• FAQ  • Search  • Memberlist  • Usergroups   • Register   • Profile  • Log in to check your private messages  • Log in 

What is core in the sound?


Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Orchestral/Chamber Music/Solo
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
BuzzFest
Regular Member


Joined: 07 Oct 2010
Posts: 19

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 6:23 pm    Post subject: What is core in the sound? Reply with quote

I have heard a lot of people say that they are looking for 'core' in their sound. In your opinion, what is core? Does that mean "pure sound with no fringe on it", or is it something else?

(Mods, if this should be in "Horns" or somewhere else, please feel free to move it. I wasn't sure)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
spitvalve
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 11 Mar 2002
Posts: 1688
Location: Little Elm, TX

PostPosted: Tue May 14, 2019 6:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Easier to skin an amoeba than try to actually define it but I'll try. When I was teaching I always drew a circle with a marker, that had definite thick lines defining it as a circle, and then wavy lines around that circle to define the extraneous sound. The more harmonics you can hear in the sound, the thicker and more round the circle is.

I think there's a directional element to core in the sound as well. Bach trumpets are always described in marketing materials as having a well-defined core. I used to play a CG Selmer, which is a wonderful horn, but bandleaders were always complaining, especially in big bands, that they couldn't hear me, though the guys in the section could hear me just fine because the sound tended to spread from side to side and not directionally (the big mouthpiece I was using may have had some bearing on this). When I switched to the Bach, suddenly my teacher noticed more "core" in the sound and bandleaders could hear me.

Others will define core as brightness or darkness or some point in between. The bottom line is you can't always define it, but you can tell when it's not there.
_________________
Bryan Fields
----------------
1991 Bach LR180 ML 37S
1999 Getzen Eterna 700S
1979 Getzen Eterna 895S Flugelhorn
1969 Getzen Capri cornet
1964 Olds Ambassador cornet
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aaron
Veteran Member


Joined: 21 Dec 2004
Posts: 237
Location: London, ON

PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 7:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's say a trumpeter plays a concert A. This note has a frequency of 440hz, but when you hear it, you're not just hearing a trumpet play that frequency. The instrument produces a range of overtones - secondary frequencies above the note itself. These frequencies follow the same pattern of intervals as the partials on a brass instrument.

Here's a not-so-high-quality picture. Here's a different visualization.

Your ear and brain combine the fundamental pitch and all those overtones into a single "tone" - differences in these patterns are one of the main reasons instruments sound different even if they're playing the same note.

So, to get back to your question: I've always understood the actual frequency (or fundamental pitch) to be the "core", and the overtones to be the "resonance" or maybe "brightness/brilliance."

If the core is weak or unstable, the note will lack clarity - it could sound fuzzy, indistinct, weak, indirect, etc. (the words used to describe this are a little subjective).

On the other hand, a note can have a clear core with little resonance or harmonics - in this case, the note will often sound dull, dead, "woofy," etc. (again, subjective).

There's a great piece of free software called Overtone Analyzer that I use with students from time to time. Sometimes it can really help these concepts click for students who struggle to hear or understand them.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kehaulani
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Posts: 3758
Location: Texas, by way of Germany and Hawaii

PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 8:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To me, "core sound" simply means the fundamental quality that is always present in your playing, no matter what register you are in.

In contrast, if one player always produces a primarily bright, cutting sound that will be their core sound. If a player produces a deep, resonant sound, that will be their core sound.

There are acoustical and probably personal reasons why that is so, but that is the how, not the what, which is what you asked.
_________________
If you haven't lived it, you can't blow it.

"Even if I could play like Wynton Marsalis, I wouldn't play like Wynton Marsalis." Chet Baker

Yamaha YTR-8310 Z, "Bobby Shew", Trumpet
Conn 80A, "New Wonder", Cornet
Hans Hoyer G10 French Horn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek Reaban
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 4200
Location: Tempe, Arizona

PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 11:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This Post has a good description of core sound.
_________________
Derek Reaban
Tempe, Arizona
Tempe Winds / Symphony of the Southwest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
JayKosta
Veteran Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2018
Posts: 429
Location: Endwell NY USA

PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

My understanding is that the archetypal (fancy word, but I think it conveys my meaning) 'trumpet core sound' is what a listener feels is a 'good trumpet sound' - for the particular situation being evaluated. If the sound being heard meets the listener's expectations of a 'good trumpet sound' then the sound has adequate 'core'. If it's a 'great trumpet sound' (for the situation), then there's lots of 'core'.

And of course, different listeners have different opinions about what makes a 'good trumpet sound'. And similarly, there could be lots of 'core' but the sound might still lack 'something special' that makes it a pleasure to hear.

Another usage would be to describe the most noticeable characteristic of the sound produced by a particular instrument or player. E.g. XYZ's 'core sound' has such-and-such attributes.

Jay
_________________
King Super 20 (S2 1048, HN White)
Bach 7
The 'next note' is the most important one.
Don't take a '20 minute mouthpiece' to a 1 hour session.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JoseLindE4
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 607

PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have no idea what core means in terms of trumpet sound and would personally never use it. The variety of answers here speak to this confusion.

The easiest and most actionable way to describe sound is modeling: sound like this (and play) or sound like Herseth, Andre, Clifford, Bernie Glow, Heifetz, etc. I prefer to spend almost all of my sound discussion with this kind of mindset.

If things need to get more specific, and they rarely do, thinking in terms of relative strengths of the overtones can be productive. Paying more attention to specific overtones during long tones can open up the ears and give new color possibilities.

Descriptive words (sweet, bright, dark) are confusing but can have their place.

If someone asked me to play with more core, I’d probably try playing louder. If that didn’t work, I’d play softer.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
CJceltics33
Veteran Member


Joined: 24 Aug 2017
Posts: 316
Location: Maryland

PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The posts so far are good ones.

Another way to understand this is to listen to a variety of players. Obsess over recordings. Listen to:
Wynton
Doc
Vizzutti
Maurice Andre
Timofei Dokshizer
Arturo
David Bilger

You will hear different colors, different cores, different sounds. Compare these sounds to your own. Assess what they have in their sound that you do not get have. Then you will understand and you can emulate
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tpt_Guy
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 697
Location: Sacramento, Ca

PostPosted: Wed May 15, 2019 4:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JoseLindE4 wrote:
I have no idea what core means in terms of trumpet sound and would personally never use it. The variety of answers here speak to this confusion.


And adding to the confusion is that the discussion mutated from what core is in terms of sound (as in, a sound with lots of core) to discussing a trumpet's "core sound." These two aren't the same.

A sound with lots of core has a strong fundamental, and that strong fundamental allows for the development of more overtones and color to the sound. Aiming for a "broad" sound or a "big" sound without developing a strong fundamental tends to produce dead sounds or sounds that don't project as well.
_________________
-Tom Hall-
Bach 37 B flat
Bach 239 C w/Akright Leadpipe
Schilke E3L E flat
Stomvi Piccolo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rothman
Veteran Member


Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 148

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 12:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not too spread of a tone...a rich, brilliant quality on display regardless of dynamics.
fff -- ff-- f -- p.



https://youtubecutter.com/watch/c2b72803/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Seymor B Fudd
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 17 Oct 2015
Posts: 819
Location: Sweden

PostPosted: Fri May 17, 2019 2:14 am    Post subject: Re: What is core in the sound? Reply with quote

BuzzFest wrote:
I have heard a lot of people say that they are looking for 'core' in their sound. In your opinion, what is core? Does that mean "pure sound with no fringe on it", or is it something else?

(Mods, if this should be in "Horns" or somewhere else, please feel free to move it. I wasn't sure)


I would say that "core" signifies a well centered sound, rich, not wobbly, produced by having the tongue placed precisely on the "right spot" (for the tone in question - start with a low C and experiment with this, placing your tongue differently - til you find that spot which provides the most stable, not fluctuating sound. Maybe in the very middle of the spectrum??)
Also "core" to me could be used to describe the sound quality of a horn, much in the same way, a full rich sound with a distinct and nice balance of over/under tones; probably this is personal - too bright for some, too dull for some etc. I prefer the sound quality of my Getzen Custom (3850)to that of an Eterna.
"Pure"might be a suitable word. In my opinion.
Oh and I regrettably forgot the pre-requisite: the adequate supply of air! Supplied in a stable flowing non-fluctuating way! Not the wah wah way!!
_________________
Cornets:
Getzen Custom Series Schilke 143D3/ DW Ultra 1,5 C
Getzen 300 series
Yamaha YCRD2330II
Getzen Eterna Eb /M V 1 1/2 C/Schilke 14B
Trumpets:
Yamaha 6335 RC Schilke 14B
King Super 20 Symphony DB (1970)
Selmer Eb/D trumpet (1973) Selmer 2 D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Rod Haney
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 22 Aug 2015
Posts: 693

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I’ve always thought of core being the density of tone, with a strong basic harmonic and a good representation of the upper harmonics. To me a great core of sound is represented by Uan Racey. I truly don’t have a definition of core or can articulate what core means to me but I do have a sound in my head I try to model. I think we all have a different sound ideal related to sound. I actually prefer a slightly bright sound so my ideal of a sound will be different than those not raised on big band and funk/soul. I think the core of sound will vary based on where you want the upper harmonics to come thru. I have had some luck playing with a program called TE tuner which measures and shows analysis of the different harmonics. When I make a change in play I always try to test it against the harmonic levels to see if I’m getting increased upper harmonics while maintaining the root harmonic at a strong level. I don’t use this for development but as a check that the things I’m doing improve sound. I am not a student of any classical music, but I’ve always felt that classicly trained musicians tend to emphasize the root harmonic more and do not tend to play with the brightness of commercial players. I would like to hear from people who understand the advantages or disadvantages to this approach. I have to say that when I’m able to increase the level across the board, that human listeners agree it’s a better sound. Please educate me on this and why it is or isn’t a good check on improving sound.
Thanks
Rod
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
JayKosta
Veteran Member


Joined: 24 Dec 2018
Posts: 429
Location: Endwell NY USA

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rod Haney wrote:

... I always try to test it against the harmonic levels to see if I’m getting increased upper harmonics while maintaining the root harmonic at a strong level.
...
I have to say that when I’m able to increase the level across the board, that human listeners agree it’s a better sound. ...

---------------------------------
So you feel that it is the 'increased upper harmonics' level proportion (or perhaps less emphasis on the root level) that your listeners prefer?
Do you recall what particular words they use to describe the sound? E.g. 'brighter', more 'present', more 'interesting', more 'emotional', more 'identifiable', 'energetic', etc.

Jay
_________________
King Super 20 (S2 1048, HN White)
Bach 7
The 'next note' is the most important one.
Don't take a '20 minute mouthpiece' to a 1 hour session.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Derek Reaban
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 08 Jul 2003
Posts: 4200
Location: Tempe, Arizona

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rod Haney wrote:
I’ve always thought of core being the density of tone, with a strong basic harmonic and a good representation of the upper harmonics. To me a great core of sound is represented by Uan Racey. I truly don’t have a definition of core or can articulate what core means to me but I do have a sound in my head I try to model. I think we all have a different sound ideal related to sound. I actually prefer a slightly bright sound so my ideal of a sound will be different than those not raised on big band and funk/soul. I think the core of sound will vary based on where you want the upper harmonics to come thru. I have had some luck playing with a program called TE tuner which measures and shows analysis of the different harmonics. When I make a change in play I always try to test it against the harmonic levels to see if I’m getting increased upper harmonics while maintaining the root harmonic at a strong level. I don’t use this for development but as a check that the things I’m doing improve sound. I am not a student of any classical music, but I’ve always felt that classicly trained musicians tend to emphasize the root harmonic more and do not tend to play with the brightness of commercial players. I would like to hear from people who understand the advantages or disadvantages to this approach. I have to say that when I’m able to increase the level across the board, that human listeners agree it’s a better sound. Please educate me on this and why it is or isn’t a good check on improving sound.
Thanks
Rod


Hi Rod,

I think you would enjoy these posts:

TH Sonic Signatures (Analysis)

TH Sonic Signatures (Baseline)

A Post from Sound Experiment
_________________
Derek Reaban
Tempe, Arizona
Tempe Winds / Symphony of the Southwest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Rod Haney
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 22 Aug 2015
Posts: 693

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 5:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JayKosta wrote:
Rod Haney wrote:

... I always try to test it against the harmonic levels to see if I’m getting increased upper harmonics while maintaining the root harmonic at a strong level.
...
I have to say that when I’m able to increase the level across the board, that human listeners agree it’s a better sound. ...

---------------------------------
So you feel that it is the 'increased upper harmonics' level proportion (or perhaps less emphasis on the root level) that your listeners prefer?
Do you recall what particular words they use to describe the sound? E.g. 'brighter', more 'present', more 'interesting', more 'emotional', more 'identifiable', 'energetic', etc.

Jay


My instructor says it is a more pure sound. I think of it as more full. I find that if I do find something that improves across the board even slightly that I don’t have to blow as hard to get same projection. Getting more for less in a way.
I know these are just more words like core but may help narrow things.
Rod
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Rod Haney
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 22 Aug 2015
Posts: 693

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 6:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Derek Reaban wrote:
Rod Haney wrote:
I’ve always thought of core being the density of tone, with a strong basic harmonic and a good representation of the upper harmonics. To me a great core of sound is represented by Uan Racey. I truly don’t have a definition of core or can articulate what core means to me but I do have a sound in my head I try to model. I think we all have a different sound ideal related to sound. I actually prefer a slightly bright sound so my ideal of a sound will be different than those not raised on big band and funk/soul. I think the core of sound will vary based on where you want the upper harmonics to come thru. I have had some luck playing with a program called TE tuner which measures and shows analysis of the different harmonics. When I make a change in play I always try to test it against the harmonic levels to see if I’m getting increased upper harmonics while maintaining the root harmonic at a strong level. I don’t use this for development but as a check that the things I’m doing improve sound. I am not a student of any classical music, but I’ve always felt that classicly trained musicians tend to emphasize the root harmonic more and do not tend to play with the brightness of commercial players. I would like to hear from people who understand the advantages or disadvantages to this approach. I have to say that when I’m able to increase the level across the board, that human listeners agree it’s a better sound. Please educate me on this and why it is or isn’t a good check on improving sound.
Thanks
Rod


Hi Rod,

I think you would enjoy these posts:

TH Sonic Signatures (Analysis)

TH Sonic Signatures (Baseline)

A Post from Sound Experiment


Thank you these posts show I might be on to something. I also notice that I get into the red rainbow increasingly above hi c and by f the root is highest. Id like to think this an artifact of the instrument but is probably due to having a practical limit of hi g in The practice room.
This was very helpful and I wasn’t aware of that program. I do really agree with your thoughts on projection, and will note that increasing resonance in higher than root makes you work less hard to be heard
Thanks
Rod
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
starkadder
Veteran Member


Joined: 01 May 2008
Posts: 488

PostPosted: Sun May 19, 2019 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wondered the same thing about 'core' sound for a long time before I discovered it.

After recording myself and being disgusted by what I heard, especially my intonation, I focused for a while on long tones and playing in tune. When I put away the tuner and focused on my sound I found that there was a point for each note where the sound blossomed, for lack of a better way to explain. I knew I was hitting it when I heard a particular ringing in my ear. And best of all, when I was playing in that sweet spot, the notes were all in tune (!).

So the core sound (for me) is the place where the trumpet's natural overtones take over. The sound is rich, easy and in tune. The more you work to play at the point, all the time. the easier it gets and the better you sound. Don't settle for less.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Alex Brain
Regular Member


Joined: 22 Jan 2019
Posts: 60

PostPosted: Mon May 20, 2019 2:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

I saw this post when I logged in a couple of days ago, and have thought hard about whether or not to post a response. In general I try to avoid posting in threads that aren't my own, as I am wary of appearing either narcissistic or simply overly self-promotional. However, on reflection, I think that this question links quite well into the purpose of my some of my videos and hope that my reply may be of some use and could promote some constructive discussion. If not, I apologise in advance.

The question was asked about one of my series of youtube videos (movie solos); 'what is the point in recording these when someone could simply listen to the original recording with orchestra'. And this thread is one of the reasons why I chose to publish those solos.

In my experience on the web, it is quite rare to find high quality videos of professional players in a totally exposed and unedited setting without the benefits of a mixing desk, splicing, reverb control and/or a large acoustic space and/or accompanying ensemble. In the instances where these are not present, such as a live camera phone recording, the audio quality is usually sub-par and the location of the recording device is not ideal either.

It is my hope that my small video series can demonstrate, without any of the distractions I mentioned above, some of these fundemental elements and is a useful way to give a very pure (in terms of lacking other sounds/instruments in the recording, along with high audio quality) example of 'core' to the sound.

Here is the latest video I published, which is already in a thread elsewhere on the site. Apologies to anyone who feels it has been over-shared.


Link


I hope this can help enhance the discussion and provide my opinion on what 'core' in the sound is. You are all entitled to disagree either with my opinion or my demonstration.

Sincerely,
_________________
'Trumpet Brain'
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCRLWEmdfQhlIYO4tOfppWEw
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Robert P
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 28 Feb 2013
Posts: 1532

PostPosted: Tue May 21, 2019 12:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The core is a subjective perception of what someone feels makes up the character of the sound.

The problem is the horn is going to sound different with different mouthpieces, at different distances, where you are in proximity to it, what room you're in, indoors vs outdoors, recorded vs live, when recording what mic and proximity.
_________________
Getzen Eterna Severinsen
King Silver Flair
Besson 1000
Bundy
No-name Chinese C
Vento flugel
Getzen Eterna pickle-oh
Schiller rotary pickle-oh
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rothman
Veteran Member


Joined: 23 Jan 2014
Posts: 148

PostPosted: Wed May 22, 2019 10:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forging...

http://bigbandlibrary.com/ziggyelman.html

https://youtubecutter.com/watch/90349b85/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Orchestral/Chamber Music/Solo All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group