Talk:Sequenza X

Extended Technique

While Jerry's right that double tonguing is not an extended technique, fluttertonguing and shakes are, as are valve tremolos and pedal tones. If one proceeds from the basic definition of extended technique that it is an unconventional use of the instrument, in the body of standard trumpet repertoire, all of these techniques certainly qualify, as they are not employed widely. Moreover, they are foreign to most trumpeters who do not regularly perform contemporary music, and it is not at all uncommon for trumpeters to be unable to fluttertongue or shake. Doodle tonguing is a particularly special case because it simply was not called for explicitly in trumpet repertoire until Berio, and it's not a technique that a trumpeter learns unless they are performing jazz or Sequenza X.

Therein lies the rub. Most of these techniques are not at all 'extended' in the jazz world. Louis Armstrong had been doing them since the early 20th century, but in the classical world, they are indeed extensions of the standard trumpet technique.Trumpetrep (talk) 02:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Although not a trumpet player myself, I have to take issue with you on fluttertonguing, valve tremolos, and shakes. The latter in particular have been a standard brass technique since at least the eighteenth century, though these days they are more commonly called "trills" (or are you using the term to refer to some other device? I've not seen Berio's score.). Many orchestral trumpet players of my acquaintance have never learned to do shakes as lip-trills, and so substitute valve-tremolos as an easier alternative. Finally, any orchestral trumpet player who cannot fluttertongue is going to find himself in a pickle the first time he has to play Richard Strauss's Don Quixote—or do you count Don Quixote as outside the standard trumpet repertoire?

You are right, of course, about some techniques being common in jazz but not in the "standard" (by which I gather you mean "symphony-orchestra") trumpet repertoire, but it is equally true (in my experience) that most orchestral trumpet players also play jazz. Still, I am perfectly willing to accept that doodle-tonguing (whatever that is), pedal tones, half-valving, growling, singing while playing, flares, many special mute uses, and other such techniques found commonly in jazz (and not all of which, it seems, are employed in this Sequenza) count as "extended techniques" so far as non-jazz contexts are concerned, and should rightly be listed here. My main objection is to including under this rubric techniques like trills, valve-tremolos, and double-tonguing, which are perfectly ordinary in the repertoire.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

By 'standard trumpet repertoire', I mean concert repertoire: concertos, sonatas, etc. I wasn't particularly thinking of orchestral repertoire; although, it certainly is part of the repertoire. Regardless, this standard body of repertoire for the instrument does not make enough standard usage of fluttertonguing, valve tremolos and shakes to consider them part of the basic technique. An appearance in one piece over the course of hundreds of years of literature is pretty much the definition of extended technique. Granted, these devices are not at all uncommon now in orchestral writing, and perhaps in a hundred years, they won't be considered extended techniques.

However, at this point, when a trumpeter encounters a written indication of a valve tremolo in a piece, that is unquestionably rare and will be treated as such by the player. It's not as automatic a technique as col legno or pizzicato, where the notation is standardized and players do it effortlessly. I do agree with you that double-tonguing and trills are not by any means an extended technique. In fact, the differences between those two techniques and valve tremolos bear out the point. Berio, or any composer, never has to specify 'double-tongue', because trumpeters do it automatically when they need to. By the same token, a trill indication never induces a moment's thought, aside from which pitch to trill to. However, a valve tremolo or a shake requires that extra bit of thinking and preparation that is the essence of an extended technique. They aren't the most extreme, by any means, but you can't call them standard, because they simply aren't. They'll give any player pause, and that's the basic definition of extended technique.Trumpetrep (talk) 11:49, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I have the feeling we may be using the same words in different ways. What exactly do you mean by a "valve tremolo"? I am assuming you mean the rapid alternation of two different pitches, effected primarily by changing one or more valves, as opposed to a lip trill/tremolo, accomplished without participation of the valves. You also seem to be using "shake" for something other than "trill", since you first agree that a trill is normal practice, and then say that a shake is not. As to the composer indicating a valve tremolo in the score, yes, that is an unusual specification, just as when a composer specifies double or triple tonguing, or vibrato in a particular rhythm. Unusually specific notation is not the same thing as extended technique, however. I wonder whether the solution here might be to specify the techniques called for (which, as you say, may not be particularly demanding at all to a jazz player), and just avoid the term "extended technique" (which for the trumpet suggests to me things like taking the instrument apart and playing on the bits, bowing the bell with a rosined bass bow, tapping on the instrument's body with the removed mouthpiece, a ring, or a triangle beater, etc.)?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The entry on extended technique does include fluttertonguing. I love your notion of extended techniques! :) Sadly, those are seriously extended! Yes, a trill is different from a shake. I think it boils down to different notions of what's standard and what's not. If we set these techniques on a scale from traditional to extended, fluttertonguing would certainly be closer to the traditional end of the scale than, say, bowing the bell. However, it's not traditional enough to be really considered a standard technique. It's just not used frequently in the repertoire until relatively late in the game. Even rhythmic vibrato, like in Michael's formula, is extended. My interest isn't to quibble, but rather to consolidate information for someone who's consulting these pages, be they a composer or a trumpeter or a layman. In my experience from working with student and professional trumpeters, as well as composers, these things are definitely unconventional uses of the instrument and qualify as extended technique. Trumpetrep (talk) 01:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do not know what you mean by a "shake", then (in the eighteenth century, it was the standard English term for what we now call a trill), and I think that readers of this article are entitled to know just what this might be. As to flutter-tonguing, perhaps that article on "extended techniques" needs amending. I am gratified that my examples of extended techniques cause amusement. Are you familiar with the work of Helmut Lachenmann?—Jerome Kohl (talk) 06:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh most definitely. I hope you don't think I was being dismissive. I just think that, sadly, we're at a historical moment where bowing the bell is on the radical edge of extended techniques, and fluttertonguing is on the more traditional edge. Marco's double bell pieces and split tone pieces are not terribly extended, if one's imagination is really put to use, but compared to the body of standard trumpet repertoire, they are extremely extended.

As to the shake, it's a derivation of the way that trills would be produced on the natural trumpet, but it's employed in a much more savage manner. For instance, in the Sequenza, he repeatedly uses valve tremolos between the omnipresent minor 3rd. The interval is flutter tongued, doodle tonuged, and valve tremoloed, but at one very key moment, he asks for it to be shaken. This is a very pronounced difference in the sound, and though it is the way trills were produced on the natural trumpet, it's not the way they are produced now. The difference in sound between a trill and a shake is enormous. Again, I'm not arguing that a shake is any kind of radical technique, just that in a context like the Sequenza, it is an extended technique.Trumpetrep (talk) 00:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Can some of this be boiled down and inserted into the article? I think it would be a great help to the less-than-expert reader like myself. I believe I understand what you are saying now: it is particularly the simultaneous use of flutter tongue, doodle tongue (I still don't know what this is), valve tremolo, and lip-trill = "shake" that is at least novel, whether all of the components really qualify as "extended technique" or not. And of course lip trills are not much used on the modern trumpet since, because the tube-length is only half that of an 18th-century valveless trumpet, you have to be well up into the high register before neighbouring partials are close enough together to be useful in a "trill" Hence the confusion between valve-tremolo and trill (though of course the former may be differentiated from the latter by the intervals involved between the two notes).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You summed it up quite well! Trumpetrep (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)