TubeNet

Just curious. I see this terminology, never sure what it means. Low C is obvious enough when it's someone complaining about his F tuba, but in other contexts would it also invariably be C2, or ...? The question is about F, but please feel free if you'd like to propose a more general classification.

If you're the first to select something other than F3, could you explain, do you picture this in a context of Low, Middle, High, Extra High, Extra Low, etc., and if so, where's Middle? or if not, what?

F0 is pedal F.
F4 is high F.
F5 is double high F.

F3 is high F

F4 is F’n high F

But the correct answer is 4 tallboys!!

From an amateur, F's 1, 2, and 3 are in normal tuba range, so High F is F4.
Or, F0 is Pedal F, F1 is Low F, F2 is just plain F, F3 is High F, F4 is Super F, F5 is Squealy F.
Or, we could all just go for pizza.

Huh. Peculiar. If we have lost the plot on a consistent relative low/high/etc. nomenclature, above Low F, maybe it would be better to just stick with descriptive references like "F above middle C", "F in the staff", etc. Especially since people who agree on the Fs may disagree on the Ds, and so forth.

When I play a lot of F1s in brass band I feel like I am high.


Wow dude...what a rush....totally kool….

Donn wrote:Huh. Peculiar. If we have lost the plot on a consistent relative low/high/etc. nomenclature, above Low F, maybe it would be better to just stick with descriptive references like "F above middle C", "F in the staff", etc. .

Yes. I end up confused with the various systems (F5, F'', etc.) There are at least three, and then trombone players will sometimes talk about the partial (6th partial F) to explain what they mean.

And then there's the silly business of changing the number at C instead of A. so B6 is higher than C6. I have a handbell group and this causes all sorts of confusion, including the teenage ringer who holds her bells alphabetically. So if I have her on D5 E5 her left hand bell is lower, but if I put her on G6 A6 her right hand bell is lower. (why does it matter? because I'm directing and I'll see the "wrong" hand move but hear the right note, or more often vice versa.)

I would be fine with Hz though. Tell me A 440, and I know which one you mean. Same with C 261.2. If you tell me C 256 I know you're a physicist and you'll have to earn your credibility.

My inner monologue on F's.

F0: Pedal F.
F1: Low F. I don't categorize notes as "pedal" until I'm at or below my horn's fundamental, and I don't play F tuba much. This may rub up against a technical definition of some kind, but it's how my mind works (I also clash with guitar nomenclature, where the "bottom" string is the highest-pitched).

F2: F.
F3: Middle F
F4: High F
F5: Very effing funny

Maybe I'm just a rank amateur, but F1/2/3 are low/middle/high to me.
I can't consistently get F4 on pitch with my tuba. It is never in the music that I play, so I don't practice it and do not have a special name for it.
F0 is simply out of range. I can get down to Ab0 at my lowest when I'm practicing scales, but again - it's not in the music I play.

Doc wrote:I often use the terms:

- Pedal F

- F at the bottom of the staff

- F in the staff

- High F or F above the staff...

Yeah, clear in conversation with other bass clef players. And if somebody tells me I need the F an octave up from that, I dig out a trumpet. Or hide a French horn mouthpiece in the tuba MP. It fits. (No, I'm not seriously advocating this. But I've done it. Sounds like cr@p.)

Since these days I double on a wide range of instruments, figuratively and literally, I increasingly use the F0, F1, F2, etc., nomenclature for clarity. Most folks with a minimum knowledge of the piano keyboard can be taught the system, "A0 is the bottom note on a piano, C4 is middle C," and they grasp it immediately.

I can't speak to the system that increments the number at C. Never been taught that, and there is disagreement to its authority. I just think "piano" and it's done.

Doc wrote:Considering the range of the tuba, F in the staff is NOT "High F."

I have a book full of parts wherein, 95% of the time, F in the staff is not just the highest F, it's the highest note. They look to me like original century-old published arrangements from Sousa, Fillmore, King, for band - not abridged in any way, but the standard arrangement for whether you're an experienced player or not - written by the best band composers ever, to take advantage of the useful range of the instrument.

Considering the range of the tuba? I am not aware that there is any particular upper bound. I'm waiting for someone to jump in and point out that F4 isn't really that high either considering that he plays F5 and F6 all the time. I guess we're talking about what is typical tuba performance. Even though we probably outnumber you by a couple orders of magnitude, I'm not going to say that invalidates your notion of typical performance range - but it does make for some ambiguity when a term like "high" is relative to a context that isn't universal.

Mike C855B wrote:I can't speak to the system that increments the number at C. Never been taught that, and there is disagreement to its authority. I just think "piano" and it's done.

I think you use that system intuitively though.

The lowest note on the piano is A0. Then we go A#0, B0, THEN C1. So it changes number at C, instead of the more logical A.

I've heard it asserted that this is because originally the lowest note on the piano was C1. When A and B were added they had to call them 0. I've never confirmed that was true but it sounds logical.

It would be C because that's where the C scale starts, right? and since it doesn't need any flats or sharps, the obvious presentation of a musical octave is that C scale.

Donn wrote:It would be C because that's where the C scale starts, right? and since it doesn't need any flats or sharps, the obvious presentation of a musical octave is that C scale.

Objection. I think the C scale originally started on doh. And still does, in many countries. We aren't all English speaking.

(could be wrong of course)

Not sure about that. I skimmed some discussion of solfège and what not, and it looks to me like when it came up in the 11th century, the syllables that became do, re, mi etc. were "movable", as they continue to be in the English speaking world, Germany and I'm guessing Scandinavia. Not that it really matters - I mean, I suppose it would be interesting to ask our French speaking colleagues qui est la Fa haut?, but common practice here is to use English.

Doc wrote:

Mike C855B wrote:

... Or hide a French horn mouthpiece in the tuba MP. It fits. (No, I'm not seriously advocating this. But I've done it. Sounds like cr@p.)

If you have sound clips of this, I wanna hear it.

I'll see what we can do; I don't have any dedicated audio recording gear. I tried using the iPhone for a similar project last year and the recording quality was so bad I couldn't tap 'delete' fast enough.

With this thread in mind I tried this trick today on Bydlo and it was pathetic. Yeah, I could get somewhere in the ballpark of that high G# (which took a bunch of fishing around other partials), the challenge became the starting D#, just not enough lip in the MP to resonate that "low". It also momentarily broke my embouchure, anything above D3 was fuzzy for about five minutes. So don't try this at home.

Afterwards I had to run a few scales on French horn to be assured I didn't ruin that, either.

French horn MP also works on a bassoon bocal. Interesting sounds out of that combo. Peter Schickele would be proud.

I voted F3, but that's because I was thinking in the tuba range. F4 is what I'd call "high F" on euph/trombone.

Doc wrote:

Mike C855B wrote: If you have sound clips of this, I wanna hear it.

Not exact, but close. The big gliss here is a soprano (aka trumpet) mouthpiece in a contra.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSvf9aXOrGw" target="_blank

Donn wrote:Not sure about that. I skimmed some discussion of solfège and what not, and it looks to me like when it came up in the 11th century, the syllables that became do, re, mi etc. were "movable", as they continue to be in the English speaking world, Germany and I'm guessing Scandinavia.

I may not have much education on music theory, but both of my parents were music majors and I can confirm from their experience, and the stories they've related to me, that the solfege system can be moveable. 'Do' is the tonal note and it progresses (do, re, mi) up through the chromatic scale from that point. My dad had the experience in a college classroom of observing a guest conductor (from China) who used solfege to sing the music to the various sections of the orchestra. The usage in that setting does differentiate sharps and flats relative to the key signature because that's how they're used for strings.

Doing a quick check of Wikipedia (not a citation worthy source all the time, but sometimes useful for finding such sources), there are indications that different music schools either teach solfege as moveable to the major scale of each key signature or fixed to the C scale. I'm not sure you can trust Wikipedia to identify which regions of the world use it in which way, but it does provide a list for both systems.

Donn wrote:Not sure about that. I skimmed some discussion of solfège and what not, and it looks to me like when it came up in the 11th century, the syllables that became do, re, mi etc. were "movable", as they continue to be in the English speaking world, Germany and I'm guessing Scandinavia. Not that it really matters - I mean, I suppose it would be interesting to ask our French speaking colleagues qui est la Fa haut?, but common practice here is to use English.

Judging from conversations on some piano forums, fixed do remains almost religiously popular in large parts of the world, even where both systems exist. For my purposes (sightreading and sightsinging tonal Western based music) movable do seems much more useful, but the other side passionately insists that is not true.

When Sound of Music and the do-a-deer song was recorded, it was written in C. Maria had a cold and did it in Bb. The controversy over intent continues.