Is it proper to call a shofar a "trumpet"? The words are different in Hebrew (the metal one is called chatsotsrah). I would call a shofar a horn, not a trumpet. -phma

I tend to agree, however the ram's horn was mentioned in the piece on trumpets from Easton, so I just added the bit about the contemporary use of the shofar. As far as I know, it can go. Danny

I've taken out Paolo Fresu from the list of "great tpt players". I absolutely do not want to offend anyone, and I am aware that such a list can be a pretty stupid thing sometimes (eg the Famous Canadians debacle!). Nevertheless, I am in no doubt that Paolo Fresu is, at least, less famous and established than the others on the list, contentious though it may be, and I think his presence here could be misleading to some readers. I did check this with an online group of trumpet players and had no response suggesting I am wrong. I would be delighted to debate this further. And of course the listing for Paolo Fresu is still there in the C20th brass instrumentalists list, which is linked from Trumpet, but makes no claims regarding fame. -- Nevilley 19:34 Nov 13, 2002 (UTC)

Oh dear more fame contention. I have removed Chuck Mangione - he's done lots of good things, and yes I did rush out and buy "Feels so Good" when it charted, but he just isn't an all-time great player like Armstrong or Andre. Really I think this concept of the "famous list" is a pretty dodgy one. If people want to list Mangione (and, say, Herb Alpert) they need a separate category, with some tactful way of saying "trumpet players who have achieved commercial success and fame without anyone seriously claiming they were 'great artists'". And then we'd get trouble with that, and Marsalis haters would want to maliciously list him there, and so on ...<sigh>. It would probably be hard to even agree on three "famous/great" players to list here , and with every one you add, it gets more difficult ... Nevilley 08:10 Nov 15, 2002 (UTC)

The list of "instruments the trumpet is higher than" has become stupid, and "respectively" was even more stupid and has been zapped. Whoever added this stuff cannot have read what they said.

I don't want to offend anyone, but why is there a section regarding the Bible in a page about trumpet? It may be appropriate in a brief history of the instrument to mention, but its own subheading? I thought that much of the concept of Wiki was a neutral point of view; while the section doesn't necessarily proselytize, it seems to go out of its way to endorse. I respect the process here and won't mindlessly snip where I've not participated, but I think it's an important issue to discuss. -- Lundmusic 02:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Interesting point. I am not a religious person but I have no problem with the biblical references at all. The bible is after all an important literary work, whether you believe in it or not, and informs LOTS of other cultural ideas. Indeed the way that the bible, and religion in general, talks about the trumpet (and other musics) has a direct bearing on how music is written for them and how they are perceived right down to the present day. We wouldn't have all those Tuba Mirum moments in classical music, to name but one example, without religion. It's also directly relevant to the history of the instrument because it's one of the places where we can read about trumpets and trumpetlike instruments in ancient times - and there aren't too many of those! I also can't agree that the text endorses - as I see it it merely reports. So I would oppose any move to take this content out. On the other hand, if you wanted to broaden it by making it into "the trumpet as a culutral reference" or some such then great - adding in other literary or religious or artistic or whatever connections, that would be terrific. In that way we would broaden the content of the encylopaedia without throwing away any existing content, which I always think is a great way to work! :) PS I signed your edit above for you as I am splitting the paras in order to reply threadwise (is that a word?), hope this is OK. --Nevilley 07:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Also, from an editor's standpoint, the section on the harmony instruments could be cleaned up. That is, a whole subheading devoted to bass/flugel/C/D/Eb/pic/slide or perhaps separate brief pages for each? I'd be more than happy to help create some pages for the harmony instruments. -- Lundmusic 02:48, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree, it could be tidied up. I am not sure about the expression "harmony instruments" which is perhaps a rather specialized meaning and not one I would use - I do not see them that way, just as other trumpets, with the exception of bass and slide instruments which are - um - just weird! Also, you have the slight problem if trying to do an "other versions" section that you have to specify a "standard version" to diverge from. As the article implies this would seem to be the Bb piston valve trumpet but you might, unless wording very carefully, encounter some probems with people for whom this is not the case. I'd be very unhappy about splitting them into separate pages as there isn't really enough content at present - how does an Eb differ from a D and a C for example - answer = "not much"! :) So I feel they would be better kept in one place so that you come here to read about trumpets and you get the whole lot. But some restructuring to get variants into a different subhead or something, yes, that might be very good and help structure and clean up the article. Go for it! --Nevilley 07:47, 29 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I tried to tidy up the bit where it tries to explain about cornet and flugelhorn and their similarities and differences. It's probably gone far enough trying to differentiate them in this article and may well need a separate article to try and tie it all together, and to which other articles could refer, rather than just doing it as an almost-aside in this article. Also, it would be a good idea (with no disrespect intended) if this bit were only edited further by individuals who really understand the issues. Recent edits around the trumpet/cornet/flugelhorn issue reveal a certain amount of misinformation or guessing: the state from which the sentence has just been changed was not good and not accurate. The relationship between these instruments is not one that can be written about by someone with vague ideas about the pitch and shape. 82.35.17.203 15:15, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Not sure I would agree with high C (written) being the accepted top note. Any big band lead chart will go higher than this, at least to D and often to F. A lot of classical music has broken above C; just off the top of the head, New World Symphony (C#), Shostakovich 1 (D), Mahler 6 (at least C#). Probably at least the fact that many scores call for notes higher than C should be mentioned. --User:Chinasaur

it says "the usually accepted "top" note is a written C (sounding Bb) though even higher notes are attainable and extremely high notes may be heard played by jazz and other specialist trumpeters." I can't see what's wrong with this. You have to give some idea of what is a normally accepted range and this is: it is what is usually quoted in orchestration books etc. Of course higher notes are often played - the article clearly acknowledges this. But it would be wrong to say that the normal accepted range goes any further than this because then you will have misinformed people writing very high notes for school students who've been playing two years and saying yeah, the top G is OK, it's in an encyclopedia. The professional range is a different thing but the article covers the situation perfectly clearly and does not need changing. 138.37.188.109 07:29, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the new change by Chinasaur meets the requirement - mentions the higher stuff but doesn't encourage baby composers to write it too often! It's an improvement. :) 82.35.17.203 12:20, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Leave your political beliefs out of this. US military images are public domain, and this is a particularly high-quality image. Try finding a non-military professional photograph that can be used on Wikipedia. I cropped the image down to just the musician (there was an American flag in the background) and even cropped out the patch on his arm, so there is nothing to identify him as American. Even the medals do not necessarily indicate that he's a soldier. The photo adds something by showing the method used to play a trumpet. If you want to change the caption to de-"Americanize/militarize" the article, feel free to, but I don't see any legitimate reason for removing the image outright. – flamurai^TM 09:33, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

It is not a good image of a trumpet player! That's why. Have you actually looked at it at all? 138.37.188.109 10:45, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Why isn't it a good image of a trumpet player? What are your criteria for a good image of a trumpet player? – flamurai^TM 11:11, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)

I am so sorry but I am out of this debate, and will not be tempted back into it. Please do with the page what you will, with my best wishes.

In passing I might add that the new photo, from another user, of a German trumpet, whilst nice, is uninformative in its present form, and unbalances the article, visually. It's been inserted as if it is the most important thing there - certainly it should be in the article but not like that. Also, the article text needs to explain about piston vs rotary valves - I can't believe we forgot to do this! Sure you can find them by following the link to [valve] but it should say in the article about these valves and what they mean. Having done that, it would then make more sense to explain the rotary trumpet in those terms, not just call it German, which is FAR too narrow. To be honest I'd rather go back to the USAF guy at the top than have the rotary there the USAF one was much better laid out and made sense visually in the article as a whole!

But, as I say, I am out of here. I should not have started editing this article again and now I am stopping, permanently. Sorry about the outburst before: I feel I am right in principle but I should not have been rude. Bye! 138.37.188.109 13:02, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

An organ player recently wanted to understand the trumpet a bit better, so I gave him a fingering chart and weekly lessons until he could get to high C. Seeing this section stub, I formatted it to match here, and added other curious combinations that sometimes give me trouble. I can understand if someone wants to move it to something like trumpet (fingering) but just wacking it and leaving the "Instruction" section still as a stub is pathetically short-sighted. Go ahead and IMPROVE the chart instead? Come ON now.

I originaly did the fingering chart(s) in Final