Perception of Different Trumpets Study

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

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=crme

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319276?origin=JSTOR-pdf






http://www.jstor.org/stable/40319276?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=crme

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=illinois



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







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







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







Bulletin f the Council

forResearch

in Music Education

Fall 2005

No.

166

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







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







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







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







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.

Documents

Perception of Different Trumpets Study