perception of different trumpets study
TRANSCRIPT
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 1/10
ouncil for Research in Music Education
Music Majors' Perception of Flugelhorn and B♭, C, E♭, and Piccolo TrumpetsAuthor(s): John M. Geringer and Clifford K. MadsenSource: Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, No. 166 (Fall, 2005), pp. 7-15Published by: University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Council for Research in Music EducationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319276 .
Accessed: 27/04/2014 09:44
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 [email protected].
.
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 128.163.2.206 on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 2/10
MusicMajors'Perceptionf
Flugelhorn
nd
Bb,C, Eb,
and
Piccolo
Trumpets
Geringer
and Madsen
Perception
f
Trumpets
John
M.
Geringer
and CliffordK. Madsen
Center forMusic Research
The Florida State
University
Tallahassee,
Florida
ABSTRACT
We
nvestigated
hether
niversity
usic
major
tudents ould
be
able to discriminate
mong
the
lugelhorn,
nd the
b,
C, Eb,
nd
Bb
iccolo
rumpets.
ixty
niversity
usic
majors
istened
to
ractice
xamples
nd
an
ascending
nd
descending
ne-octavecale
erformed
nall
trumpets
in the ame ctave.
Music
major
isteners
ere ble to
dentify
he
lugelhorn
80% correct),
ut
correct
esponses
ere ear
hance evelsn
identificationfC,
Eb,
nd
piccolo rumpets,
ith
theBb
trumpet
esponses
nly lightly ore orrectWrittenescriptionsf erceivedifferences
between
he
rumpets
ere
enerally
imilarwith he
xceptionf
he
lugelhorn.
ecause he
ic-
colo
rumpet
as
different
essitura,
t contributes
uniquely
o the
epertoire.
owever,
t
may
be that
b,
C,
and
Eb
trumpets
o not
rovidediosyncratic
lementsothe ound
f
he
rumpet.
Further
tudy
tilizing
ctual
erformance
epertoire
hould e
pursued
o
ddresshis
uestion.
INTRODUCTION
Western
rtmusicncludes
epertoire
or
b, , D, Eb,
nd
piccolo rumpets.omposers
may pecify
r ndicate
preference
or he
rumpet
o
be used
for
particularassage
or
movement,
nd nsemble
onductors
ccasionally
ave
uggestions
s
well.
However,
professional
rumpetlayers
ay
believe hat
hey
remore
cquainted
ith he ir-
cumstances
nder hich
choice
or
r
against particular
itched
nstrumenthould
be made.
Buckner
1989)
reported
variety
f criteriased
by
orchestral
rumpeters
who are
nvolved
n
substitution
ptions
hat ncluded
ccuracy,
ange,
ndurance,
intonation,
imbre,
echnical
equirements,
ransposition,
nd
balance.
Other actors
relevant
o substitution
ere oted lso:
vailability
f
nstruments,
sychological
le-
ments,
nfluences
f other
rumpeters,
nd
experimentation.
o what xtent
o the
various
rumpets
ontribute
niquely
o isteners'
erception
f
ound?
n the
present
study,
e
nvestigated
hether
niversity
usic
major
tudents ouldbe able to dis-
criminate
mong
he
lugelhorn,
b,C, Eb,
nd
Bb
piccolo
rumpets.
There ave een
number
f
mpiricalnvestigationsegarding
ome f
he
actors
cited
bove,
ncluding
tudies
f
trumpet
one
uality
nd ntonationnd
additional
7
This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 3/10
Bulletin f the Council for
Research
in
Music Education Fall 2005 No.
1
66
factorsnfluencingudgmentsf isteners.nanearly tudy, ebster1951)attempted
to
nvestigate
hether
oor rumpet
ntonations a factor
rimarily
fthe nstrument
or
the
performer.
ive
rumpet
layers
erformed
n the ame nstrument
nd
ntona-
tion
ifferencess
arge
s 28 cents ere oted.
xperiencedlayers
ere ound o
com-
pensate
or
he endencies
f he nstrumenthereas
nexperiencedlayers
ollowedhe
dictates
f
he
nstrumentore
losely.
ore
recently,
opiez
2003)
found
o differ-
ences n
the
ntonation
f
professionalrumpeters
laying
long
with
ccompaniment
in
ust
ntonationr
equal
temperament.
ewer
eviations ere bserved
n
the
qual
temperament
ondition.
Figgs1981) askeduniversity-levelrumpettudentsnd ensemble irectorso
discriminate
mong rumpets
n
three
rice
anges.
istenersere ble orate
articular
trumpetsonsistently,
ut
preferences
erenot
consistent
n
comparisons
f
excerpts
and
isolated
ones.
Hanson
1988)
compared
coustical ifferences
n
professional
quality
ach
nd Monette
trumpets,
nd
subjective
ommentsn the one
uality
of the
wo
brands f
trumpets
ere olicited
rom
rincipalrumpetlayers
n
major
American
rchestras.
ccording
o acoustical
nalyses,
heMonette
rumpetenerally
produced
more
harmonics,
ontainedmore
nergy
n
high
frequency
egions,
nd
provided
more
onsistent
pectrum
han
heBach
trumpet.ubjectivempressions
of he rofessionallayersppearedonsistentith bjectivenalyses.usinski1984)
investigated
he ffectsf
mouthpieceups
nd bores. coustical
nalysis
fthewave-
forms
roduced y
mouthpieces
ith ifferent
ups
nd
bores
howedittle ifference
in
amplitudes
r
strengths
fharmonicsne
through
welven the
ets f
tones
sed.
Listeners
ere ot ble o
correctlydentify
rumpet
ones
erformed
ith ifferent
up
depths
r
backbore
hapes.
Madsen
nd
Geringer
1976)
and
Geringer,
adsen,
nd
Dunnigan
2001)
stud-
ied isteners'
references
or
ntonationnd tone
uality
n
trumpeterformance.
n
the
arlier
tudy,
isteners
referred
ood
over
ad
quality
n
unaccompanied
ontexts,
however,uality referencesn theaccompaniedontext erenotsignificantlyif-
ferent.
referencesere
learly
nfluenced
y
the
ntonationonditionso a
greater
extenthan
he
hanges
n
quality.
n the 001
studies, owever,
one
uality
atings
n
accompanied
erformances
ere
enerally
igher
or he
good
quality xamples
cross
intonation
onditions.t
was concluded
hat
oth ntonation
nd
tone
uality ppear
extremely
mportant
n
listener
udgments.lightly
harp
nd
in-
une
performances
were
ated
igher
onsistently
han
ery
harp
nd
all flat
erformances.
Clark
1995)
surveyed
erformance
ractices
mong eading
rchestral
rumpeters
to
determine
hat
rumpets
nd
mouthpieces
ere
being
used
by
second
rumpet-
ers nU.S. orchestrasn theperformancef ate-9th-centuryusic nd thefactors
that
ffect he
decision o
use a
particularrumpet.
uckner
1989)
attempted
o
establish
he riteria
hat re
used
by
orchestral
rumpeters
o select n instrumentor
particular
assages
r
pieces
nd to
dentify
ieces
orwhichmost
rumpeters
se the
same
ubstitute
nstrument.uckner ound hat hereasons or
ubstitution
iven
y
8
This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 4/10
Geringer
nd Madsen
Perception
f
Trumpets
trumpetrofessionalsncludedrimarilyhedesire o ncreaseccuracy,educe hysi-
cal
demands,
nd
provide
wide
variety
f
tone
olor.
ittle
onsistency
as
reported
in instrument
sage
ther han trend
o
utilize
iccolo rumpets
or hemostdif-
ficult
aroque epertoire
nd
for elected
wentieth-centuryompositions
hat
pecify
soprano
nstruments.
In the
present
tudy
we asked
whetheristenersre able to discriminate
mong
various-
itched
rumpets.
ould
university
usic
major
tudentse
able
to
identify
differences
mong
he
flugelhorn
nd
Bb,C, Eb,
nd
Bb
piccolo rumpets?
f
particu-
lar
nterest as
whetheristeners ould
be able to
a)
identify
he
pecific
nstruments
correctly,) provideerbal escriptionsfperceivedifferencesetweenhem,ndc)
whether
atings
f ntonation
nd
tone
uality
oulddiffer
etween
he nstruments.
METHOD
Performances
sing
hevarious
rumpets
ccurred
n
a studio
esigned
or
making
audio
recordings
f
mall
nsemblesnd
olo
performers.
ecordingquipment
nclud-
ed a Shure
7A
microphone
nd
Sony
9ES
digital
udio
ape
ecorder.
professional
trumpetlayer
ith
more han
1
5
years
f
experience
n
the nstruments
erformed
two-octave
oncert
b
cales
n
flugelhorn
nd
Bb,C, Eb,
nd
Bb
piccolo rumpets.
metronome
as
usedto
give suggested
empo
or
he
cales
o be
played
80
beats
per
minute),
ut
wasturned
ff
uring
he ctual
erformance
ession.
tuning
meter
calibrated
o
A4
=
440 Hz was
lso
provided
o
the
performer
uring
he
ecording
es-
sion s
a
reference
oint
or
uning.
igital
ecordings
fthe ndividual
rumpets
ere
transferred
irectly
o
computer
iles ia
coaxial able nd
24-bit,
6
KHz sound ard
(M-Audio
udiophile
496).
Sound
files ere dited
o
produce
n
experimental
D
with wo
practice
xamples
nd
an
ascending
nd
descending
ne-octave
cale
n the
same
ctave,
oncert
b4
o
Bb5
third
ine
n
the
reblelef
o the ctave
bove)
n each
ofthe rumpets.oundfileswere nalyzedsing
he
oftware
rogram
raat
2004).
Praat
llows etailed
nalysis
f
frequency
nd
waveform,
nd s
extremely
ccurate
n
frequency
nalysis
±
.0001
Hz
according
o
Boersma,
993).
Sound
files ere
ampled
by
Praat t
a rate
f200
times
er
econd
n the
present
tudy.
Participants
n the
erception
spect
f he
tudy
ere
0
university
pper-division
undergraduate
nd
graduate
music
majors.
isteners ere ested
n
the ame
regular
classroom
nd
heard he
presentations
n one
of four ounterbalanced
rders
o
pre-
vent
onceivable
ffects
f
presentation
rder.
he music tudents
ere
iven
repared
response
heets
nd asked
o
a)
identify
he
particular
rumpeterforming
ach
cale,
b) give hedegreef confidencehat hey ad neachoftheirdentityudgments,)
provide
ritten
escriptions
f
perceived
ifferences,
nd
d)
rate ach cale
erformance
regarding
ntonation
nd
tone
uality.
9
This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 5/10
Bulletin f the Council
forResearch
in Music Education
Fall 2005
No.
166
10
This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 6/10
Geringer
and
Madsen
Perception
f
Trumpets
Figure
1
Spectrograms
f scales for
A)
Bb
trumpet,
)
C
trumpet,
)
Eb
trumpet,
)
Bb
piccolo
trumpet,
nd
E)
flugelhorn.
RESULTS
We
first
nalyzed
hevarious
rumpet
cale
performances
or coustical
imilarities
nd
differences.
hese
analyses
howed ittle ifference
n
performances
cross he
trumpets
regarding
ntonation
mean
cent deviation
ranged
from
-12
cents
per
trumpet
with
standard eviations f
approximately
cents).
As
is shown
n
Figure
1,
analysis
f
spec-
trograms
f each
trumpet
orthe scale
degrees
evealed
onsistent
imilarity
etween
the
Bb,
C,
and Eb
trumpetsFigures
1A-1C).
The
flugelhorn
pectrogram
Figure
E)
reveals
characteristically
darker
uality
fewer
higher
harmonics
ompared
to the
other
trumpets)
cross the
ascending
nd
descending
cale. The
Bb
piccolo
analysis
(Figure
D)
shows
lightlybrighter
uality
greater
igher
harmonic
nergy
ompo-
11
This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 7/10
Bulletin f the Council forResearch
in
Music Education
Fall 2005
No.
1
66
nents), ndparticularlynthedescending ortion f the cale,there senergy isible t
additional
partials
ompared
o the
other
rumpets.
Initial
analysis
f
perception
ata
of the 60 listeners
evealed
hat totals
for the
individual
rumpets
erenearchance evels
egarding
dentification:
nly
he
flugelhorn
was
identified
orrectlyonsistentlyresponses
were
80%
correct).
We decided
to use
correctdentification
f the
flugelhorn
s the criterion
or nclusion
n
the
final ata
set.
Therefore,
esponses
rom
nly
he48
participants
ho
correctly
dentified
he
flugelhorn
wereused
n the
nalysis
ummarized
ere.
As can be seen
n
Table
1,
responses
rom
hese
subjects
were
only
slightly
bove chance
evels
n
correct dentifications
f the
piccolo
(23%), Eb 31%), and C (29%) trumpets.tcanbe seenthat esponses eremore orrect
for he
Bb
trumpet
56%),
although
nearly
he same
percentage
50%)
mislabeled
he
C
trumpet
s the Bb.
Analysis
f correct
esponses
howed hat isteners
id differentiate
overall,
2
(9>
N=
192)
=
37.83,/?
.001.
However,
here
wereno differences
n
response
frequencies
etween
he
Bb
trumpet
nd C
trumpet,
2
(3,
N
=
96)
=
1.18,
p
>
.75
or
between heEb
and
piccolo
trumpets,
2
(3,
N=
96)
=
0.88,
p
>
.80.
Response
requency
comparisons
or he
ndividual
rumpets
howed
no differences
cross
ategories
or he
Eb
and
piccolotrumpetsp
>
.40),
while
ignificant
ifferences
using
he
Bonferroni
or-
rection
or
multiple
omparisons)
erefound
or he
Bb
nd 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
n
bold
along diagonal
ndicate
orrect
esponses.
ercentages
ased
on 48
listeners
ho
correctly
identified
lugelhorn.
Respondents
were sked to rate heir
egree
f confidence
n
identifying
he
trum-
pets
on a
7-point
cale. Confidence
atings
were
imilar or ll
trumpets
xcept
for he
flugelhorn.
eans for he
Bb,C, Eb,
and
piccolo
trumpets
ere between
.3
and
3.7,
and standard eviationswere also
in a narrow
ange
1.4
to
1.7).
The
mean
rating
f
confidence or theflugelhorn as higher 5.1). The overalldifferencen confidence
ratings
was
significant
etween
he
trumpets,
(4, 188)
=
21.92,/?
<
.001
(partial
rf
=
.32),
with
only
the
flugelhorn
ignificantly
ifferent
rom he others.
he listeners'
degree
f
confidencewas
relatively
ccurate
for
he
flugelhorn,
ut was
not related
o
correct dentification
or he other
rumpets.
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
This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 8/10
Geringer
and
Madsen
Perception
f
Trumpets
Analysisfratingsorntonationndtone ualityhowed o differencesnratings
between
ntonation
ndtone
uality,
ndno
nteraction
etween
he ive
rumpets
nd
type
f
rating.
owever,
here
as a
difference
etween
ggregateatings
or he
five
trumpets,
(4, 188)
=
6.35,
p
<
.001
(partial
f
=
.12).
The overall
udged
ntona-
tion/tone
uality
mean
for heC
trumpet
5.03)
was
significantly
ifferenthan he
means
or
b
4.57),
piccolo
4.77),
and
flugelhorn
4.51),
but
not
different
rom he
Bb
rumpet
4.88).
Listeners
ere lso
sked
o
give
written
escriptions
fthe easons
or
heirden-
tification
f the
rumpets.
esponses
ere
nique
nly
or he
flugelhorn,
orwhich
there ere 8 commentselatedo darker nd mellow one uality.Writtenom-
ments
iven
or he
ther
rumpets
ere
imilar
o
each
other,
articularly
or heEb
and the
piccolo
22
comments
elated
o
brightness
nd
highness
nd
4
to a forced
tone).
Comments
or
heBb
and C
trumpets
lso
were n accordance
18
comments
also concerned
rightness,
nd
3
referred
o a
bigger
ound
ompared
o theother
trumpets).
DISCUSSION
There
ppears
obe
a
good
deal
f folk
isdom
hat s
n-common
nd
passed-down
within
arious
music
ultures
ncluding
he sub-culture
f
performing
rumpeters.
Not
only
revarious
nstrument
rands
dentified
s
being
uperior,
ut
ively
ebates
ensue
oncerning
he
uperiority/inferiority
f
mouthpieces,
aterials,
ifferent
ores,
backbores,
ellflares
nd
so
on. The
epistemological
asis
ormuch
fthis s often
n
appeal
o
authority
herein
he
eceiving
erson
s
expected
o
ust ccept
omething
as
true,
r the
method
f
priori,
here
ne
s firstold hat
here
illbe a difference
between
xamples,
demonstration
s
given
nd
the
person/student
orwhom
he
demonstration
s made
s then
xpected
o concur
ith
he
nitial
remise.
f
course,
most f thisnformations
not
ubjected
o
any
cientific
ethodologyy
which n
outcome
an
possibly
e
falsified.
Another
ssue
irectly
elatedo
music
ducation
s the
mportance
f
election
nd
retention
f
students,
specially
hose
who
are
economicallyisadvantaged.
hile
many
tudents
ome
from
ocio-economic
ackgrounds
here
arents
re
asily
apa-
ble
of
purchasing
nstruments,
thers,
specially
ery
oor
hildren
reoften
xcluded
because
he tudent's
arents
renot
ble
to
purchase
n
instrument.
dditionally,
s
students
rogress
hrough
music
rogram
here
s constant
nd
sometimes
nrelent-
ing
ressure
laced
n students
o
up-grade
heirnstrument
norder
o
progress
o the
nextevel nencumberedy n inferiornstrument.nfortunately
his ften
omes
from
ell-intentioned
eachers
ut t also
t also
permeates
he
ntire
music ducation
culture.
ndeed,
he
xhibit
rena onnected
ith
many
music
estivalsnd
conferences
is one
of
the
most
well-attended
nd
argest
ttractions
f
he
ntire
vent. ven
cur-
sory
walk
hrough
hese
xhibits
illbe
accompanied
urally
y
hedistinctive
ound
13
This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 9/10
Bulletin
f the
Council for
Research
in Music Education
Fall 2005
No. 166
ofyet nothereryager ndseeminglyuite onfidentrumpetlayer estingnew
instrument,
ften
long
with test
fhis
ncreasingange.
hisbusiness
ulture,
hich
is
concomitant
ithmost choolmusic
rograms,
s
ubiquitous
nd
provides
ontinu-
ingpressure
n
every
tudent
ho
ttendsuch vents.
In
the
presenttudy
most
music
major
isteners ere ble
to
identify
he
flugel-
horn,
ut
were
nable
o
discriminate
onsistently
etweenhe
Bb,C,
Eb,
nd
Bb
pic-
colo
trumpets.
ecause he
iccolo rumpet
as different
essitura,
twould
ppear
o
contribute
niquely
o the
repertoire.
chlabach
1991)
suggested
hat he
real
dvan-
tage
f
he
iccolo rumpet
s that
t
places
he
ower,
more
ecure
armonics
n octave
higherhandoestheB-flat, hich acilitateshehigher ange. chlabach oted lso,
however,
hat
layers
o
not
have
ubstantially
ore
ange
n the
piccolo
han n the
standard-flat.t seems easonableo
speculate
hat he
Bb,C,
and
Eb
and
perhaps
trumpets
s
well)
rumpets
o
not
providediosyncratic
lementsor he
ound
f
the
trumpet
hen
mbedded
ithinmusic ontexts.urther
tudy
tilizing
ctual
erfor-
mance
epertoire
hould
e
pursued
o
address
his
uestion.
It
may
be that he
primary
riteria
or
electing
particular
rumpet
hould
e
performance
ccuracy
nd
performer
omfort.
lthough
herere
many
ther ifferent
studieshat
ught
o
be done
nvestigatingsing
ifferent
xamples,ubjects,
erform-
ers, nstruments,ndso on,this tudylearlyllustrateshatmostmusicianisteners
are not able to
differentiate
etween he
various-pitched
rumpets.
he
flugelhorn
was
clearly
ifferentiatedrom heothers.
n
a lessdiscrete
eparation,
he
Bb
nd
C
trumpets
ere
udged
by
ome istenerss
slightly
ifferenthan he
Eb
and
piccolo.
Although
ome
ubjects'
erbal
escriptions
videncedome
perceived
ifferentiations
(which
ere lso
evidenced
n the
pectrographic
nalyses),
his
tudy
idnotfind
he
evidence
hatwould
nderpin
he
ssumed istinctions
hat refound ithinhe rum-
pet
culture
oncerning
hedifferentimbresf these nstruments.
ndeed,
cientific
literatures
replete
ith
demonstrations
ndicating
hat
many
pparently
iscernible
propertiesfsound n isolation,nd which an be identifiedcoustically,annot e
discriminatedhen
ccurring
ithin
musical ontext.uch s
perhaps
he ase
n this
study.
urther
nvestigations
eedto
pursue
he
manifold
opics
oncerning
his
nd
other
ssues
f
perception
ithin
musical ontext.
REFERENCES
Boersma,
.
1993).
Accurate hort-term
nalysis
f thefundamental
requency
nd the
harmonics-to-noise
atio f a
sampled
ound.
FA
Proceedings,
/ 97-1
10.
Buckner,
.
R.
(1989).
Substitutionf
trumpets
n
orchestral usic:
Origins, evelopment,
nd
contemporaryractices. issertationbstractsnternational,51 (01), 13.
Clark,
P. K.
(1995).
The
characteristicsf the
nstrumentsed
by
econd
rumpeters
n
American
orchestraso
perform
ate
nineteenth-century
rchestraliterature.issertationbstracts
International,
56
08),
2925.
14
This content downloaded from 128.163.2.206 on Sun, 27 Apr 2014 09:44:58 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
7/23/2019 Perception of Different Trumpets Study
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/perception-of-different-trumpets-study 10/10
Geringer
and Madsen
Perception
f
Trumpets
Figgs, . D. (1981). Qualitative ifferencesntrumpetones s perceivedy istenersndby
acoustical
nalysis.
sychologyf
Music,
(2),
54-62.
Geringer,
.
M., Madsen,
C.
K.,
&C
Dunnigan,
.
2001).
Trumpet
one
quality
ersus ntonation
revisited:
wo extensions.
ulletin
f
heCouncil
or
Research
n Music
Education,
48,
65-76.
Hanson,
E E.
(1988).
Trumpet
imbre:
comparativenvestigation
f the one
quality
f two
professional
trumpets.
issertation
bstracts
nternational,
49
(08),
2013.
Kopiez,
R.
(2003).
Intonation
f harmonicntervals:
daptability
f
expert
musicians o
equal
temperament
nd
ust
ntonation.
usic
Perception,
0
(4),
383-410.
Kusinski,
.
S.
(1984).
The effectf
mouthpiece up depth
nd
backbore
hape
on listeners'
categorizations
f tone
quality
n
recorded
rumpetxcerpts.
issertationbstracts
International,
45
(04),
1065.
Madsen,
C.
K. &
Geringer,
.
M.
(1976).
Preferences
or
rumpet
one
quality
ersus ntonation.
Bulletin
f
heCouncil
or
Researchn Music
Education,
6,
13-22.
Praat
Computer
oftware].2004).
Amsterdam,
he Netherlands:
nstitute
f
Phonetic
ciences,
University
fAmsterdam
Version
.2).
Schlabach,
.
1991).
Piccolo
trumpet
misconceptions.
nstrumentalist,
6
(5),
52-55.
Webster,
.
C.
(1951).
Measurable
ifferences
mong
rumpet layers.
usic
Teachersational
Association
949
Proceedings,
3,
134-152.