What does "core sound" mean?

Trumpet_Mom · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:16 am Post subject:

I've seen posts where players mention liking or disliking the "core" sound of a trumpet. What does that mean?
_________________
Schilke B1
Yamaha 6335HGSII

kentfoss · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 6:37 am Post subject:

I'm not sure about this because I haven't seen any of those posts, but I think they may be referring to the sound of a trumpet without any overtones. It is impossible for a human to produce this sound without the aid of some equipment which eliminates the many overtones one hears when listening to a single note from a brass instrument. Like I said, I'm not sure that this is what they mean by "core sound," I'm just making an educated guess.

Kent

camelbrass · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:40 am Post subject:

Hi,

I must admit when I use core I don't mean it in terms of 'core' or basic sound of the horn. I tend to use it in terms of the timbre, or if you like the 3 dimensional quality of the sound. I must admit that its all a bit abstract. On reflection good players, perhaps more than instruments have a 'core' to the sound.

Regards

Trevor

fuzzyjon79 · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:02 am Post subject:

I've always thought that the "core" of the sound referred to a nice full rich timbre that has 3 dimensions like someone mentioned above... I can't really put it into words... playing into what Bud Herseth refers to as the center of the tone.
_________________
J. Fowler
"It takes a big ole' sack of flour, to make a big ole' pan of biscuits!"

jamesfrmphilly · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 10:30 am Post subject:

try playing with your bell stuck into a pillow or cushion (i lived in apts all my life) you won't have any overtones
what's left is the core
_________________
1946 Martin Committee, Bach 5V

Lawler Bb · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:56 am Post subject:

Great topic, here is my best take at it:

Core is the center of the sound, where the meat and power lies. It's not necessarily the body of the sound, but it can be. It can be about any size, around which is the rest of the sound, generally more diffused. Herseth has a huge core, and not much diffusion around it. I have heard very similar results from a Laskey-Bach trumpet. My Yamaha C has a smaller core, with more diffused sound than core sound.

The core is what can reach out and touch you; you can feel the sound of a trumpet that has a good core. A way to visualize it would be to look at a conventional CD. The clear inner ring, including the case mounting hole is the core, with the data area of the cd being the diffused part. This represents a smaller core with a large ring of diffused sound around it, or something similar to my Yamaha C trumpet. A larger core would have less of the diffusion around it.

It appears to me that the Chicago school of playing is big on having a large, resonant core to the sound. I am working on getting more of that myself.
_________________
Eric Sperry
www.ericsperry.com
www.facebook.com/EricSperryTrumpet/
www.instagram.com/milwaukeetrumpet/

Trumpet_Mom · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:25 pm Post subject:

Would a trumpet with a "fuller tone" be considered a horn with more core than one that is not so full in tone? For example, I had my son stand outside a room and I played the exact same piece with my Yamaha Z horn and my 6335HGSII. I used a Laskey 60B mpc. My son did not know which horn was which, expect to pick the one he liked best - either horn one or horn two. He choose the 6335HGSII. When asked why, he stated that it had a fuller, richer tone. Is that due to the core sound? The Z horn does not have such a strong core sound and the 6335HGSII trumpet does? (I was playing classical type music.) Is this an example core sound?

Druyff · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 1:29 pm Post subject:

It's a quality of the sound. Kinda like a candy bar. Is your sound light like a browny with lots of air and hardly any bite to it or like a Mars from the fridge: massive and chewy.

FlugelFlyer · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:07 pm Post subject:

I've always thought of core as having a fat sound. You really have to hear it to put your hands on a word for it. I'd suggest listening to Freddie Hubbard. His sound in his prime would knock you on your back. Aurturo Sandoval is another guy with lots and lots of core in his sound. That's just my take on it.
_________________
Trumpet: Bach 180LR, 72 bell
Mouthpiece: Warburton 3XD/KT

Trumpet_Mom · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 3:36 pm Post subject:

I'm at home now, so I stuck both my trumpets into a pillow and played whole tones up and down from mid G to G above staff. When in the pillow both horns sound identical. So, the core sound is the same on both horns, but the design of the horns change the sound when played openly with regards to tone? (Material, weight, bell type, etc.)

Lawler Bb · Posted: Mon Oct 06, 2003 9:39 pm Post subject:

Wow, what a difficult topic to discuss. There are so many ways to think about "core". Who knows, we all may be thinking the same thing. Here's another thought:

Trumpet Mom, I would bet that your Z horn has a more defined but smaller core than the HGSII. The HGSII probably has a broader, deeper sound, but also probably not as focused as the Z. Listen to the center of the sound on each horn. If you take all of the "wash" (using cymbal terminology) out of each sound, you should have a center core that is left. It should have some "burn" or resonance in the sound, almost seeming to come straight out of the center of the bell like a beam. The "burn" should be "hotter" and a little more focused(narrower, more defined) on the Z. It will be there with the HGSII as well, but it may not be as apparent, due to it blending with the "wash" a little more.

You know, we should ask the Chicago school guys. My teacher is the first call sub with the CSO(behind Herseth), and he certainly has an amazing core to his sound. I am just trying to put his sound concept into words, and failing miserably at it

.

FlugelFlyer, your Cessna listing in your signature is awesome, I am so envious!!
_________________
Eric Sperry
www.ericsperry.com
www.facebook.com/EricSperryTrumpet/
www.instagram.com/milwaukeetrumpet/

FlugelFlyer · Posted: Tue Oct 07, 2003 7:03 am Post subject:

That's a rental "horn", don't worry

.
_________________
Trumpet: Bach 180LR, 72 bell
Mouthpiece: Warburton 3XD/KT

trptdaddy · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:42 am Post subject:

I tend to think of the trumpet sound in a visual way. Think of a cable TV cable. It has a solid copper wire in the middle. I think of that as the "core". That sound can be muffled if there is too much of the next white plastic cover. On top of that is the braided stainless wire. That is the higher pitched "sizzle". On top of it all is the black rubber covering that can be considered anything that hampers the underlying copper wire and braided wire from being exposed - bad bracing, sloppy workmanship, too heavy a finish, crudded interior, etc. It's all a compromise of which you like best for your situation and your ear.

David

OldKid · Veteran Member Joined: 04 Sep 2003 Posts: 135

When I listen to a trumpet I hear the core sound and it's associated overtones. The brighter the sound, the louder the overtones and the darker the sound the softer the overtones.
_________________
Bach 181 Strad Cornet B1.5B
YAMAHA Xeno 16C4 GP
Getzen 3850 Cornet YAM 16E
King (early 50's) Super 20 B1.5C
Pocket Max B1.5C
Arban's

Derek Reaban · Posted: Wed Oct 08, 2003 12:53 pm Post subject:

Trumpet_Mom,

I have done more a great deal of thinking related to the sound of the trumpet. I have had lengthy conversations on the TPIN list as well as offline conversations with MANY very accomplished players over the last several years. My goal in pursuing this topic was to better understand the terminology so that I could arrive at some tangible means to impact a real change in my own sound (I'm a symphony trumpet player). I hope this will answer some of your questions (and probably leave you speechless on the level of detail that I went to).

The bottom line is that it was very possible for me to impact a change in my overall approach to the instrument. This allowed me to find more resonance (core) in my sound.

First some definitions. Jim Thompson at Eastman considers sound to be comprised of many different components. These include tone, attack, note length, volume, vibrato, intensity, releases, etc. The sound of a player is a unique representation of what that player does with each of these components based on the music that they are hearing in their mind.

Now, the tone component of sound is really what you are interested in discussing in this topic about "What Does Core Sound Mean?"

There are different ways to approach this topic, and I'm sure that different horns contribute to the tonal component of the sound. However, the VAST contribution to the core of the sound really comes from the player, so I will focus on that aspect and others and can get into the specifics about how hardware can impact the sound.

We're getting close to talk about Core! Some more definitions are needed at this point though.

There are two sets of definitions that I have uncovered, and in combination with insights about how different players fit into these definitions, they begin to take on some meaning (by themselves, they are only words). The first is what could be called the "Traditional Conservatory Language" and the second are the Monette definitions. And before anyone jumps up and down about the pros and cons of Monette's definitions, this is a comparison of what I have been able to assemble to make "sound" discussions more tangible to the "average" reader of these lists.

This next section is excepts from conversations that I had offline and will remain anonymous as to the source. However, you will find that it brings a wealth of knowledge to the table concerning the definitions and how the sounds of different players align with these definitions.

Excerpt-----------------------------------------

From the Traditional Conservatory Language, trumpet tone consists of a core, a periphery, and a color. Core, by definition, can not "spread," but periphery can and does "spread." If we use Herseth as a model, and we agree that he has a "big" sound, I would submit the observation that Herseth has a very big core to his tone, and relatively little periphery. Voisin has (had) a medium big core to his sound, and no periphery, Ghitalla had a medium core to his sound, and depending upon the music embellished his tone with a moderate to medium large periphery. To me, Gil Johnson and Sam Krauss, in their prime had similar tone. Both had a medium core of tone to which they both could add a moderate periphery of sound, depending upon the music. Their timbre was sweet, but because Ghitalla "spread" his sound somewhat more than the Philadelphia trumpeters, he sounded a little different in larger orchestral works, but he and Johnson sounded remarkably similar in Baroque solo stuff (compact).

When it comes to "color" I think the going gets tougher because tone color does not exist on a single continuum. Here the use of words like "warm," "sweet," "fluid," "nasal," "metallic," "cold," and others have relevant application in addition to the ubiquitous dark/bright description. AND, the terms "beautiful" and "gorgeous" truly defy quantifying.

I have examined Monette's lexicon of sound, and my objection to embracing it as a replacement for "traditional" descriptions of musical tone is that Monette's language is incomplete. You have pointed out the ambiguity of certain words like "compact." I agree that there are players who use the word differently than others do. But, because the traditional conservatory language has not filtered down to the masses is insufficient reason, to me, to abandon its use in favor of another vocabulary (Monette).

The meaning of "compact" is clear to me. Compact means a tone consisting of a moderate core with little or no periphery. By this definition, '50s Ghitalla, '40s Krauss, and '60s Johnson all had a compact sound. Gerard Schwarz did not have a compact sound. Maurice Andre did, even Voisin did, but his color was both nasal and metallic, oftentimes, so he sounded VERY different than Ghitalla, Johnson, and Krauss. The "size" of their sound was roughly the same, with the edge going to Voisin for "bigness" of core tone (I have heard them all live in concert, as well as recordings). But, because the aesthetic of their tone color was so different, many people would say, without thinking, that Voisin didn't sound anything like Johnson, Krauss, or Ghitalla. If you remove descriptive aesthetics, their sound was remarkably similar in quantitative terms (given that all these players could vary their sound at will---Herseth the most of all).

Monette's vocabulary is lacking in descriptive aesthetics, which is probably because aesthetics are so difficult, if not impossible, to quantify. One might even go so far as to say that Monette's is a quantitative analysis that does not address qualitative elements.

I have no problem with your using Monette terminology. I have a pretty good idea what you mean. My bone of contention is with the "do away with the old" because there is so much confusion over vocabulary. You might as well argue that we should throw away the dictionary because practically no one knows the definitions of all the words!

End Excerpt---------------------------------------

I will briefly touch on the Monette definitions following this section. I think it's important to show the response that I sent to person that I was corresponding with:

My Response------------------------------------------

I think that you hit the nail on the head with this statement: "traditional conservatory language has not filtered down to the masses". I have always felt like there was a secret language that some players understood when describing the sound of the trumpet. From my perspective this is a secret language, but from your perspective it is traditional conservatory language. You also mention throwing "away the dictionary because practically no one knows the definitions of all the words!" This assumes that there is a dictionary of "traditional conservatory language" to throw away! Unless I am mistaken, this dictionary does not exist. That's why I was so excited when I saw the Monette terms.

Now, I believe that in your message you have provided me with this "secret" language, the traditional conservatory language. And best of all, you have tied many of these words and concepts to actual players so that I can continue the learning process and seek out these fine players and better understand your words through recorded examples of their sounds! The one problem with trying to depend on recorded sounds only, is that only a partial sonic picture is available of the true sound of the player. Since you were fortunate to have heard these players "live", I know that your words clearly describe what you were hearing. The only player on your list that I have had the pleasure of hearing live is Mr. Herseth. I will seek out recordings of each of these players and try to apply your words so that I can solidify these concepts in my mind. By listening to great players, I will certainly be more well-rounded as a player. By applying these words to their sounds, I may better be able to describe what I enjoy most about each of their sounds.

I still contend that the pictures at the Monette site help me to better understand the concepts. When you say core and periphery, I believe that Shape corresponds to Core, and Definition corresponds to Periphery. As you say, color is a very broad and difficult topic to discuss. Knowing that color can be made up of more than a spectrum of bright and dark, and seeing the words that you associate with color helps tremendously.

I think it would be wonderful to put together the Traditional Conservatory Language related to brass sound components in a similar format as the Monette definitions. Combined with words associated with a particular player along with a recorded example, it would allow for a "filtering down to the masses".

I am extremely excited about the time that you spent putting this message together. Now I need to find some recorded examples of each of these players, and have some fun listening to their great sounds!

End Response--------------------------------------------

The Monette definitions related to the "tone" component of sound can be found at: Monette Concept

I contend that the "pictures" at his web site were extremely helpful in allowing me to ask the questions that resulted in getting the "Traditional Conservatory Language" definitions from my anonymous benefactor! I also believe that Monette's definition of Tonal Clarity along with Brightness and Brilliance gave me my first glimpse into describing the Resonant Center of the sound, and led me down a path to discover how to achieve this in my own playing. I guess we all get to answers in different ways, and this was one of the MANY paths that I took to discover more resonance in my sound.

I like Druyff's comment earlier in this topic about a brownie versus and cold Mars bar from the refrigerator. This would fall into Monette's definition for Tone Density.

Talking about sound is certainly fun, but focusing on ways to achieve your own personal sound is what is truly MOST important. If you are happy with your current sound, fantastic! If you want to explore different ways to modify the tone component of your sound, look to achieving a resonant sound. I have written a great deal about this too!

I hope this has helped!
_________________
Derek Reaban
Tempe, Arizona
Tempe Winds / Symphony of the Southwest