Talk:Piccolo trumpet

Fourth valve

the only thing i find a little weird is that the trumpet has 4 vaulves instead of 3. My question is it hard to learn to play when you already play the trumpet, ive been playing for four years now but i would like to see the piccolo trumpet and learn to play it but is it harder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.131.2 (talk • contribs)

The fourth valve is mostly for the low notes that would otherwise be out of range.--Dbolton 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The fourth valve is also used for alternate fingerings for intonation and timbre purposes. Overall, learning that fourth valve is no big deal.Eggness 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

It is quite natural to use the fourth valve when playing a low "f" as you will not be able to play the note otherwise!!!! Regards "Scott LaFata"

Well, 70.123.131.2, I haven't had my piccolo for very long yet. But so far, it has been a delight to learn, having played Bb trumpet for many years. Because of the smaller piping, I find I have to blow much harder in the piccolo to produce sound. Having different leadpipes is incredibly useful. Compared to a Bb trumpet, it is definitely harder to play, but well worth it. The fingerings are no problem at all. On a Bb trumpet, the chromatic scale from F# below middle C to high C, is identical to the piccolo's F# below high C to double high C fingering. (Above that is a matter of chops, not fingering.) Going down from F# is a matter of goofing around for a few minutes to figure out which ones work. I haven't figured out how to play middle C in tune yet, on the piccolo. There seems to be a complete octave of "pedal tones" below that (no semi tones?) that sound really awful in terms of tonal quality. Should this page have a range chart similar to the one over on Trumpet? A piccolo fingering chart (like the one on Trumpet might help, too.) --Connel MacKenzie - wikt 04:02, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hardenberger range

From main article: "A popular term to emerge among trumpet players is "Hardenberger Range". It generally refers to anything above a C on piccolo trumpet."

The phrase "Hardenberger Range", is not a widely used term amongst trumpet players, due to a recent poll results indicate that 90% have never even heard of the phrase used in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardenberger (talk • contribs)

Hardenberger Range?!? Are you sure that the number of people who haven't heard of that term isn't closer to 100%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.64.16 (talk • contribs)

I removed the statement from the main article. Any further discussion can take place on the discussion page (this page).--Dbolton 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to assume that's supposed to say Brandenburg. In either case the term has never crossed my ears, or eyes. Eggness 08:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sources

Shouldn't this article have some references other than another Wikipedia article? Otherwise, this is just an extra page with the same information as the main trumpet page. Daduke104 (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)Daduke104

Correct. Indeed, some people thought the existence of this article was pointless and it should just remain part of trumpet but they were out-somethinged. :) Nomorenonotnever (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

external links

The Maurice Andre site has some nice pics and video, but is very badly written (indecipherable grammar, gushing fandom). The other site listed is basically advice on shopping for piccolo trumpets. They both have some redeeming value, but there are WP:NOT issues here. - Special-T (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I quite like the Gearhead page, feeling that it is more of a general survey of a wide range of instruments - that is, not just a buyer's guide but a load of useful extra info on the topic and still worth linking to. I think I am more with you on the Andre page. Nomorenonotnever (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I still think the Andre site is not that useful, but that and the geocities site that was removed (also questionable) have been re-inserted and I don't care to get involved in an edit war. - Special-T (talk) 12:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of removing the sites as well. If there is no opposition I will remove the links in a week.--Dbolton (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Who never heard about Maurice ANDRE can be forgiven. But who knows him cannot ignore the fact he's the father of the modern piccolo trumpet (as written in his website). If not Maurice ANDRE, who else ? David Mason ? By the way, european people have another vision of History. We do not consider Penny Lane (and the genius David Mason) as a reference in the history of piccolo trumpet repertoire. Viviani, Loeillet, Bach or Telemann are, to our mind, more important than Mr Paul McCartney (who is obviously also a genius). Therefore, it is very difficult - if not impossible - to understand each other. This is a problem of historical references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.238.125.74 (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a problem of WP:NPOV and the quality of writing on that website. Just like it says above. No one has said anything disputing Andre's status - you've inserted that into this discussion. He is mentioned in the article on a very short, elite list of important/famous picc players, and there's a link to his article. - Special-T (talk) 20:30, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Special-T. Nothing said about the Andre link explains these comments. What has it do do with Mason/Penny Lane/Beatles? Nothing. When you say "it is very difficult - if not impossible - to understand each other" it is certainly true, but its author needs to try to understand what is actually being said here and not react to a confused perception thereof. Nomorenonotnever (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Piccolo Range?

The article says, "The smallest of the trumpet family is the piccolo trumpet, pitched one octave higher than the standard B♭ trumpet." Being interested in the piccolo mainly for higher range, I just came from an internet site that stated flatly that one will not be able to play one's piccolo a octave higher than one's regular B flat trumpet. Is this article correct? Or is the other article correct about your pickle? (EnochBethany (talk) 04:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

The article is correct. Whether an individual player can instantly play in that range on a piccolo trumpet is another matter. - Special-T (talk) 00:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Would you mind telling me how you know? I have come across the claim that while the tubing is half the length, the range is the same. Are you a piccolo player?

http://www.mti.dmu.ac.uk/~ahugill/manual/trumpet/range.html "There is normally no difference in range between a Bb trumpet and a piccolo trumpet, but some 4-valve piccolo trumpets do have an additional major 3rd range below the treble staff (i.e. down to Db3)"

http://trumpetplayersblog.blogspot.com/2008/01/piccolo-trumpet-answers.html "The piccolo trumpet sounds brighter than the larger trumpets, such as the standard Bb & C soprano trumpets but, contrary to popular belief, the piccolo trumpet does not enable you to play high notes more easily than the larger trumpets do."

http://reviews.ebay.com/Non-Standard-Trumpet-Guide_W0QQugidZ10000000008667543 "The most common mistake a first-time buyer of a piccolo trumpet makes is that of assuming that the horn automatically fascilitates [sic] playing in the clarino (high) register. If your range isn't developed up there, a piccolo trumpet won't help and you'll be throwing your money away."

http://www.virtualtrumpetstudio.com/guide_to_trumpet.htm "As stated earlier, the piccolo trumpet does not automatically bestow high range. What it does do is bring these notes down into the trumpet's most stable and accurate register by raising the fundamental."

(EnochBethany (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC))

Find any orchestration textbook and it will tell you. Tubing is half the length of a 'regular' Bb trumpet. None of the statements above contradicts this. The first statement refers to written range. The others refer to the player's ability to play in the higher range of the instrument, not to the physics of the instrument itself. - Special-T (talk) 13:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I just came across an unsourced and unverified statement re its highest playable note: "Prior to this recording [Penny Lane], the high "E" reached by Mason was considered unobtainable by trumpet players and has been expected of them since this performance." Personally, I doubt that Mason was the very first, given the expertise of baroque trumpeters on the contemporary natural trumpet, which I believe was actually full length, but if it can be verified that he extended the playable range of the modern instrument, it might be worth a comment in the article. In any case, I would like to see the range shown as it is typically done in orchestration books with a small staff showing the notes, first "As written" then "Sounding" and "Possible". I'll see what I can find out. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 00:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@D A Patriarche it's the middle of the night but I have the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Brass Instruments on the shelf downstairs with "Ranges of labrosones" in the appendices. — Jon (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

One of my orchestration books (Adler, 1992) shows the top written note on piccolo trumpet as the A above the staff. As with all brass instruments, there is no real "highest note." - Special-T (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! I have lost all my reference books in a series of moves, but after some digging I found digital copies of Forsyth's Orchestration (1914, charming but not to be relied on for modern instruments), and (after a lot of digging) Piston (1955), which is better but probably also not up to WP standards for reference. I got called out by a brass player once already for seriously understating the low range of a (contemporary) bass trombone! I think I had better leave the whole issue to brass players and musicologists more knowledgeable than me. --D Anthony Patriarche (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Photos or indeed picc pics

1. The second picc picture (purple background) is quite nice but could maybe do with a caption. Also (1a), we've concentrated on the older-fashioned shaped piccs and could maybe do with something newer/taller/longer as well ... more Schilke/Yamaha/new-Bach-looking perhaps? I'm very attached to the original (red background) photo, not only because it has been here since c. 1893 but also because it's quite useful.

2. In an edit summary Special-T asks whether one of the photos is perhaps reversed. Good question but no, I don't think so. There's a lack of standardization in picc layouts that's far more dramatic than you see in (most) big trumpets. The red picture is an old (old I tell you!) Selmer and the purple one could be a more recent Selmer or something but I suspect it might be the late and unlamented (though pretty) Bach 196. (I wish it was in 3D so I could just roll it this way a little to see...) Anyway, they're constructed in different ways - the old Selmer is bell-right-of-valves and the other instrument is bell-left, and ne'er the twain shall meet. So they don't really fulfil the criterion of being images of "both sides" because it doesn't work like that unless you really photograph both sides of one instrument! I suppose I could do that if I were a nice and conscientious person but please don't hold your breath. Also the RH side of the old Selmer is a bit boring, because all the fun happens over on this side! Oh well. Hope this helps; best wishes, DBaK (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

comment - in fact (point 1a) I suppose I could also add (if I could be *rsed) a photo of an equally ancient Selmer F&G. But it would be really rather similar to the existing Selmer B♭/A - like, very very similar, just a bit longer and prettier - so maybe I should not. In addition, explaining why we call that an F&G and call the other a B♭/A would keep us all up long past our bedtimes, and give us paracetamol-resistant headaches ... so maybe not. I should shut up now; indeed I will shut up now. :) DBaK (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm Confused!

Something doesn't add up in this article. It basically says that the piccolo trumpet was invented in order to play Bach works. Well what on earth did they do in Bach's time? Did Bach really write unplayable works, thinking "Well, in a few centuries, someone will invent a trumpet that can play this!" I dearly wish that someone who knows the answer would clarify this in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.126.72 (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. I think it was written by people, possibly including me, who - because they sort-of knew the history - took it for granted. It needs a tweak to explain, and it should also probably mention that those Bach (et al) parts are being played on repro Baroque instruments too, nowadays, in the right context. Offtopic for the picc but germane to the comments on the parts getting played then (and then) and now. Ermm. Long story. Maybe I will do it or maybe someone who is keen and competent and bright will step in and save us all. DBaK (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)