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

windshieldbug · Post by **windshieldbug** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 12:16 pm

The -/4 system of tuba comparison just "characterizes" the way the tuba looks and plays... just like the comparison of a "small, medium, or large" bore trumpet (of course, then they have "medium-large", etc.).

Even on something as simple as a trumpet, around the turn of the 20th century, manufacturers were characterizing their bore sizes as "0","0-","0+","1","2" with no consistency between manufacturers. Then you have multiple types of instruments, so the same ACTUAL bore size may be a large cornet, medium trumpet, and small trombone.

Bring on the tuba. First you had very small horns, that were used in the town band for both concerts AND marching by tubists who could only afford one horn. Bigger horns, which sounded better, were available, but only usable by stout fellows. Then you got concert-only horns, which became the norm. Since "bigger IS better", soon people were making "Monster Bore" tubas.

Add to that the difference in the bugle were rotary valves and piston valves occur. Valve bore size then becomes incomparable between valve types. So SOME type of comparison and description of playing quality and physical size is needed. Enter the -/4 descriptions.

The pre-sousa concert/marching horns were characterized as 1/2. A "full size" concert horn is 4/4. A "midway in between" horn is 3/4. A "Monster Bore" became 5/4. What was considered a absolute whale, since people have grown in the last two centuries, along with their playing abilities, is "6/4".

Who gets to make the characterization? The manufacturer. Is there any rhyme or reason? No, but if it's too far out of subjective whack, the world will likely call them on it and give it their own characterization.

The characterization of key makes about as much sense. Start with the French tuba in "C" above the "Bb" trombone. Following this lead, a tenor tuba (or a baritone or a euphonium) would be in Bb. Contrabass tubas, to distinguish the octave difference, became CC/BBb. Bass tubas were in F or Eb, but again, some manufacturers, wanting to stress size, go with EEb. F tubas are usually just called "F" (without regard to octave).

Again, Who gets to make the characterization? The manufacturer. Is there any rhyme or reason? No, but if it's too far out of subjective whack, the world will likely call them on it and give it their own characterization.

So, like many things in the world of music, the answer is, "it depends".

Rick Denney · Post by **Rick Denney** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 3:43 pm

windshieldbug wrote:Is there any rhyme or reason? No, but if it's too far out of subjective whack, the world will likely call them on it and give it their own characterization.

We should remember that the instruments define the words, not the other way around.

What you describe as "out of subjective whack", I describe as no longer being meaningful.

If I describe an instrument as a 4/4 BBb tuba, the image of a Miraphone 186 or a King 2341 will float in people's heads. If I describe it as a 3/4 CC tuba, that image will be like a Yamaha 621, a Miraphone 184, or a Cerveny Piggy. Those instruments are all different, of course, but they all fit the category "a bit smaller than full size".

If I describe an instrument as 5/4, the image that floats in my head bifurcates into two possibilities. One is a German rotary kaisertuba. The other is a piston tuba that is somewhat fatter than a regular, full-size instrument.

For me, a 6/4 tuba is almost exclusively of the grand orchestral design, with pistons, a regular large bore, and mammoth outer branches.

Then there is the Rudolf Meinl 6/4, but that is really in a class by itself. You have to describe that instrument with all three words: "Rudolf Meinl 6/4" in order to convey meaning.

These designations are not precise at all, but the images that float in people's heads on hearing them are reasonably distinct. As long as that is true, they will persist.

Using "BBb" instead of "Bb" conveys little extra meaning--nobody would use the term "Bb tuba" unless they were describing a contrabass--and that is why the usage is now starting to wane a bit. But there is considerable momentum in traditional practice, and language changes slowly. CC versus C is a bit more problematic because of the French tuba, but that instrument is now so obscure that to convey meaning, one must give the whole description: "Small French tuba in C." So, when I say "C tuba", I'm reasonably sure the other person will know that I am referring to a contrabass, unless they are French and getting on in years. I expect the doubling of the letters to drop off in the coming years since they no longer convey much in the way of a distinct meaning.

Since Bb, C, Eb, and F convey all the needed meaning, the use of "contrabass" and "bass" have never caught on except with anal retentives like me.

The use of EEb was a marketing gimmick and that is why it has only persisted in the description of one brand of instrument. If someone says they have an EEb, then I can almost bet they are British.

Rick "student of language" Denney

The Big Ben · Post by **The Big Ben** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 4:32 pm

Rick Denney wrote:
windshieldbug wrote:Is there any rhyme or reason? No, but if it's too far out of subjective whack, the world will likely call them on it and give it their own characterization.
<cut>

The use of EEb was a marketing gimmick and that is why it has only persisted in the description of one brand of instrument. If someone says they have an EEb, then I can almost bet they are British.

Miraphone markets their NorskStar as an EEb horn.

Jeff "So anal!" Benedict

iiipopes · Post by **iiipopes** » Sat Dec 29, 2007 5:21 pm

The bottom line is that we now call a CC tuba a CC tuba because it sits right next to a BBb tuba. Formerly, it was called a CC tuba to distinguish it from the now archaic French C tuba.

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.