Talk:Piccolo trumpet

message: the only thing i find a little weird is that the trumpet has 4 vaulves instead of 3. My question is it hard to learn to play when you already play the trumpet, ive been playing for four years now but i would like to see the piccolo trumpet and learn to play it but is it harder? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.123.131.2 (talk • contribs) 
:The fourth valve is mostly for the low notes that would otherwise be out of range.--Dbolton 23:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The fourth valve is also used for alternate fingerings for intonation and timbre purposes.  Overall, learning that fourth valve is no big deal.Eggness 08:23, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fourth valve

message: From main article: "A popular term to emerge among trumpet players is "Hardenberger Range". It generally refers to anything above a C on piccolo trumpet."
The phrase "Hardenberger Range", is not a widely used term amongst trumpet players, due to a recent poll results indicate that 90% have never even heard of the phrase used in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardenberger (talk • contribs) 
:Hardenberger Range?!?  Are you sure that the number of people who haven't heard of that term isn't closer to 100%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.160.64.16 (talk • contribs) 
::I removed the statement from the main article. Any further discussion can take place on the discussion page (this page).--Dbolton 20:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm going to assume that's supposed to say Brandenburg.  In either case the term has never crossed my ears, or eyes. Eggness 08:24, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fifteen years ago, but I wonder if this was some reference to Swedish trumpet virtuoso Håkan Hardenberger?—Jon (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardenberger range

message: Shouldn't this article have some references other than another Wikipedia article? Otherwise, this is just an extra page with the same information as the main trumpet page. Daduke104 (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Indeed, some people thought the existence of this article was pointless and it should just remain part of trumpet but they were out-somethinged. :) Nomorenonotnever (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The Maurice Andre site has some nice pics and video, but is very badly written (indecipherable grammar, gushing fandom).  The other site listed is basically advice on shopping for piccolo trumpets.  They both have some redeeming value, but there are WP:NOT issues here. - Special-T (talk) 13:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like the Gearhead page, feeling that it is more of a general survey of a wide range of instruments - that is, not just a buyer's guide but a load of useful extra info on the topic and still worth linking to. I think I am more with you on the Andre page. Nomorenonotnever (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

message: 1. The second picc picture (purple background) is quite nice but could maybe do with a caption. Also (1a), we've concentrated on the older-fashioned shaped piccs and could maybe do with something newer/taller/longer as well ... more Schilke/Yamaha/new-Bach-looking perhaps? I'm very attached to the original (red background) photo, not only because it has been here since c. 1893 but also because it's quite useful.
2. In an edit summary Special-T asks whether one of the photos is perhaps reversed. Good question but no, I don't think so. There's a lack of standardization in picc layouts that's far more dramatic than you see in (most) big trumpets. The red picture is an old (old I tell you!) Selmer and the purple one could be a more recent Selmer or something but I suspect it might be the late and unlamented (though pretty) Bach 196. (I wish it was in 3D so I could just roll it this way a little to see...) Anyway, they're constructed in different ways - the old Selmer is bell-right-of-valves and the other instrument is bell-left, and ne'er the twain shall meet. So they don't really fulfil the criterion of being images of "both sides" because it doesn't work like that unless you really photograph both sides of one instrument! I suppose I could do that if I were a nice and conscientious person but please don't hold your breath. Also the RH side of the old Selmer is a bit boring, because all the fun happens over on this side! Oh well. Hope this helps; best wishes, DBaK (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: comment - in fact (point 1a) I suppose I could also add (if I could be *rsed) a photo of an equally ancient Selmer F&G. But it would be really rather similar to the existing Selmer  B/A - like, very very similar, just a bit longer and prettier - so maybe I should not. In addition, explaining why we call that an F&G and call the other a B/A would keep us all up long past our bedtimes, and give us paracetamol-resistant headaches ... so maybe not. I should shut up now; indeed I will shut up now. :) DBaK (talk) 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos or indeed picc pics 

message: Something doesn't add up in this article.  It basically says that the piccolo trumpet was invented in order to play Bach works.  Well what on earth did they do in Bach's time?  Did Bach really write unplayable works, thinking "Well, in a few centuries, someone will invent a trumpet that can play this!"  I dearly wish that someone who knows the answer would clarify this in the article.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.126.72 (talk) 09:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I think it was written by people, possibly including me, who - because they sort-of knew the history - took it for granted. It needs a tweak to explain, and it should also probably mention that those Bach (et al) parts are being played on repro Baroque instruments too, nowadays, in the right context. Offtopic for the picc but germane to the comments on the parts getting played then (and then) and now. Ermm. Long story. Maybe I will do it or maybe someone who is keen and competent and bright will step in and save us all. DBaK (talk) 01:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: I'm Confused!

message: A B-flat trumpet sounds two semitones lower than scored.  But according to the article, a B-flat piccolo trumpet sounds two semitones higher than scored?  Hard to believe.  Somebody please shed some light.CountMacula (talk) 19:43, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The article says: "The piccolo trumpet in B is a transposing instrument, which sounds a minor seventh higher than written."  Which is correct. - Special-T (talk) 00:02, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Special-T actually it's not correct; it's complicated. The piccolo is mostly used to perform high parts written for other trumpet sizes, Baroque and Classical clarino passages (Bach, Haydn), etc. So if we're going to talk about it being a B flat transposing instrument then @CountMacula is correct. It's seldom specifically called for, and there's no sources claiming the minor seventh transposition. I will dig it up in the Cambridge Companion and other refs and fix it when I get home. — Jon (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that it can be used by choice to play a part, but if music is written for piccolo it would be written with the transposition stated, yes?  Samuel Adler’s “The Study of Orchestration” says, “..the Bb piccolo trumpet, which transposes a minor seventh up…”. Special-T (talk) 01:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "transposes ... up" would have to mean that the notes are written higher than the concert pitch of what is played.CountMacula (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I guess if piccolo trumpet doesn't have its own scored part, then it is transposing exactly when the music is written for a transposing instrument.  And the transposition interval would be the same as for the non-piccolo-trumpet instrument.  Then we would also want to know the transposition when it does have its own scored part.CountMacula (talk) 01:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Adler means that the pitches sound a minor seventh higher than written, which he makes clear in the range diagrams. Short version of my two cents: If music is written for piccolo trumpet (musical theater, commercial arrangements) it would be written a minor seventh lower than the sounding pitch. I think this simple, clear version is what belongs in a general encyclopedia article.  It would be good to mention that trumpet players frequently choose which instrument to play, and do any transposition themselves (which I've noticed is the norm in orchestras nowadays, with each player choosing the Bb or the C and transposing the written music when necessary).  But that situation (choosing which instrument to use and transposing accordingly) falls outside of the question "what transposition does this instrument use?" - Special-T (talk) 14:24, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should rely on a more specific trumpet resource, than Adler's orchestration text, however "standard"; in thirty years of arranging and playing I've never encountered trumpet players reading piccolo up the octave.—Jon (talk) 22:46, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: sorry, I'm not really bashing Adler, as it is generally a good guide and textbook for students of orchestration; I'm just saying that the conceit introduced (on pp. 383–4 of the 4th edition) is that music is written a minor 7th up for the instrument. If it is, I've never seen it. That said, I haven't found any specific refs to the contrary yet, either. The edit introducing this to the article was in 2014, anonymous, and uncited. Perhaps we can actually put this in the article - "some texts advocate writing it a 7th up, e.g. Adler, +ref" or something, and then say that in practice players transpose everything as needed? — Jon (talk) 23:12, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Update 2: turns out, I'm wrong, and Adler is right! Who knew... the piccolo part in Cats, for example, is written down the octave and transposed up. I've even played Cats! I've updated the article. — Jon (talk) 02:37, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Who knew"?  Not me.  Glad to know the article hasn't been wrong about the point for eight years.  Thanks, Jon and Special-T.CountMacula (talk) 11:55, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I think we're both getting at: IF it's treated as a transposing instrument, the music is written a minor 7th lower than sounding. BUT, it's not always treated as a transposing instrument. - Special-T (talk) 15:11, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  B-flat piccolo trumpet versus B-flat trumpet as transposing instruments