split notes occur when a player aims to produce a note and in the execution of that note actually produces a vibration fractionally higher or lower than the required note resulting in a undesirable sound. The natural harmonics of the instrument usually prevent the resulting sound from developing into an acceptable tone.

3 Trumpets are most commonly produced in three bore sizes, medium, medium/large and large. Other bore sizes however do exist e.g. extra large bore trumpets, but these are less common.

222

Deep mouthpiece used for test: Vincent Bach 2C

Andy Greenwood: professional lead trumpeter with Syd Lawrence Orchestra;

Trumpet: Conn Constellation.

Mouthpiece: Marcinkiewicz Paul Cacia (Shallow)

Deep mouthpiece used for test: Monette B15

Georgina Bromilow: professional lead trumpet player with Andy Prior Orchestra;

Trumpet: Yamaha 6310Z

Mouthpiece: Marcinkiewicz Shew Model 1.25 (Shallow)

Deep Mouthpiece used for test: Vincent Bach 2C

Ian Darrington: semi-professional trumpet player;

Trumpet: Yamaha Custom Large Bore

Mouthpiece: Marcinkiewicz Custom Made Darrington model

(shallow)

Deep Mouthpiece Used for test: Marcinkiewicz 2

Philip Nicholas: freelance professional player specialising in jazz;

Trumpet: Vincent Bach Medium Large Vindebone4

Mouthpiece: Warburton 3M Cup 3 Star Backbore (Deep)

Shallow mouthpiece used for test: Marcinkiewicz Shew 1.5

Graham Justin: professional orchestral player from the North West area.

Trumpet: Vincent Bach 43 Medium Large Reverse leadpipe

Mouthpiece: Stork Studio Master LTS2 /Warburton 2D with a

Parke backbore 5.5.5 (Deep)

Shallow mouthpiece use for test: Warburton 3SV

4 The Vincent Bach ‘Vindebone’ is a dual bore instrument.5 Graham Justin uses two models of mouthpiece (as quoted) on a regular basis, depending on the style of music he is required to perform.

223

A prerequisite was that the players should be accomplished instrumentalists who

could perform their chosen material in a highly consistent manner and that any

differences in tone should be generated by changes in mouthpiece characteristics and

not through inconsistent performance. These demands were essential in order to

create excerpts suitable for these comparisons. The six players were also chosen

because they had differing tones, differing musical backgrounds and differing styles

of playing.

The recordings were made on a Sony mini disc player MZ-R30 using the ECM –

MS907 Sony microphone recommended by the manufacturers as the most suitable

for use with the MZR30 recorder. For each recording, the microphone was placed

six feet from the player. Trial and error showed this distance to be most suitable in

terms of avoiding distortion / overloading microphone levels. All the recordings

were made in the same room. The room measured 16’ x 14’, was carpeted and

curtained and had little natural resonance.

Design of the Listening test

Part One: The effect of mouthpiece boosters

Each player played two identical versions of two short excerpts of their own choice.

The first version of the excerpt was played on the player’s regular mouthpiece. The

second version was played on their regular mouthpiece attaching a mouthpiece

booster. Care was taken to ensure that the booster was designed to fit the

mouthpieces in use. With this in mind, each player supplied details of the

224

mouthpieces to be used in advance of the recordings. The appropriate boosters were

then obtained and used by the players in partnership with their own mouthpieces.

Part Two: The effects of shallow cup versus deep cup mouthpieces.

Each player played two identical versions of two short excerpts of their own choice.

The first version of the excerpt was played on their regular mouthpiece. The second

version was played on a mouthpiece differing greatly in depth of cup from their

regular mouthpiece (i.e. a player who uses a shallow mouthpiece as their regular

mouthpiece recorded the second version using a very deep mouthpiece or vice versa)

In order to provide a check on the reliability of the information gathered a test

recording was introduced into both sections of the test. Two identical versions of the

same tune were played to the audience for Parts One and Parts Two, in other words

with no changes of mouthpiece. For this purpose, in the first section the same

recording of player one was used twice i.e. in the first part of the test, tracks five and

six were of ‘In the Mood’ played by player one (Malcolm Melling using a

Marcinkiewicz mouthpiece Paul Cacia model with no booster). For the second

section, the same recording of player four was used twice, i.e. in the second part of

the test, tracks five and six were of ‘We’ve Only Just Begun’ played by player four

(Ian Darrington using a Marcinkiewicz mouthpiece model 2, with no booster).

Because the recordings were identical in every respect, one might expect that the

audience would record no change in tone. In responding to Parts One and Two,

respondents were asked whether or not they could hear a difference in tone and

which, if any, was their preferred tone.

225

Part Three: Terminology used to describe trumpet tone and the audience perception

of trumpet tone

Sixteen excerpts of commercial recordings of trumpet players were played to the

listeners (see fig.83). Respondents were asked to select from a prescribed list those

words that in their opinion most accurately described the tone of the trumpet in each

excerpt. Clearly, the task of accurately describing tone is not an easy one and it is

quite possible that no single word exists that is sufficiently powerful to do the job

well. In relating to the difficulty of describing music Tagg warns that ‘music is not

conducive to verbal descriptions’ and that ‘any discussion of musical sound in verbal

terms will be cumbersome, time consuming and unwieldy’ (quoted in Collins

2002:240). Tagg’s view appears to be endorsed by the diversity of language that

seems to be necessary to describe trumpet tone. However, seen from a different

perspective, it could be argued that with such a wide array of trumpet tones a wide

and varying vocabulary becomes necessary to provide adequate description. This

issue, therefore, becomes one of the areas of focus in the listening test described

here.

The terminology used to describe trumpet tone is one that appears to have evolved

over a long period of time through the need for trumpet players themselves to have

words to refer to – and indeed resemble - types of sound. Words such as sizzle, edgy,

fat, thin, big, small, weedy, weak, are all used in ‘trumpet-speak’. In referring to

responses to a listening test Dibben comments:

…listeners described sounds in terms of their physical and cultural sources more frequently than in terms of their acoustic characteristics. This indicates that, for these listeners, listening to music involves more than listening to its acoustic attributes; it involves hearing meanings specified by sounds (2003:198).

226

In the context of this research, where the audience plays an important role in terms

of its responses to trumpet tone, it could be argued that within trumpet circles it is

common to associate cultural meanings with heard sounds. The words contained in

the list from which listeners were asked to select (see pages 228 and 229), were

therefore selected to reflect the associations to which Dibben refers. From the

perspective of this research it was important that the responses from audience

members were based purely on what the sounds meant to them while at the same

time being concise and focused enough to allow conclusions, or at least observations

to be made. As Dibben states ‘listeners don’t really “hear” the structures and

meanings identified in music theory and criticism (ibid:194). The problem is that

individuals hear and perceive sounds differently. There is no certainty, for example,

that any two persons will describe the same sound as ‘big’. One person may hear a

sound as a ‘sizzle’ and another may not. Perhaps a young person hears a sound as

bright and shiny, whilst an older person with a reduced hearing range finds it hard to

hear the sound at all. So many of these terms are therefore relative to the person

hearing and describing the tone and in this respect they are subject to human

interpretation. A word that describes a sound for one person may mean something

quite different to another. The list of words was therefore supplied in an attempt to

simplify the process and to reduce the complications and difficulties to which Tagg

and Dibben refer. It is acknowledged that the respondents could have been allowed

to freely select words rather than having to select from a prescribed list. However,

given free selection of words, especially considering the low number of respondents,

it is likely that the test would have proved inconclusive. Moreover, the intention of

this section of the test is to provide some indication of the ability of listeners to use

terminology that is commonly used amongst trumpet players to describe tone. It is

227

also intended that the test should provide an indication of the consistency that

listeners show in their use of these words. As with Lacasse’s research, this test does

not ‘aim to produce definitive answers to our problem. It rather should be considered

as a source of some empirical data that could support observations…’ (2000:146).

The words in the supplied list were chosen because they had been observed during

the research to be the ones most often used by trumpet players in conversation on

trumpet playing. If respondents considered words not on the list to be more

appropriate then they were encouraged to provide their own choice of words to

describe the tone. The list of words from which the respondents were asked to

choose was:

Big or Small

Fat or Thin

Massive or Tiny

Bright or Dull

Sizzling or Lack-lustre

Clear or Muffled

Exciting or Boring

Edgy or Smooth

Powerful or Weak

Aggressive or Gentle

Beautiful or Ugly

The selection process for the excerpts used in this section of the listening test

involved selecting recordings that featured trumpet players in a solo setting. In order

228

to allow the tone of the trumpet in the recordings to be as distinct as possible

examples were chosen where the accompaniment was sparse thus allowing the

trumpet to project. Additionally, choices were made to ensure that a wide variety of

styles of music and of trumpet playing were included.

Finally, since a large part of this research focuses and relies on personal choices and

personal preferences, it was relevant in the context of the listening test to consider

the responses of the three audiences in relation to the sixteen excerpts. Each

respondent was therefore asked to provide a score between zero and ten for each

excerpt, zero representing total dislike, five average appeal and ten total approval.

Results of the Listening test

Part One – tested if the listeners could detect a change in trumpet tone when a booster was placed on a mouthpiece.

Audience 1 – Wigan Jazz Club Members36.36% found the excerpts to be identical63.64% found the excerpts to be differing in tone.

Of those hearing a difference in tone43.81% recorded a preference for trumpet tone without a booster50.33% recorded a preference for trumpet tone with a booster 5.86% recorded no preference between tone produced with or without a booster.

Audience 2 – Wigan Youth Jazz Orchestra Members37.12% found the excerpts to be identical62.71% found the excerpts to be differing in toneOf those hearing a difference in tone35.11% recorded a preference for trumpet tone without a booster46.89% recorded a preference for trumpet tone with a booster 17.97% recorded no preference between tone produced with or without a booster

Audience 3 – Fred Longworth High School Class from Year 741.67% found the excerpts to be identical58.29% found the excerpts to be differing in toneOf those hearing a difference in tone:-

55.87% recorded a preference for trumpet tone without a booster

229

24.50% recorded a preference for trumpet tone with a booster 19.64% recorded no preference between tone produced with or without a booster

Test cases relating to Part One of the Test.Percentages of audiences recording the two excerpts of the test case to be identical:Audience 1 – 69.99% Audience 2 – 60.00% Audience 3 – 62.50%

Part Two - to test if the listeners could detect a change in trumpet tone between a shallow and a deep mouthpiece

Audience 1 – Jazz Club Members32.98% found the excerpts to be identical67.09% found the excerpts to be differing in tone

Of those hearing a difference in tone:32.08% recorded a preference for trumpet tone when a shallow mouthpiece is used58.26% recorded a preference for trumpet tone when a deep mouthpiece is used 7.99% recorded no preference between tone produced between a shallow and a deep mouthpiece

Audience 2 – Jazz Orchestra Members35.23% found the excerpts to be identical64.75% found the excerpts to be differing in tone

Of those hearing a difference in tone:31.86% recorded a preference for trumpet tone when a shallow mouthpiece is used59.78% recorded a preference for trumpet tone when a deep mouthpiece is used 8.36% recorded no preference between tone produced between a shallow and a deep mouthpiece

Audience 3 – Fred Longworth High School Class from Year 745.83 % found the excerpts to be identical54.16 % found the excerpts to be differing in toneOf those hearing a difference in tone:-39.26% recorded a preference for trumpet tone when a shallow mouthpiece is used33.32% recorded a preference for trumpet tone when a deep mouthpiece is used27.42% recorded no preference between tone produced between a shallow and a deep mouthpiece

Test cases relating to Part Two of the Test.

Percentages of audiences recording the two excerpts of the test case to be identical:Audience 1 – 60.61% Audience 2 – 66.66%

230

Audience 3 – 70.83%

All the results obtained from Part One and Part Two of the listening test are shown below in fig.84.

Choices of those who identified a difference in tone

Part One Percentage Identical

Percentage Different

Without booster

With booster

No Preference

Wigan Jazz Club 36.36 63.64 43.81 50.33 5.86

Wigan Youth Jazz Orchestra

37.12 62.71 35.13 46.89 17.97

Fred Longworth High School Class

41.67 58.29 55.87 24.5 19.64

Average Percentage For Part One

38.38 61.54 44.93 40.57 14.49

Part Two Percentage Identical

Percentage Different

With shallow

Mouthpiece

With deep mouthpiece

No preference

Wigan Jazz Club 32.98 67.09 32.08 58.26 7.99

Wigan Youth Jazz Orchestra

35.23 64.75 31.86 59.78 8.36

Fred Longworth High School Class

45.83 54.16 39.26 33.32 27.42

Average Percentage For Part Two

38.01 62 34.4 50.45 14.59

Commentary on the Results of the Listening Test

The results of the listening test revealed that not only could audiences detect

differences in tone but that they had definite preferences for certain types of tone. In

this respect variation was recorded between the different age groups.

231

Fig. 84. Table of Results of the Listening Test

The listening test showed a clear indication that the mouthpiece booster does have an

effect on trumpet tone. As shown in the table of results (see page 231), the results

from all three groups are consistent regarding the effects of a booster. However,

despite the fact that the effect of a booster appears to be detectable to an audience, it

is significant that no real preference for tone with or without the use of a booster was

recorded. This fact was consistent across the three different audience groups.

Additionally, the listening test showed a clear indication that a difference in tone was

detectable when the use of a shallow mouthpiece was compared to the use of a deep

mouthpiece. The fact that there was disparity between the results obtained in the

preferences for the tones produced by shallow and deep cup mouthpieces was

considered especially significant. The Wigan Jazz Club audience and the Wigan

Youth Jazz Orchestra recorded similar high percentage preferences in favour of the

tone produced by the deep cup. The High School Group on the contrary showed a

preference for the tone produced by the shallow cup. Furthermore, the percentage for

‘no preference’ was significantly higher with the High School Group. A reason for

the disparity relating to the choices made by the three groups is suggested by

considering the listening experiences of the three groups.

In assessing the indications provided by the listening test it is important to

acknowledge that our social experiences also affect the way that we listen to music.

In discussing musical practice Harris Berger makes reference to ‘an educated listener

– a listener who is deeply connected to the musical scene’ (1999:115) pointing out

that:

Culturally specific notions like composition and arrangement deeply influence the listening subject’s constitution of sound experiences, and it is in this way that the social history of the music intimately informs the participant’s lived experiences. The rock

232

listener, for example, hears the guitar’s power chords as composed parts and hears the guitar and drum fills as elements of the arrangements or improvisations; the jazz listener hears the tonal implications of the harmonic rhythm as the composed song, and hears the voicings as this particular player’s comping …(ibid:115).

In terms of jazz and big band music the Jazz Club and the Youth Jazz Orchestra

members are clearly what Berger refers to as ‘educated listeners’: they have been

exposed over considerable time to a wide range of trumpet players, both through live

concerts and recordings. It is highly likely that they will all have heard Louis

Armstrong, Harry James, Maynard Ferguson, Dizzy Gillespie, Miles Davis, Chet

Baker and many more; regularly, their perceptions of what represents a rich and full

trumpet tone will have been re-enforced by these experiences. Some members of the

Youth Jazz Orchestra members were trumpet players and would have previously

considered the importance of tone. Their teachers will have reminded them

constantly of what they think a good trumpet tone should sound like.

In contrast, it is most unlikely that any of the class of twelve-year olds will have

listened to any of the aforementioned players. These students may have absolutely

no idea of what constitutes a trumpet tone let alone what is considered within

professional circles to be a ‘good’ trumpet tone. The music with which the class of

twelve-year olds is familiar is likely to differ considerably from that of the other two

groups. When questioned after the test not one member of the class stated they had

ever heard a live jazz band and only one member of the class stated they had ever

heard a trumpet played live. From the discussions that took place with the class it

was clear that almost all of their listening experiences were with recorded pop music

either from the radio, at discos or from their own CD collections. This is not to say

that their listening experiences are good or bad, merely that that is what they accept

233

as the norm. These are the musical sounds with which they are familiar and with

which they feel most comfortable. This highlights the ways in which we come to

understand sound through our social experiences. As Berger comments ‘the social

history of the music is sedimented in the listener’s acts of perception.’ (ibid:115-

116). As a result of these experiences when asked to choose a tone in preference to

another, the most likely choice will be the one with which a listener most easily

identifies.

Results of the Word Test

The results of the word test are shown in the table in Fig.85. For each excerpt the top

four words chosen by the listeners are shown. In the instances where words received

equal responses it has been necessary to include five or six entries within the table.

Those words that were used by two of the groups or by all three groups are shaded.

Words that were only used by one group have not been shaded.

Given that the excerpts were very wide-ranging in style and with a possible list of

twenty-two words to choose from the possible combinations of answers were

considerable. A number of words not in the prescribed list were also chosen by the

listeners. These included breezy, choppy, soulful, haunting and witty. However, with

the exceptions of crisp and strong that were each used five times, the words were

only used on one or two occasions. The consistency and similarity of the responses

obtained in the test indicates a high level of understanding on the part of audience

members in terms of their perception and description of trumpet tone and trumpet

styles. The results therefore provide a strong indication that audiences of a wide age

range and wide listening experiences and interests, have very similar perceptions of

234

trumpet tone, or more precisely that they describe trumpet tone in similar ways. The

results also provide further indication that audiences are able to detect differences in

trumpet tone. Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly of all, it provides

reassurance to those trumpet players who take great care in the preparation of their

own tone that their investment is worth the effort and audience members hear the

difference.

The shaded areas show the words that have been used by two or three groups to describe trumpet tone. The areas not shaded show words that have only been used

by one group.Excerpt Jazz Club Jazz Orchestra High School Group

1.MaynardFerguson

Powerful Powerful PowerfulExciting Massive ExcitingSizzling Bright Bright

Big Exciting Massive2.

Bobby ShewWarm Warm Smooth

Beautiful Gentle GentleSmooth Smooth WarmClear Beautiful Beautiful

3.Kenny Baker

Clear Fat GentleBright Big Fat

Big Bright UglyFat Clear Powerful

4.Chet Baker

Warm Gentle BoringBeautiful Warm GentleSmooth Smooth RomanticGentle Beautiful Smooth

5.James

Morrison

Bright Exciting BrightExciting Sizzling Exciting

Big Big EdgyWarm Aggressive Aggressive

6.Roy

Hargrove

Warm Warm SmoothMuffled Muffled RomanticSmooth Gentle GentleGentle Smooth Fat

7.Bill Chase

Aggressive Aggressive PowerfulPowerful Exciting SqueekyExciting Bright Sizzling

235

Fig. 85. Comparison of the Top Four Words

to Describe Trumpet Tone

Sizzling Big Big Powerful

Fast Massive

Ugly8.

Doc Severinson

Warm Gentle SmoothGentle Warm GentleSmooth Smooth ClearMuffled Muffled Warm

9.Harry James

Big Big PowerfulExciting Powerful ExcitingBright Fat WarmClear Bright Bright Big

10.Miles Davis

Warm Smooth GentleSmooth Muffled Smooth

Beautiful Warm ColdBig Cold Weak

11.Chris Bõtte

Clear Smooth SmoothWarm Clear Warm

Smooth Beautiful GentleBeautiful Bright Warm Beautiful Boring

12.Maurice André

Bright Clear GentleClear Bright WarmThin Thin Beautiful

Beautiful Powerful

Boring

13.Tony Fisher

Clear Bright SmoothBright Clear Warm

Powerful PowerfulBig Thin

14.Maynard Ferguson

Clear Gentle BrightBright Warm Gentle

Big Bright ExcitingBoring Clear Smooth

15.Paul Cacia

Powerful Big PowerfulAggressive Powerful Edgy

Big Exciting WarmSizzling Excitin

gBright Bright Smooth

16.Jon Faddis

Powerful Big SqueekyBright Powerful Sizzling

Aggressive Bright AggressiveExciting Aggressive Bright

Given that the audience members expressed preference for certain types of tone, and

the ability to not only detect change in tone but also to consistently describe it, it was

thought important to follow this up by examining preferences in terms of entire

236

trumpet performances. The final section of the listening test was therefore aimed at

examining the preferences of the audience members in terms of complete pieces of

music involving trumpet players. These preferences are shown in fig.86 (full details

of the responses are provided in the appendix 14).

Position Trumpeter Average Votes from all three groups of participants

(Possible maximum of ten)1st Bobby Shew 8.33

2nd Maynard Ferguson 8.23

3rd Miles Davis 8.15

4th Maurice André 7.93

5th Jon Faddis 7.81

6th Paul Cacia 7.75

7th Kenny Baker 7.66

8th Harry James 7.57

9th Chris Botté 7.39

10th Chet Baker 7.27

11th James Morrison 7.27

12th Bill Chase 7.15

13th Roy Hargrove 7.09

14th Doc Severinson 6.69

15th Tony Fisher 6.90

16th Maynard Ferguson 6.03

Given the clear pattern provided by each area of the listening test it is surprising that

the responses for this final section proved inconclusive. There appears to be no

pattern in the way that audience members responded, although it is perhaps true to

237

Fig.86. Results of Part Three of the Listening Test

say that the first four trumpeters in the list possess tones that could be described as

rich in nature. However, the same observation could also be made of the last four

players in the list. Had they preferred, for example, the more lyrical ‘moody’

emotional type of performance then Chet Baker and Roy Hargrove would probably

have joined Bobby Shew at the top of the rankings. A preference for a very cutting,

edgy, bright tone would have surely placed Jon Faddis, Paul Cacia and Bill Chase at

the top. The individual choices of the audience in this case, therefore, produced no

conclusive results in terms of an overall preference for one type of tone or another.

However, with the knowledge that the school group indicated a preference for a

brighter tone and the jazz club and jazz orchestra preferred a darker tone, it appears

that the result of this final section supports this difference in terms of preference of

tone.

Messages generated by visual images of instrumentalists.

In order to provide some degree of understanding regarding messages generated by

visual images of trumpet players and how they might differ from those of images of

other instrumentalists, the responses of four groups of observers to twelve

photographs are included at this point. It is intended that these should provide

information on the messages generated by the body language of the musicians to

those around. A comparison then becomes possible between the results of this visual

test and the observations made of trumpet players. In using a select number of

photographs within the test, all taken at jazz performances, it was recognised that

each represents one particular moment within a performance and may therefore not

be indicative of the range of semiotic connotations within a live performance.

Additionally, it was recognised that this test represents only a small sample.

238

However, in the context of the test, one designed only to provide an indication of

trends and not absolute proof, the inclusion of these responses was considered to be

of considerable value in this discussion. Furthermore, during this research hundreds

of photographs of musicians6 and musical performances of all types have been

studied. The inclusion of this selection of images has therefore been made with the

confidence that they are representative of many photographic images taken of jazz

and big band musicians.

Since this thesis focuses specially on jazz and big band music it was considered

appropriate to use images from that genre. However, the case could be argued that

most, if not all instruments require some degree of power and aggression with which

to perform them and that different genres place varying demands on the instrument

and player with regard to the levels of aggression and dominance required. Much

has been written for example about the performance style of rock guitarists. Frith

and McRobbie (1990:374) in their consideration of rock and sexuality describe rock

performers as ‘aggressive, dominant and boastful’ who ‘constantly seek to remind

the audience of their prowess, their control.’ Similarly, Harris Berger (1999:73)

discusses a broad range of variations and meanings of aggressiveness and how it is

communicated within death metal scenes: ‘At a death metal show, the pounding

rhythms, artfully twisted harmonies and heavy textures evoke anger aggression,

sadness, doom, depression and grandeur in a thousand subtle shades.’ Clearly,

aggressiveness may be communicated in a number of ways – sonically, through

gesture and through audience reaction. The test described here examines the visual

responses to the images and it does so with the learned experiences of not only what 6

?Photographic images from William Ellis, Sefton Samuels, David Redfern, Richard Williams, Frank Stewart were all studied during this research.

239

a trumpet looks like but also what it sounds like, how trumpeters behave and how

audiences respond to trumpet performance. For example, the observations of this

research show that on hearing very high notes or very fast passages audience

members would often jump to their feet and yell out.

The four groups of people who were asked to give their responses were:

Group1 Fifteen Members of Wigan Youth Jazz Orchestra

Group 2 Members of the Sounds 2000 Big Band - Ten musicians aged between

forty-five and seventy;

Group 3 Fifteen Members of a Wigan Jazz Club Audience aged between fifty

and seventy-five;

Group 4 A Year Seven High School Class (twenty-seven pupils aged 12).

The groups were chosen in order to provide responses from a wide age range and a

wide range of experience. While the young people within the sample may have

rarely heard a trumpet or saxophone played live, members of the jazz club audience

would have had many experiences of hearing most, if not all, instruments. The

responses of the members of the Sounds 2000 Big Band are considered important

because not only do they have experience of hearing the instruments on a regular

basis but they also have experience of the behaviour characteristics of the various

types of instrumentalists. These experiences may well influence responses to visual

images.

Method

In order to provide information on responses to visual images each participant was

provided with twelve photographs (see figs 128 – 139) and asked to select from a list

240

of words those that best described their thoughts from the photograph. As mentioned

on pages 215, this test is intended to provide clues and an indication of tendencies

rather than definitive answers. Similarly, as explained earlier, the list of words was

supplied in order to simplify the process and to reduce the complications and

difficulties to which Tagg (2003) and Dibben (2003) refer. The words supplied

were:

Word Group A Word Group B

Loud or Quiet *

Aggressive or Shy

Big or Small

Unfriendly or Friendly *

Fierce or Gentle

Heavy or Light *

Dominant or Submissive

Bossy or Timid

The words were chosen because I had heard them (i.e. at least one of each pair)

frequently used to describe trumpet-playing attitudes. They were presented in the test

with their bipolar opposites: as potentially conflictive aspects of power. In order to

avoid an obvious pattern developing in the answers, and therefore causing possible

false answers, the order of the words was, in a few cases, switched around. The

pairs of words that were switched are indicated by *.

Of the twelve photographs supplied, six featured trumpet players and six featured

various instruments other than trumpet. In an attempt to focus the attention of the

observers on player and instrument only it was decided that the only items in the

photographs should be player and instruments (i.e. photographs showing additional

241

players or detailed backgrounds were not included)7 and that the mode of dress of the

players in the photographs should be as consistent as possible.

7

? The reader should be aware of difficulties that arose in the final selection of the photographs and the difficult choices that resulted. I am aware in certain cases that the observers may have been influenced by, for example, the type of guitar featured in the photograph i.e. a semi-acoustic guitar produces a more mellow sound than say a Fender Stratocaster or Telecaster. Additionally, the style and type of clothing worn by the musicians in the photographs may also influence a persons observations and responses. Even a ‘goatee’ beard, as one of the stereotypes of jazz, could be considered influential. It was impossible to eliminate all these variables and retain an effective test. Despite this, the test was still considered to be of value to the research.

242

Fig.87. Terell Stafford Fig.88. Ray Brown

243

Fig.89. Stan Tracey

Fig.90. Shorty Rogers

Fig.92. Charles McPherson

Fig.91. James Morrison

Fig.93. Lester Bowie Fig.94. Frank Tiberi

Results

The results of this test focus on a comparison of words selected by the four groups of

observers in response to the photographs of trumpet players and non-trumpet players

shown in figs.87-98. Based on the list of words, each person involved in the test was

asked to make a total of eight responses per photograph. Fig.99 illustrates how the

244

Fig.95. Arturo Sandoval

Fig.97. Benny Bailey

Fig.96. Martin Taylor

Fig.98. Colin Purbrook

responses were recorded and shows how an average of the responses was obtained.8

For the purpose of this example only the responses for one of the photographs are

shown, whereas, in the charts shown in figs. 141 - 143 the responses for all twelve

photographs were used to obtain the averages.

Wigan Youth Jazz Orchestra (15 in group)

Word Group A Number of

responses

Word Group B Number

of

responses

Photograph 1

Terell Stafford

Loud 12 Quiet 3

Aggressive 12 Placid 3

Big 14 Small 1

Unfriendly 9 Friendly 6

Fierce 11 Gentle 4

Heavy 14 Light 1

Dominant 14 Submissive 1

Bossy 14 Timid 1

Total Responses Per Group

100 Total Responses Per

Group

20

Average % 83.3% 16.7%

Figs.100 and 101 illustrate how the four groups of people responded to the

photographs shown in figs.87–98. The responses are shown as average percentages.

Fig.100 shows the choice of words in response to photographs of trumpet players.

Fig.101 shows the choice of words for photographs of non-trumpeters. Fig 102

shows the combined results of the test.

8 These were the actual results obtained in the test.

245

Fig.99. Example showing how average responses were obtained.

The above chart shows that all four groups considered the words in Group A to be

more appropriate in describing the photographs of trumpet players than the words in

Group B. In contrast the chart in Fig.101 shows that the four groups considered the

words in Group B to be more appropriate in describing the photographs of the non-

trumpet players.

246

Fig.100. Word choice in response to photographs of trumpet players

Fig.101. Word choice in response to photographs of non-trumpet players

Commentary on the Results

The responses to the photographs from all four groups clearly showed that in order

to describe the trumpet players observers had in the majority of cases chosen words

from ‘Word Group A’. Furthermore, in order to describe the non-trumpet players

observers had in the majority of cases chosen words for Word Group B. Although

these results should be seen as generalisations they nevertheless provide an

indication that images of trumpet players generate thoughts of power and

aggressiveness. In contrast, the images of the other instrumentalists used within the

247

Fig.102. Combined results for choice of words for photographs of trumpet players and photographs of other instrumentalists

test appear to generate a different message: one that is perhaps softer, gentler and

less aggressive.

This chapter has examined the ability of audiences to detect changes in tone,

preferences on tone and response to photographic images of trumpeters. In

identifying that audiences not only detect tone change but also have preference for

types of tone in addition to a definite image of the trumpet and trumpeters, the three

parts of the listening test provide a clear indication that there is justification in the

attention paid to mouthpiece design and mouthpiece choice by trumpeters and

designers. Furthermore, the language that appears to have developed around

mouthpiece design is seen to be accurately and effectively used and understood by

audiences as well as by players and designers. This chapter provides a clear

indication that the mouthpiece functions effectively as a crucial part of the

instrument: crucial in helping to shape and transmit the tone of the trumpet to the

ears of the audience. In this respect the trumpet mouthpiece becomes the conduit

between the player, the instrument and the audience.

248