Ohio Music Education Association

Perceived Articulation Uniformity between Trumpet and Violin Performances

Author(s): Shelly C. Cooper and Donald L. Hamann
Source: Contributions to Music Education, Vol. 37, No. 2 (2010), pp. 29-44
Published by: Ohio Music Education Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24127225
Accessed: 11-10-2016 15:19 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

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

Ohio Music Education Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Contributions to Music Education

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Contributions to Music Education Vol.37, No. 2, pp. 29-44.

SHELLY C. COOPER AND DONALD L. HAMANN

University of Arizona

Perceived Articulation

Uniformity between Trumpet

and Violin Performances

Directors strive for a unified sound throughout their wind and orchestra ensembles. Artic

ulation affects sound uniformity among winds and strings. This baseline study examined
whether a trumpet player could better match a violin player's articulation, as perceived by

participants listening to a recording of two performances, when: (a) performing the musi
cal example with identical symbol indications as the violinist or (b) directed to listen to the
violinist's musical performance and then match the articulation. For dtach, spiccato, lour,

and to some extent the slur and martel the trumpeter's modified syllable had a marked
effect on the participants' choice of the best match. Consistent articulations among and

between ensemble sections enhance sound uniformity. However, the musical score may
not be the final conveyance needed to achieve uniformity. Individuals need to be aware of
the musical score s limitations in terms of articulation uniformity and have the knowledge
to address this issue.

A 11 directors strive for a unified sound throughout their ensemble, yet this goal may

xVprove even more problematic and elusive for symphonic orchestra directors. The
unique setting of addressing the diverse needs and tone production of both strings and

winds compounds the factors that may contribute to an ensemble lacking a unified

or blended sound. Hamann & Gillespie (2009) posit addressing articulation as ..

one of the more important concepts in string, brass, and woodwind teaching ..." (p.

153). This may be consequential as, in studies by Gillespie and Hamann (1998) and
Hamann, Gillespie, and Bergonzi (2002), one third of all orchestra directors did not
indicate a bowed string instrument as their major instrument.

29

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Contributions to Music Education

Unity of sound within an ensemble is dependent upon the nuances of sound
production for the various instruments involved. Hamann Sc Gillespie (2009) identify
three sound production factors associated with bowing: bow speed, weight (pressure),

and contact point (sounding point) of bow on the string (p. 64). Additionally, they

note these variables as interdependent upon each other, ". . .an entire palette of

sounds can be produced through changing the correlation between the three
sound production variables" (p. 65). Tone production for wind instruments also
involves three components: tongue, breath, and embouchure.

Brass and woodwind players execute articulation "... by the stopping and
starting of the airstream or flow by the tongue" (Hamann & Gillespie, 2009,
p. 154). Additionally, tongue placement and vowel syllable employed affects
articulation; the tongue cannot be considered a separate pedagogical entity for
brass players. Mueller (1967) correlated the tongue muscle to the brass instrument
as the parallel of the bow to the string instrument as a determination of initial tone

production whether "pointed or smooth" (p. 11). Snell (2001) defines articulation

as "the controlled release of the airstream" (p. 58) and is supported by Phillips
(1992) and Bachelder & Norman (2002).
Disagreement exists among string pedagogues as to the order in which to present
bowing articulations. Authors of string articles address the importance of establishing

a quality tone (Allen, 2003; Dillon, 2008) yet hold divergent views regarding bowing
sequence. For example, Rolland (1974) promotes dtach as the fundamental stroke
while Galamian (1985) endorses martel as the basic bow stroke.

Disagreement exists among wind pedagogues as to the optimal syllable usage

for particular articulations. Articulation involves duration control and ". .. consists
of momentary interruptions or manipulation of the air stream as it passes through

the lips and into the instrument" (Hunt, 1989, p. 38). Colwell and Goolsby (1992)

in their "Rehearsal Techniques" chapterfocus mainly on the attack and release

functions rather than specific articulations, but do address basic tongue placements
and syllables utilized (e.g., "doo," "tuh," etc.) for each wind instrument. They identify
style as "dependent on the interpretation of rhythm and the articulation of rhythm"

(p. 117) and also recognize articulation as a more complex involvement than mere
tonguing and slurring. "Articulation is the joining of notes together, and the ending

of the notes is as important as the beginning" (Colwell & Goolsby, 1992, p. 170).
Sullivan (2006) examined the effects of a multi-syllabic articulation approach

with high school woodwind students (N= 66) to determine articulation accuracy.

Results indicated that "multi-syllabic articulation" had a significant effect the

student's improvement of articulation accuracy in rehearsed and sight-read music.
Sullivan posits the students who utilized multi-syllabic articulation may have been

30

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shelly C Cooper and Donald L. Hamann

assisted by the vocalizing of the syllables as . the syllables may have served as a
mnemonic device in helping those students remember the physiological response

better than subjects using the mono-syllabic approach" (p. 67). Whitener (1990)
also noted that "mental imagery" is an important component of sound concept
and interpretation for brass players. "By having a clearly realized image of the

sound one is trying to create present in the mind, the physical aspects of tone
production are guided to reproduce that sound" (p. 117).
When assisting string and percussion players, teachers and conductors are able
to identify overt behaviors (e.g., finger shape, bow hold, bow position, bow speed,
to some extent bow pressure, and so forth) affecting sound production, whereas
brass and woodwind playerswith their tonguing and embouchure not as readily
observablecan prove more problematic. Most wind instructors advocate the use
of various syllables to achieve hard or soft attacks. Yet, Hunt (1989) posits using
the same syllable for every student as "highly improbable" as "... all people do not
articulate the same consonant with the tongue in the same place" (Hunt, 1989, p.
38). Additionally, ".. . similar markings can result in different articulations .. ."
dependent upon the brass and woodwind players' expertise and performance level

(Hamann & Gillespie, 2009, p. 153).

Directors typically provide relevant performance-practice information during
rehearsals. Goolsby (1997) found that band directors spend a large proportion of

verbal instruction time addressing articulation errors and issues. Directors need
to extend beyond the typical verbiage of "play the note shorter" or "play the note
longer" when assisting students in their understanding of score interpretations
and suggested articulations. Schnoor (2002) encourages conductors to share their
thinking process in determining score interpretations with the ensemble members.

"Directors may experiment with different articulations to provide students with

tangible examples of style as it relates to musical expression" (p. 4). Schnoor

identified that these verbal exchanges ". . . stimulate students to explore stylistic
implications [which includes articulation] and listen with discernment" (p. 4).
How can a director create a"unified sound" across an orchestra ensemble? Meyer

(1956) uses "deviation in performance and tonal organization" to address a

performer's score actualization and stresses his readers not to consider performers
as "musical automatons" (p. 199). Meyer also identifies the score as providing "...
more or less specific indications as to the composer's intention, but it depends on
the performer to intensify or integrate these structural cues into a form that can be

communicated to the listener" (as cited in Kopiez, 2002, p. 529). The challenge,
therefore, is to create a process model that assists the ensemble members during
their integration of these structural cues to create a unified sound.

31

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Contributions to Music Education

Aural perception, as it relates to differences in conceptual and physical

interpretation and performance of the various articulations, remains a factor to

consider when generating "sound unity" among ensemble members. "We assume

that musical performance contains numerous so-called acoustical cues, such as

timbre, tempo, and articulation, which help to facilitate the communication of

the performers intentions" (Kopiez, 2002, p. 529). Schnoor (2002) notes: "The
literature suggests (Reimer, 1989,p. 93; Leonhard cHouse, 1972,p. 285; Swanwick,

1979, p. 38) that conductors should focus on . . . meaningful differentiations

when students are presented with differing expressive interpretations of the same

musical material..." (p. 7).

Hewitt (2001) noted that an individual's "aural conception" of sound "... can
be generated either internally (via audiation) or externally from a live or recorded

performance" (p. 309). Bundy (1987) and Kepner (1986) identify external models
as superior to internal models in reliability and accuracy. Similarly, Hewitt (2001)
identified that students listening to an aural model "... increased their performance
scores more than those who did not in the subareas of tone, technique/articulation,
rhythmic accuracy, tempo, interpretation, and overall performance" (p. 318). Other

research supports aural models positively affecting music performance (Dickey,

1991,1992; Puopolo, 1971; Rosenthal, 1984; Zrcher, 1975).

Although individual disciplines discuss sound production and articulation

issues, what is not occurring are the discussions that address matching articulations

across all instruments to create "sound unity" within an ensemble. Research

questions guiding this baseline study included:
1. Does the written music symbole.g., an accent or a dot above a
noteconvey the same articulation interpretation message to a brass
player as to a string player?

2. Will a brass player performing a musical selection, given the musical

symbols provided on the page, use one type of musical articulation
syllable when playing the example, change that articulation syllable
when asked to listen to and then match a bowed string performance?

3. Will musical selections played on a bowed stringed instrument us

ing various bow strokessuch as dtach, staccato, slurred staccato,
slur, martel, spiccato, lour, and collbe "matched best" when
a brass player performs the same selections given only the printed

musical page information or when the brass player hears the per
formance on the bowed stringed instrument and then attempts to
match the articulation?

32

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shelly C Cooper and Donald L. Hamann

The purpose of this study was to determine whether a trumpet player could

better match the articulation of a violin player, as perceived by participants

listening to a recording of two performances, under the following two conditions:

(a) when performing the same musical example with the same musical symbol
indications as the violinist or (b) when directed to listen to the violin performance
of the musical example and then match the articulation.

Methodology
Eight musical examples were composed for violin and trumpet, and each
musical example employed various musical markings and tempo indications. The

trumpet examples were identical to the violin examples, same tempi, musical
symbols, and so forth, with the following exceptions: the trumpet examples were
transposed to sound in concert key and the violin example indicated the type of
bowing stroke that was to be utilized when performing (figure 1).
The eight bowing strokes used for this study were: dtach, staccato, slurred
staccato, slur, martel, spiccato, lour, and coll. See Table 1 for Klotman's (1996)

definition of these basic bowing terms. Using the original music composed
specifically for this study, a professional violinistwith 15+ years of experience
performing in professional-level orchestrasrecorded the eight selections. After
being presented with an A=440 hz, instructed to tune, and provided the indicated
tempo on a metronome, the violinist was directed to perform each of the eight

musical selections and apply the appropriate bow stroke as indicated on each of
the eight examples. The violinist was not provided any suggestions as to bowing
definitions or execution strategies.

A professional trumpet player, with 20+ years of experience performing

in professional-level orchestras, was provided the same selections (transposed
to sound in concert key). The trumpet version contained identical articulation
markings within the examples but without the bowing marking indicated. The
trumpet player, after being given an A=440 hz, instructed to tune, and provided
the indicated tempo on a metronome, was directed to play the first of the eight
examples at the correct tempo with an appropriate articulation given the indications

in the musical line. Following this initial recording, the trumpet player listened
to the violin recording and was then requested to play the example again with the
goal being to "best match the articulation of the violin performance. The trumpet
player was asked to indicate the articulation syllable used to perform each selection

using his own terminology. This process was repeated for all eight examples with
all tracks recorded in a professional studio and burned to a Memorex CD.

33

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Contributions to Music Education

Trumpet Excerpts
^ ^ Trumpet Excerpts

No. 1
Moderato J =92
Moderate
-92

i M 4, I . . mi I IT

No.
No.
4 4
Andante
Andante
J = 6()I = 60

No.
No.
5 5

Moderate
Mtxlerato
J -63 J = 63

No
No
6 6
Moderato
Moderate J
= 144
= 144

No. 7 ,

Andante
Andante J
J=
= 112
112

3KH

||

i===egg \u f f I
Figure 1: Trumpet Excerpts

The order of presentation of the violin and trump

on the original CD were then shifted to incorporate r

burned to another Memorex CD. The violin excerpt

followed by the two trumpet variations and then a repea

34

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shelly C. Cooper and Donald L. Hamann

(Violin, Trumpet 1,Trumpet 2, Violin). The order of trumpet variations (Trumpet

1, Trumpet 2) was randomized for the CD using a Random Number Table.

Participants were then asked to assess the trumpet performances by indicating
which performance they felt best matched the violin performance.
Table 1
Klotman's
Klotmaris (1996) definition of bask
basic bowing
bowing terms
terms

Dtach "Literally,
"Literally,
the term
the term
merely
merely
means
means detached
detached
notes
notes
that are
that
notare
slurred.
notInslurred. In
practice
practiceititisisthe
the
smooth
smooth
change
change
from
from
one bow
one stroke
bow stroke
to another.
to another.
Often itOften
is
it is

misrepresented
misrepresented
as as
meaning
meaning
strokes
strokes
withwith
a space
a space
between
between
notes." notes."
(p. 162) (p. 162)

Staccato "The staccato

"The staccato
note note
is aisshort,
a short,stopped
stopped note
note
played
played
with the
with
bowthe
remaining
bow remaining
on
on the
thestring.
string.
There
There
areare
many
many
types
types
of staccato;
of staccato;
the style
theof
style
music
ofdeter
music deter

mines
minesthe
thetype
type
toto
be be
played."
played."
(p. 164)
(p. 164)
Slurred Staccato See definition above

Slur "Slurred notes"Slurred

are those
notes
thatare
continue
those that
in the
continue
same direction
in the same
ordirection
follow inor follow in
sequent
sequent without
without aa bow
bow change.
change. The
Thecharacter
characterof
ofslurred
slurrednotes
notesmay
mayvary.
vary.
ItIt

may besmooth,
smooth,staccato,
staccato,ororeven
evenspiccato."
spiccato."
166)
maybe
(p.(p.
166)
Martel "The martel
"The
is a martele
staccato is
stroke
a staccato
that stroke
is referred
that to
is referred
as a 'hammered'
to as a stroke.
'hammered' stroke.
Each stroke
stroke must
must be
be prepared
preparedfor
forby
bypressure
pressurebefore
beforeplaying
playing
and
and
followed
followed
byby

an immediate
immediate release
release of
of pressure.
pressure.At
Atthe
thesame
sametime
timethe
thebow
bow
is is
drawn
drawn
quickly.
quickly.
The next
next stroke
stroke follows
follows the
thesame
sameprocedurepressing,
procedurepressing,releasing,
releasing,
and
and
at at
the
the

same time
time moving
moving the
the bow
bowquickly.
quickly.As
Asininstaccato,
staccato,the
thebow
bowremains
remains
inin
con
con
tact with
with the
the string
string at
at all
alltimes.
times.However,
However,martel
marteleisismore
moreaccented
accented
and
and
it it
is is

marked
marked with
with aa wedge
wedge (V)."
(V)."(p.
(p.167)
167)
"The spiccato
is an off-the-string
stroke.
It sometimes
is sometimesreferred
referred to
Spiccato "The spiccato
is an off-the-string
bow bow
stroke.
It is
to asas

'bouncing
'bouncing bow.'
bow.' However,
However, one
onemust
mustcareful
carefulnot
nottotoassume
assumethat
that
the
the
bow
bow
is is

bounced
bounced like
like aa ball.
ball. Actually,
Actually,the
thespiccato
spiccatobow
bowmoves
movesinina ahorizontal
horizontal
direc
direc
tion like
like aa dtach
detache bow
bow except
exceptthat
thatthere
thereisisa alife
lifebefore
beforeand
and
after
after
the
the
stroke,
stroke,

creating
creating the
the bouncing
bouncing effect."
effect."(p.
(p.168)
168)

Lour "The lour"The

or portato
loure or style
portatoisstyle
a semi-staccato
is a semi-staccato
type
type
of of
bowing
bowingthat
that is
is
smoothly
smoothly separated,
separated, or
or 'pulsed.'
'pulsed.'ItItisisused
usedtotoenunciate
enunciatecertain
certain
notes
notes
without
without
pausing
pausing between
between them.
them. To
To accomplish
accomplishthis
thistype
typeofofbowing,
bowing,a a
slight
slight
pressure
pressure

is placed
placed on
on the
the notes
notes ..(p.
..(p. 171)
171)

Co "This stroke
"This
begins
stroke
with
begins
thewith
bowthe
being
bow being
placed
placed
on the
on the
string
string
similar
similar to
to an
an V
V
bow spiccato.
spiccato. At
At the
the moment
momentof
ofcontact,
contact,the
thestring
stringisispinched
pinched
lightly
lightly
but
but

with aa sharp
sharp attack.
attack. As
As soon
soonas
asthe
thenote
noteisissounded,
sounded,the
thebow
bow
is is
immediately
immediately
lifted
lifted off
off the
the string
string in
in preparation
preparationfor
forthe
thenext
nextstroke."
stroke."(p.(p.
176)
176)

35

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

rsDutions to music education

Participants for the study were students (N = 111) from two unive

in the southwest and one in the northeast portion of the United States

completed the Articulation Assessment Inventory (AAI), which included

information regarding education, major instrument, years of private

major instrument, and years of performance experience on the major i

Participants included 20 bowed string players and 91 non-bow

players (winds n = 53, percussion n = 5, voice n = 26, piano n = 7)

94 undergraduate and 17 graduate participants in the study with

breakdown by major: BME 76, BM 18, MME 2, MM 5, Ph.D 2,

Years of private study varied from a minimum of 1 year to a maximum

The mean years of private study was 7.5 with a standard deviation of

The median years of private study was 7 years and the mode was 5 ye

study. Fourteen participants reported having 5 years of private study

Years of performance ensemble experience varied from a minimum of

to a maximum of 28 years. The mean years of performance ensemble

was 10.65 years with a standard deviation of 4.91 years. The me

performance ensemble experience was 10 years and the mode was

performance ensemble study. Twenty-three participants reported hav

of performance ensemble experience, the mode.

Students listened to the eight musical examplesof which ea

contained four performances (Violin, Trumpet 1, Trumpet 2, Vio

Trumpet 2, Trumpet 1, Violin). Based on these 8-measure melodies

were asked to choose the trumpet performance that "'best matchecT the

of the violin performance.

Results
Chi-Square Goodness-of-FitTest calculations were computedon participant s
preference selection for each of the eight musical examples, in which eight different

bowing types were used. The purpose of these analyses was to determine whether

participants' responses differed significantly between observed versus expected

number of responses of the trumpet performance played before hearing the violin

performance (TP) or the trumpet performance played after hearing the violin
performance (TPAV) in each of the 8 selections (Siegel & Castellan, 1988).
Significant differences were found in participants' performance selections
in all but one of the examples (See Table 2). Participants selected the TPAV
performance over the TP performance when the following bowing types were
used: Dtach, Spiccato, Lour, Slur, Martel, Staccato, and Slurred Staccato.

36

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shelly C Cooper and Donald L. Hamann

The only selection in which there was no significant difference was the example
in which the bowing type Coll was used. Based on the results of these analyses it
can be concluded that the trumpet performance in which the performer heard the
violin performance and attempted to match the articulation was determined to be
a significantly better articulation match than when the trumpet player interpreted

the articulation using only the information on the printed music.

Table 2
Chi-Square Goodness of Fit Test Summary Results by Bowing Type
Bowing
Bowing
Type

Probability
Chi-Squa e/df
Type Chi-Square/df
Probability

Detache
Dtach

) = =99.32
X2
X2 (1,11
(1,111)
99.32

p < .0001
p < .0001

Spiccato

81.3
X2 (1,
(1,11
111) ) == 81.3

Loure
Lour

X2
X2 (1,11
(1, 111)
) = =50.68
50.68

p< .001

Slur

21.63
X2 (1,
(1,11
111) ) == 21.63

p < .001

Martele
Martel

8.66
X2
X2 (1,
(1,11
111) )==8.66

p < .01

Staccato

3.97
X2
X2 (1,
(1,11
111) )== 3.97

p < .05

Slurred Staccato

3.97
X2
X2 (1,
(1,11
111) )== 3.97

p < .05

Coll
Colle

X2
X2 (1,
(1,11
111) )==.73.73

not significant
significant @@ pp <<.05
.05

In the first research question it was asked whether the written music symbol,

an accent or a dot above a note for example, conveyed the same articulation
interpretation message to a brass player as a to string player? With the exception
of coll, the participants generally preferred the trumpet articulation that was
recorded after the trumpet player heard the violin performance and then made

syllable adjustments to match articulations (See Figure 3). Thus it would appear
that the written manuscript did not convey the same articulation information to
the trumpet player as it did to the violin performer.
In research question two it was asked "Will a brass player performing a musical

selection, given the musical symbols provided on the page, use one type of musical
articulation syllable when playing the example, change that articulation syllable
when asked to listen to and then match a bowed string performance?" Based on
the information provided by the trumpet player, the articulation syllable was either
changed or modified after the performer heard the violin performance (See Figure

4). In every case, the articulation chosen to match the violin performance was
changed after hearing a performance of the example on violin. Indeed, the trumpet

player did modify the articulation syllable after hearing the violin performance

indicating again the difference between the printed-page interpretation of the

articulation versus the articulation after hearing a model of the articulation.

37

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

jntributions to Music Education

Table 3
Selected Trumpet Model Placed in Order from Least Agreement to Most Agreement

Bowing Type Respondents Selected TP Respondents Selected TPAV

Detache
Dtach
3
8
Spiccato
Spiccato
18
Loure Lour

Slur Slur
31

108
108

103
103

18

93
93

31

40
Martele
Martel

Staccato
Staccato
45
Slurred
Slurred
Staccato

80
80

40

71
71

45

66
66

Staccato
45

60
ColleColl

45

66
66

51
51

60

TP
=
Trumpet
Perf
TPAV
=
Trumpet
P

Similarly,
played

on

staccato,
when
page

the

the

th

bo

slurre

brass

instru

case

of

trumpeter'

the

performan

Table 4:
Applied Articulation Syllables as Self-Reported by Trumpet Performer
Bowing
Bowing
Type
Type Respondents
Respondents TP
Selected
Selected

TP

Trumpet

Respondents

Trumpet

Articulation

Selected TPAV

Articulation

Detache
Dtach

Soft "T"

108

Light "D"

Spiccato

Soft "T"

103

Light "T"

Loure
Lour

18

Light "D"

93

"D"

Slur

31

"D"

80

Soft "T"

Martele
Martel

40

arpw

71

Soft "T"

Staccato

45

66

Hard "D"

Slurred Staccato
Colli:
Coll

informat

stringed
In

45

"D"

66

Light "D"

60

Hard "D"

51

"D"

TP = Trumpet Performance
TPAV = Trumpet Performance After Hearing Violin Performance

For the examples that featured the bowings of staccato and slurred staccato,

the margin of participant choice between trumpet performances (printed page

38

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shelly C Cooper and Donald L, Hamann

versus those played after the violin recording was heard) were not as great as
the differences with the bowings dtach, slur, martel, spiccato, lour, and coll,
with 41% of respondents selecting the trumpet performance as interpreted by the
written page and 59% of respondents selecting the trumpet performance modified
to match the violin. However, even though these differences were smaller, they
were markedly different, indicating a difference between a performance from a
printed page versus a performance having heard the sound source. The coll bow
marking example was the only one in which more respondents selected the trumpet

articulation/performance produced before hearing the violin model and from the
indications on the printed music as a better match rather than the adjusted trumpet

performance. Although, with 54% and 46% variation respectively, it was a small
margin of difference and no significant difference was found between respondents

selections indicating the differences may well have been due to chance.

Using the respondent demographic information, chi-square analyses were

computed to determine whether any differences occurred by string versus non

string players, undergraduate versus graduate students, or according to the

individuals number of years studying an instrument. No significant differences

were identified by string versus non-string players. Due to a lack of adequate

cell size or disparity of cell size, it was not feasible to complete analyses between
undergraduate and graduate students or to identify differences according to the
individual's number of years studying an instrument.

Discussion and Implications

One of the factors involved in uniformity of sound among winds and strings
is articulation. If attacks and releases of all pitches are consistent, when orchestral
ensemble members are provided passages of similar articulation indications, then

enhanced sound uniformity would be achieved. Based on the results of the Chi
Square Goodness of Fit Tests, it was found that the written musical examples did
not convey the same information as did the performance given after hearing the
violin performance of the example. In all but one example, participants chose the
trumpet performance given after hearing the violin performance as best matching

that articulation. The question of whether musical notation adequately conveys

enough information to best produce articulation uniformly is certainly brought
into question based on this study.
An orchestra directors' awareness of the utilization of different syllables by
wind players remains as crucial as a directors' awareness of string players' bowings

(Hamann 8c Gillespie, 2009). While considerable time is generally spent on the

uniformity of bowingsincluding consistency of attacks and releases within and
39

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Contributions to Music Education

between string sections, resulting hopefully in constancy of articulations and

evenness of sound among the stringsis the same amount of emphasis placed
on consistency of articulation between strings and winds, or should it be? From
this study, it appears that attention to articulation consistency between a violin

and trumpet player can be perceived by listeners. Even when similar musical
indications were presented in the musical score, the match of articulation between
the trumpet and violin players was consistently better after an articulation model
was provided to the trumpet performer. In other words, the musical indications in
a score do not insure uniformity of sound for musicians. Phillips (2002) recognizes
the need for brass players to ". . . develop articulations of every possible variety

by utilizing all the vowels and consonants that have musical application of the
communicative art of music" (p. 29). Hence, in ensemble situations the issue of
articulation uniformity may need to be addressed by the leader of that ensemble,
especially when the ensemble involves both wind and string players.
The results of this study imply that a better rehearsal strategy for unified

articulations across sections would be listening to aural models and then

having ensemble members attempt accurate imitations. Whitener also (1990)
identified the "concept of sound" as developed only through careful listening.
Future research is needed for determining the most effective delivery method

aural/visual versus visual-onlyin assisting trumpets imitate the articulation

of a violin performance during rehearsals: (a) by reading the same musical
articulations in print, or (b) by imitating an aural model of a performance of the
same articulations performed by a violinist.
One of the more striking findings in this study was that the common string

bowings, dtach and martel, which are commonly introduced as some of the
first bowing articulations for string players, were the most difficult to match by the

trumpet player given only the musical score indications. Specifically problematic

articulations for the trumpet player to match from the printed notation were
dtach (an on the string stroke), spiccato (an off the string stroke), lour (on the
string) and to some extent the slur (on the string) and martel (on the string).

If similar results were found in future studies, this could indicate a

type of articulation disconnect perhaps not only among trumpet and violin
players interpretation of articulation from the printed score, but perhaps such
nonconformity would extend to all wind instruments. The resultant disconnect
would lead to a lack of sound uniformity within the ensemble which would need
to be addressed by the group's director.
It is important to note the limitations of this study with one violinist and one
trumpet player. Might other performers have played these excerpts differently?

40

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shelly C. Cooper and Donald L. Hamann

Would use of a different brass instrument impact the results? Another pertinent
question to ask is whether instrumentalists can be taught a systematic approach to
articulation description that might be useful in rehearsal. Is it feasible that when
a trumpet player performs a musical example in which a violinist would normally

use a dtach stroke, that a "light D" syllable would consistently match a violin
performance of the same? Future research could address testing various articulation
syllables to determine whether one or more trumpet articulation syllables would be

perceived to be a "best" match for bowed-string articulations. Is there a universal

syllable language among trumpet players? For example, does a "light D" syllable

possess an identical meaning to all trumpet players? What about other syllables
such as "dah," "tah," "tee," and so forth? If a universal syllable language does exist
among trumpet players, would this extend to all brass instruments? In addition,
researchers could determine whether there are particular woodwind articulation
syllables that consistently match particular bowed-string articulations or whether
there are any articulation syllables that convey a universal articulation language.

Results from this baseline study indicate that a director of a symphonic

orchestra cannot assume that similar print articulations will result in similar
performances by trumpets and strings. These results support the statement by

Hamann & Gillespie (2009) that "Seemingly similar markings can result in
different articulations, depending on whether it is being played by a string or
brass/woodwind player" (136). It would appear that printed-page articulations do
not convey the same meaning to a violinist as to a trumpet player and that different

trumpet syllables result in performances perceived as poorer or better articulation

matches with violin performances of identical musical examples. Whitener (1990)
notes that a brass player can reproduce a desired sound only after "... the passage is

visualized or heard in the 'mind's ear'" (p. 112). While ensemble directors may also
address the issues of articulation among and between various sections within any
given ensemble, the need to increase efforts in articulation and sound uniformity
are supported by this study.
Uniformity of sound is one of the issues that directors strive to achieve within

their ensembles. When articulations are consistent among and between various
sections of any ensemble sound uniformity is enhanced. However, the musical
score may not be the final conveyance of information musicians need to achieve
articulation uniformity. Individuals in chamber ensembles, as well as directors in
orchestras and bands, not only need to be aware of the limitations of the musical

score in terms of articulation uniformity, but also need to have the knowledge
and skill to address this issue. "A player's musicality is the main factor affecting
articulation as it is in most areas of performance" (Snell, 2001, p. 62). It is hoped

41

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Contributions to Music Education

that findings in this study will begin to assist musicians in improving ensemble

clarity through articulation unity and through the interpretation of various

articulation indications in a music score.

Submitted September 14, 2009; Accepted April 16,2010.

References
Allen, M. L. (2003). A pedagogical model for beginning string class instruction:
Revisited. In D. Littrell Editor, Teaching music through performance in orchestra

(pp. 3-14). Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.

Bachelder, D., & Hunt, N. (2002) Guide to teaching brass. 6th ed. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill.

Bundy, O. R. (1987). Instrumentalists' perception of their performance as measured by

detection of pitch and rhythm errors under live and recorded conditions. (Doctoral

dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, 1987). AAT 8727984.

Colwell, R.J. &Goolsby,T. (1992). The teaching of instrumental music. 2nd ed. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Dickey, M. R. (1991). A comparison of verbal instruction and nonverbal teacher

student modeling in instrumental ensembles. Journal of Research in Music
Education, 39,132-142.

Dickey, M. R. (1992). A review of research on modeling in music teaching and

learning. Bulletin of the Councilfor Research in Music Education, 113,27-40.

Dillon, J. (2008). Playing beyond the score: Thoughts on teaching effective

musicianship. In D. Littrell Editor, Teaching music through performance in
orchestra (pp. 3-8). Chicago, IL: GIA Publications.
Galamian, I. (1985). Principles of violin playing and teaching (2nd ed.). Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Gillespie, R., & Hamann, D.L. (1998). The status of orchestra programs in the
public schools. Journal of Research in Music Education, 46, 75-86.

Goolsby, T.W. (1997). Verbal instruction in instrumental rehearsals: A comparison of

three career levels and preservice teachers. Journal of Research in Music Education,

45(1), 21-40.
Hamann, D.L & Gillespie, R. (2009). 2nd edition. Strategiesfor teaching strings: Building
a successful string and orchestra program. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

42

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

Shelly C Cooper and Donald L. Hamann

Hamann, D.L., Gillespie, R., & Bergonzi, L. (2002). Status of orchestra programs in
the public schools. Journal of String Research 2, 9-35.

Hewitt, M.P. (winter 2001). The effects of modeling, self-evaluation, and self-listening
on junior high instrumentalists' music performance and practice attitude. Journal

of Research in Music Education, 49, 307-322

Hunt, A. (1989). Advice for instrumental music teachers. Music Educators Journal, 75

(8), 39-41.
Kepner, C.B. (1986). The effect of performance familiarity, listening condition, and
type of performance error on correctness of performance error detection by 50 high

school instrumentalists as explained through a sensory blocking theory. Ph.D.

diss., Kent State University, Ohio. Retrieved March 13,2009, from dissertations

Sc theses: full text database, (publication no. Aat 8617076).

Klotman, R.H. (1996). 2"d Edition. Teaching strings. New Yorlc Schirmer Books.

Kopiez, R. (2002). Making music and making sense through music: Expressive
performance and communication. In R. Colwell Sc C. Richardson (Eds.), The
new handbook of research on music teaching and learning (pp. 522-541). New
York: Oxford University Press.

Leonhard, C., Sc House, R.W. (1972). Foundations and principles of music education.
New YorlcMcGraw Hill.

Meyer, L.B. (1956). Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago, IL: University of
Chicago Press.
Mueller, H.C. (1967). Learning to teach through playing: A brass method Ithaca, NY:

Ithaca College.
Phillips, H.W. (1992). The art of tuba and euphonium. Secaucus, NJ: Summy-Birchard.

Puopolo, V. (1971). The development and experimental application of self

instructional practice materials for beginning instrumentalists. Journal of Research

in Music Education, 19,342-349.

Reimer, B. (1989). A philosophy of music education (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Rolland, P. (1974). The teaching ofaction in string playing: Developmental and remedial

technique [for] violin and viola. Urbana: Illinois String Research Associates.
Rosenthal, R. K. (1984). Effects of guided model, model only, guide only, and practice
only on performance. Journal of Research in Music Education, 32, 265-273.

Schnoor, N.H. (2002). Incorporating strategies designed to develop aesthetic sensitivity

into band rehearsals. Update: Applications of Research in Music Education, 21,2-9.
doi: 10.1177/87551233020210020101
43

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

itributions to Music Education

Siegel, S. c Castellan, N.J. Jr. (1988). Nonparametric statistics for the behavioral sciences.

2nd ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.

Snell, H. (2001). The trumpet: Its practice and performance; a guide for students. West
Yorkshire: Kirkless Music.

Sullivan, J., (2006). The effects of syllabic articulation instruction on woodwind

articulation accuracy. Contributions to Music Education, 33, 59-70.

Swanwick, K. (1979). A basis for music education. New York: Roudedge.

Whitener, S. (1990). A complete guide to brass: Instruments and pedagogy. New York,
NY: Schirmer.

Zrcher, W. (1975). The effect of model-supportive practice on beginning brass

instrumentalists. In C. Madsen, R. D. Greer, &c C. H. Madsen (Eds.), Research
in music behavior: Modifying music behavior in the classroom (pp. 131-138).
New York: Teachers College Press.

44

This content downloaded from 199.212.66.25 on Tue, 11 Oct 2016 15:19:31 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms