Survey of Lead Trumpet Parts

Chapter Four

Survey of Lead Trumpet Parts

From 1930 to 2000

The gradual stretching of the range barrier is the route by which an important aspect of trumpet playing seems to have developed. For a large part of the century, trumpet students have been constantly reminded, through tutor books like the Arban Method, that top C was the uppermost limit for the instrument (see page 120). Whilst these tutor books are still in popular use more recently published books are also widely used. Trumpet methods such as the Louis Maggio System for Brass (Macbeth 1968) contain notes up to and including double high C. Psychologically, when you are reminded of something often enough, when you see it written regularly in highly respected publications, the belief sets in that those boundaries cannot be broken. Challenging those boundaries then becomes more unlikely.

Although high notes and extreme range are only a part of the total picture they do represent a fascinating trend in the development of the trumpet and the trumpet mouthpiece. It is a trend that has changed the expectations of the instrument and, more importantly, the players, perhaps forever. With this in mind it is important to identify the trends of range development for the trumpet.

The Aims of the Survey

In order to offer a detailed examination of the trends within lead trumpet performance in big band music and composition in the higher register in the period 1930 to 2000, a survey of 200 lead trumpet parts was carried out. The intention of this survey was to establish the following:

·  the range of notes that a lead trumpet would be required to play at any point in the development of big band music;

·  the periods when notes in the high register were (i) most often used (ii) least often used;

·  the trends regarding the average number of notes per arrangement that a lead player would have been expected to play at anytime during the period of the survey;

·  the trends regarding the overall range that a lead player would have been expected to play at anytime during the period of study;

·  the identity of the composers, arrangers and trumpet players who may have been responsible for instigating these trends and, if so, identified at what point in their careers they were most influential;

·  how these trends may be linked to (i) other musical trends/developments (ii) non musical trends e.g. social;

·  what role mouthpiece design may have played in the development of various trends identified in the above points.

The Process of the Survey

In order to collect the necessary data required for the survey and to create uniformity relating to the use of pieces of music, the following rules were established. The pieces would:

·  come from the period 1930 – 2000;

·  total two hundred, representing approximately twenty-five pieces for each decade of the period covered;

·  be dated and published musical arrangements , wherever possible;

·  be selected at random from big band libraries of the Midland Youth Jazz Orchestra, Wigan Youth Jazz Orchestra, Dave Holden Big Band, Brian Ward Big Band, and Ronnie Moore Big Band;[1]

·  to avoid bias, exclude any pieces that specifically featured high note trumpet playing i.e. no pieces written for players such as Maynard Ferguson or Cat Anderson etc.;

·  represent as many of the ‘named’ big bands as possible such as Count Basie, Duke Ellington, Glenn Miller, Buddy Rich and Stan Kenton.;

·  include all styles of music contained within the libraries, i.e. arrangements featuring vocal as well as ballads.

Main Task of the Survey

The main task was to examine each lead trumpet part and to register certain information contained within that part. Grace notes, optional octaves, optional repeats and any optional high notes on the final chord were not used in the survey since these would not necessarily have always been played. It was considered that these were very much at the discretion of the particular player. All notes contained within ‘written’ repeats were counted. Any repeats that had been added as possible extensions to the arrangement were disregarded. A complete record of the data recorded is provided for reference in the appendix 9.

The following information was registered for each of the 200 pieces of music.[2]

·  Title

·  Composer

·  Arranger

·  Publisher

·  Date of publication

·  Total Number of Notes

·  Highest Note

·  Overall Range from lowest note to highest note (counted in semitones)

·  Total number of notes

·  Total number of notes from top G upwards (including G)[3]

·  Total number of notes from top C upwards (including C)

·  Total number of notes from High D upwards (including D)

·  Total number of notes from High E upwards (including E)

·  Total number of notes from High F upwards (including F)

·  Total number of notes from High G upwards (including G)

The notes chosen are those that might be described as ‘target notes’ for a trumpet player (see ex.4.). Often as players develop the ability to play the upper range of notes they will regard a particular note from top C upwards as a ‘target’ note. Having achieved the ability to play, for example, a high D, the next target note would be high E and so on.

All the figures relating to the number of notes contained within a certain range were calculated as averages, which were then converted into percentage readings per decade. Other calculations were included as follows:

·  The average number of notes that a player would be required to play per piece per decade.

·  The average total range that the player was required to play per decade. In order to take accidentals into account the range was calculated in semitones.

The Resulting Charts

In order to illustrate where trends might occur charts were produced containing all the data. For this purpose the data was represented in percentage format. This would also allow observations to be made that may indicate what may have affected or influenced these trends. The charts produced are as follows:

Chart One Average number of notes per arrangement per decade;

Chart Two Average range per arrangement per decade;

Chart Three Average percentage of notes per arrangement per decade

from top G and above;

Chart Four Average percentage of notes per arrangement per decade

from top C and above;

Chart Five Average percentage of notes per arrangement per decade

from high D and above;

Chart Six Average percentage of notes per arrangement per decade

from high E and above;

Chart Seven Average percentage of notes per arrangement per decade

from high F and above;

Chart Eight Average percentage of notes per arrangement per decade

from high G and above.

In all cases the data collected and used in these charts only involved the lead trumpet parts.

Commentary on the Resulting Charts

An increase in the number of notes (even if the notes are in the lower register) has implications for the trumpet player in that, in order to execute the parts it is likely that an increase in stamina and / or the technique will need to be achieved.

The chart indicates a reduction in the average number of notes per piece during the 1940s and especially the 1950s. The style of music labelled ‘cool’ which emanated from the West Coast of the USA appears to have been strongly influential on much of the repertoire of the 1950s. This music was, as the name suggests, very ‘laid back’ and unhurried in its tempo and was adopted by notable jazz players such as Miles Davis, Stan Getz, Thelonious Monk, Gerry Mulligan, Dave Brubeck and Chet Baker. It was a style that contained relatively uncomplicated melodies, with comparatively small numbers of notes when compared to ‘be-bop’, for example. The titles of albums of the day reflect the popularity and appeal of the cool e.g. Birth of the Cool (Miles Davis 1949), Cool Velvet (Stan Getz 1960), Red, Hot and Cool (Dave Brubeck 1959) and The Cool and the Crazy (Shorty Rogers 1953).

It could be argued that the effect of be-bop, introduced in the late 1940s and characterised by fast moving, aggressive, complicated tunes, increased the number of notes per arrangement rather than decreasing them. While this music had a considerable following it also appears to have produced an even larger ‘anti be-bop movement’: Dizzy Gillespie’s band, for example, ‘faced hostility from audiences who weren’t expecting a band geared more for listening than dancing’ (Seymour 1995:98). As Seymour goes on to point out:

When ‘cool jazz’ began its rise at the start of the 1950s, its smooth texture, light tone, and minimal design were seen as a response to the frenetic, heated pace of bebop (1995:108).

There appears to have been a distinct dislike of ‘Bop’ and as a result, it never earned widespread popularity either with the general public or with most big bands. Be-bop was predominantly a style performed by small ensembles rather than by big bands although there were exceptions such as the Dizzy Gillespie Big Band. When compared to the big band swing music of ensembles such as the Count Basie Orchestra and the Benny Goodman Orchestra, in bebop a relatively small percentage of trumpet players would have been called upon to perform. This, coupled with the continuing popularity of music played for dancing, meant that in terms of popular music the majority of the work for trumpet players remained within big band music.

Even today, people still comment that ‘bop’ is one of the styles of jazz they are unable to warm to and that they find difficult to understand. Members of the Wigan Jazz Club audience, the majority of whom were teenagers during the 1950s, made the following comments on be-bop:

I hate it, there’s never a melody, never a tune to whistle (audience member, Wigan, July 1999).

If you continue to book bands like this, I won’t be coming here anymore (audience member, Wigan, January 1999).

The players just don’t seem interested in the audience at all. They just seem to play for themselves and it sounds awful (audience member, Wigan, July 2001).

The results of the survey indicate that the period where the highest number of notes occurred in big band arrangements was during the 1930s and 1980s. In terms of the 1930s, much of the work for the bands involved playing for dancing where, in order to satisfy the energetic audiences, it was essential to sustain rhythmic intensity. This often involved playing up-tempo arrangements containing lots of notes. Even on the occasions where bands played in theatres as opposed to dance halls, the intensity of the music made it almost impossible for audiences to stay seated. Discussing Benny Goodman’s appearances during the 1937 period, Shipton states:

Many audiences at this and other theaters around the country took to dancing in the aisles, often doing the gyratory lindy-hop or “jitterbug” – energetic dances which had begun in the Harlem dance halls of the 1920s (2001:330).

The reason for the high number of notes contained in the big band arrangements of the 1980s can be largely attributed to the popularity at the time of arrangements of jazz-rock and funk compositions. Composers and arrangers such as Jay Chattaway, Jaco Pastorius, Joe Zavinul, John Labarbera, Herbie Hancock and John Oddo had a considerable influence on the style of big band music during the 1980s. As is indicated by the results shown in Chart One (see fig.64), by the 1990s a less frenetic style of writing was emerging with composers and arrangers such as Bill Holman, John Clayton, Maria Sneider and Bob Minzter.

In the development of a solid trumpet technique good flexibility is considered essential. So important is this aspect of technique that Charles Colin (1980:73), a highly respected performer and trumpet teacher, devoted three volumes of technical exercises to the subject. With this in mind, the trend illustrated in the Chart Two, (see fig.65.) has implications for flexibility. With the exception of the 1960s, there is an indication that in each decade from 1930 to 1980 the required average total range rises noticeably. It seems reasonable to conclude, therefore, that in order to cope with the increasing amounts of flexibility implied by the music, decade after decade, a trumpet player’s technique would need to keep pace with the increasing demands.

The results of this analysis indicated that music within the period 1960–1969 differed from the trend of the other decades. It must be acknowledged that whilst 200 pieces were considered in total, the sample of songs from each decade was relatively small. Thus, it is possible that this sample may be indicating a false result and that by chance the sample of twenty-nine songs contained an unusually high proportion of pieces with smaller ranges. Future detailed work in this area could offer verification of how representative the sample selected in this area of study is of music in this decade. However, the fact that the randomly selected pieces from the other decades illustrated a definite and consistent increase in the average range does lend support to the conclusion that, even with a small sample, one can identify general trends.

In order to examine further the accuracy of the result obtained for the 1960s and to see how the music of that decade perhaps differs from that of other decades, a comparison was made of seven popular melodies, one from each decade between 1930 to 2000. This simple comparison indicates that there is a noticeable difference in average range between decades[4] (see fig.66.). While examples may be cited that are contrary to this observation, the majority of pieces examined appear to support it.

In the following comparison of melodies from each decade from 1930 - 2000, it will be seen that the melodies that have been used as examples are all vocal. The reason behind this is that the vast majority of the repertoire for trumpet in the popular music field of the twentieth century was either originally written for the voice or has been adapted for the voice. Additionally, a very large percentage of the big band repertoire was also originally composed for the voice.