Difference between 5/4, 4/4, 3/4?

Kevin Hendrick · Post by **Kevin Hendrick** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:26 pm

the elephant wrote:
Rick Denney wrote:What you describe as "out of subjective whack", I describe as no longer being meaningful.
The glass is neither half full nor half empty. It is twice the size required for the described application.

(It could also be seen as having a 2:1 volumetric safety factor for overflow mitigation ...

)

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:30 pm

Kevin Hendrick wrote:
the elephant wrote:
Rick Denney wrote:What you describe as "out of subjective whack", I describe as no longer being meaningful.
The glass is neither half full nor half empty. It is twice the size required for the described application.

(It could also be seen as having a 2:1 volumetric safety factor for overflow mitigation ... )

... or 100% additional capacity for future planned expansion!

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:56 pm

No, planned!

(You know, to pour the bourbon in... )

Todd S. Malicoate · Post by **Todd S. Malicoate** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 8:39 pm

William Parlier wrote:No, CCC would be C1, C0 is CCCC. Our C three lines bellow the staff is C2. It goes A0, A0#, B0, then to C1, then the C an octive above that is C1. C0 is practically inaudiable.

I agree that is doesn't make sense to use the multiple Cs though. I was just saying they market it that way and you can't change it. If we used that for every instrument we would be writting negatives.

Instead of getting upset, I will simply reiterate the correct information from my earlier post.

C1 (scientific designation, 32.703 Hz) is not called CCC in any system. Neither is C0 (16.352 Hz) ever called CCCC. I don't know what C is three lines below the staff, but the one two lines below the bass clef staff is indeed C2.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_C has a handy little chart showing the various designations by octave. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helmholtz_pitch_notation explains the English multiple C notation and it's relationship to Helmholtz designation (C, = CC, C,, = CCC, etc.).

I think we agree on the point that the multiple letters don't make much sense in this context. No one writes Piccolo in db', or Horn in FF, so why do tuba players mess with it? Professor Denney said it best...

Rick Denney wrote:Using "BBb" instead of "Bb" conveys little extra meaning

TubaRay · Post by **TubaRay** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:09 pm

Todd S. Malicoate wrote:Instead of getting upset, I will simply reiterate the correct information from my earlier post.

Aw, shucks! And why not?

The Big Ben · Post by **The Big Ben** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:21 pm

Todd S. Malicoate wrote: I think we agree on the point that the multiple letters don't make much sense in this context. No one writes Piccolo in db', or Horn in FF, so why do tuba players mess with it?

Because We Do.

There are Ways Things Are Done. In the World Of Tuba, one of the members of the contrabass tuba family is referred to as a BBb Tuba.

Jeff "Time to pour myself a nice drink" Benedict

iiipopes · Post by **iiipopes** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:27 pm

Hey, Jeff -- after posting above, I beat you to it! Cheers!

The Big Ben · Post by **The Big Ben** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 9:44 pm

iiipopes wrote:Hey, Jeff -- after posting above, I beat you to it! Cheers!

Single malt scotch is Good.

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 11:52 pm

the elephant wrote:

Wow! Tres Equis Scotch! Who'da thunk!?

Todd S. Malicoate · Post by **Todd S. Malicoate** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:29 am

I prefer tubist, since I dislike using extra letters which convey no extra meaning.

Kind of like saying CC tuba when C tuba is perfectly sufficient.

I haven't played euphonium for years, but I find euphemisms to be BS...that being said, I suppose I am SOL, but still wonder was the BFD is? Sorry to be such a PITA.

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:40 am

tubist

josh_kaprun · Post by **josh_kaprun** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:12 pm

I remember reading somewhere on tubanews.com that, as windshieldbug pointed out, a tubist is someone who works with tubing. A tubaist is one who plays the tuba. Not to be confused with a Tubassist, which is a tuba stand made by Wally Johnson.

However, when I look it up using a free online dictionary, both words are only related to one who plays the tuba. Does anybody have an unabridged Webster's Dictionary?

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:27 pm

tuben wrote:(who learned from his organbuilding mentor to squash all encompassing blanket statements whenever possible)

Todd S. Malicoate · Post by **Todd S. Malicoate** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:57 pm

This thread is hereby hijacked and renamed the "anal-rententive obsessive-compulsive extremely-accurate-only thread."

Unless it's not...

josh_kaprun · Post by **josh_kaprun** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:43 pm

Todd S. Malicoate wrote:This thread is hereby hijacked and renamed the "anal-rententive obsessive-compulsive extremely-accurate-only thread."

Unless it's not...

Spot on!

Todd S. Malicoate · Post by **Todd S. Malicoate** » Sun Dec 30, 2007 10:00 pm

tuben wrote:No, just don't go around making sweeping, know-it-all posts when you can not possibly back up your statement.

Sorry, didn't mean to make a "know-it-all" statement, but when I post the most accurate information I can and someone comes back with a "No," and posts incorrect information, I'm going to clarify and back up my statements with links to the source info (which I did in this thread).

You are correct in that I shouldn't have said "C1 is not called CCC in any system"...I should have specified "in any system germane to this discussion." I will try be more diplomatic in my language in future postings, and less sweeping. But neither William Parlier nor I was talking about pipe organ pitch nomenclatures, and you were well aware of that.

Thank you for the info on pipe organ pitch systems, though...I was not aware of that and learned something today.

Oh, and the thread hijacking post wasn't aimed at you...sorry if it looked that way. I was just noticing how far off-track the OP's subject had strayed.

MikeS · Post by **MikeS** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:08 am

Hereâ€™s my suggestion to end all this silliness. Letâ€™s classify tuba sizes the same way Champagne bottles are sized. The tuba is, after all, the champagne of musical instruments. We would then have, from small to large:

Chopine
Clavelin
Fifth
Magnum
Jeroboam
Methuselah
Nebuchadnezzar

I know there are a few more intermediate sizes like Rehoboam, Salmanazar, and Balthazar, but these should be enough. I would much rather argue about whether my Alex 163 is a Fifth or a Magnum than whether itâ€™s a 4/4 or 5/4. If we wear this one out, and surely we will, we can then move to olive sizes and debate whether a Holton 345 is a Super Colossal or a Mammoth.

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:08 pm

MikeS wrote:If we wear this one out, and surely we will, we can then move to olive sizes and debate whether a Holton 345 is a Super Colossal or a Mammoth.

In any taxonomy, you have to reserve the largest designator for the Rudi Meinl 6/4. The Holton looks almost normal compared to it.

If a Holton is a BAT, then the Rudi is a GMFT.

Rick "who has made the comparison" Denney

OldsRecording · Post by **OldsRecording** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 2:32 pm

windshieldbug wrote:

tubist

www.tubenet.com

The Big Ben · Post by **The Big Ben** » Mon Dec 31, 2007 7:27 pm

Greg wrote:[

Good idea. Maybe a different beverage for bass tubas? I'm using a Besson 983 and I think it would classify as a forty:

That is a Teacher Approved beverage to be used with Genuine Selman tubas *only* (Accept No Substitutes).

40 oz. of OE + Selman Tuba = World Class Sound.