Serious question: Why C tuba over Bb?

[Watchman]

So then, in theory, what keys are better on BBb vs. CC tuba? I know this is theoretical since a good player can probably play any key pretty well, I'm just trying to figure out how it's "supposed" to work.

I like my CC tuba. The only notes I don't really like are A and Ab at the top of the staff. Though that is probably a "me" issue, since when I played BBb, the only notes I didn't like were F# and G at the top of the staff.

One other question....why do we use TWO B's and C when we reference these instruments?

[michael_glenn]

Because a Bb tuba is a euphonium. The extra letter signifies it's down an octave. Same deal with CC.

[Donn]

And sadly we have to say, because the octaves conventionally begin at C:
CC is not a step above BBb, it's almost an octave lower.

[eupher61]

So let's talk about a c.14' bugle and calling it an EEb tuba. ..

Or not.

[eupher61]

So let's talk about a c.14' bugle and calling it an EEb tuba. ..

Or not.

[Steve Marcus]

I try to not use "EEb" (other than in quotation marks) when discussing Eb tubas.

Yeah, Kiltie owns a good reason not to call other horns "EEb." His B&F EEb sub-bass tuba is a unique instrument that's fun to play.

[sloan]

The double caps refer to the specific octave in which that c is located.

The lowest "c" on the piano is "CC" (which is also the "fundamental" pitch of an "open" CC tuba), the one an octave higher is "C". The one an octave higher than that is "c". The next "c" (have we made it to middle c" yet?) is c1 (superscript "1")...and then c2...etc...

This is the "Helmholtz" notation system.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Another notation system called "Scientific" uses subscript numbers whereas the first (lowest) c on the piano is referred to as c1 (SUBscript 1) the next one to the right is c2 (etc...

You might want to re-think the breakpoints. When you do, consider where Eb and F fit in.

Possibility #1: start each octave at C (bottom up)- in that case, the tubas are BBb, C, Eb, and F

Possibility #2: start each octave at A (bottom up)- in that case, the tubas are BBb, CC, EEb, and FF

Possibility #3: start each octave at C (top down) - in that case, the tubas are BBb, CC, Eb, and F

Which one do you like? Do you have another option?

#3 works, I guess. Everyone knows that EEb is marketing hype.

[Donn]

I guess you're just having fun with this, but ... seriously,

- the tubas are BBb, CC, Eb and F
- the explanation is bloke's, Helmholtz notation etc.
- CC and EEb are errors per that explanation, both motivated by roughly the same principle
- we deprecate EEb because the English are a minority, but accept CC because it's universally used.
- there is no way to improve on this.

[roweenie]

If I'm not mistaken, the way the Helmholtz system works is that every note that appears above a given "c" is labeled the same way, up to the "b" preceding the next "c".

Therefore, the octave in question would be notated viz:



Therefore, maybe we've got it backward - the E flat bass tuba is correctly named as "EEb contrabass", the F bass tuba would be correctly named "FF contrabass", while the B flat contrabass tuba should actually be named "BBBb subcontrabass", since it's pedal actually falls within the CCC subcontrabass octave.



This quote is from Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt:

"The Helmholtz scale always starts on the note C and ends at B (C, D, E, F, G, A, B). The note C is shown in different octaves by using upper-case letters for low notes, and lower-case letters for high notes, and adding sub-primes and primes in the following sequence: CC͵C c c′ c″ c″′ (or ͵͵CC C  c c′ c″ c″′) and so on.

Middle C is designated c′, therefore the octave upwards from middle C is c'-b'. " (emphasis added)

[toobagrowl]

... seriously,
- the tubas are BBb, CC, Eb and F

Yep. There is a reason why BBb and CC tubas are labeled/called "double-B-flat" (BBb) and "double-C" (CC) tubas.......because they are contrabass instruments! Just like how the bass tubas are labeled/called "E-flat-bass" and "F-bass" tubas.

[sloan]

I guess you're just having fun with this, but ... seriously,

- the tubas are BBb, CC, Eb and F
- the explanation is bloke's, Helmholtz notation etc.
- CC and EEb are errors per that explanation, both motivated by roughly the same principle
- we deprecate EEb because the English are a minority, but accept CC because it's universally used.
- there is no way to improve on this.

Not having fun at all. In the Helmholtz versions I have seen published, depending on which partial you want to notate, the contrabasses should either be BBb/C or BBBb/CC.

Is there a typo in your post? I don't understand how CC can at the same time be "explained" by bloke and also be an "error".

[Rick Denney]

Designations are designed to be communicative, not formally correct. The Small French Tuba in C was in existence from the time the Contrabass Tuba in C existed, so some difference in description would be necessary so that a French tuba player and an English tuba player could not understand each other using the correct terms. I don't know why we couldn't have stuck with the convention set up in the 19th century, where tubas with 16-18' bugles were contrabass tubas (it's printed right there at the top of Wagner's music), 12-13' bugles were bass tubas (just like the five-valve F tuba Wieprecht and Moritz called a Basstuba in their 1836 patent), and 8-9' bugles were tenor tubas (of which there were many variations in nomenclature to account for differences that became blurred as time marched on).

As a class, contrabass tubas are similar, whether pitched in Bb or C. It makes sense that they would attract a similar nomenclature (BBb and CC), just as a matter of letting people know that the tubas under discussion were both contrabasses.

There was never an authoritative committee reporting to some standards body that decided on these descriptions. They are entirely traditional, and those that communicated something useful have stuck, while those that didn't languish in well-deserved obscurity.

Rick "Helmholtz was not consulted" Denney

[sloan]

Helmholtz was offered as the explanation. My quibble is not with the designations (hey - I even know the difference between Eb and EEb - and it has nothing at all to do with pitch). My quibble was with the pseudo-scientific "explanation".

In any discussion of sound or optics, Helmholtz should *always* be consulted. He knew everything worth knowing.

[roweenie]

The whole purpose of notation is to define things specifically.

Either a pitch has a specific name, or it doesn't.

The EEb tuba's fundamental is written EEb, according to the very same system of notation that was specifically designed to clarify which particular note is in question. I don't see where there is an opportunity to argue this point (the same goes for the F tuba, for example).

If we are going to decide to ignore the self same universally accepted system that we have consulted to designate the name of the fundamental pitch in the first place, just in order to preserve some notion of "tradition", we'd might as well call it a tuna fish sandwich and be done with it.

As far as the terms "bass" tuba or "contrabass" tuba are concerned, there I can see where "tradition" can play a role, as far as nomenclature is concerned, as they can be considered relative terms, compared to other brass instruments.

Pitch definitions, however, are non-negotiable (unless, of course, someone invents a different system that will start on a note that will allow us to shoe-horn in our "traditional" monnikers).

[Donn]

If we are going to decide to ignore the self same universally accepted system that we have consulted to designate the name of the fundamental pitch in the first place, just in order to preserve some notion of "tradition", we'd might as well call it a tuna fish sandwich and be done with it.

Of course the reason we don't, is that "tuna fish sandwich" is not traditional nomenclature for any size of contrabass tuba.

Is there a typo in your post? I don't understand how CC can at the same time be "explained" by bloke and also be an "error".

The naming scheme clearly comes from / refers to the Helmholtz notation. (Anyone can see that, bloke only gets credit for having introduced that point in the conversation.) It is clearly in error when it puts the C and Bb contrabasses in the same octave. QED

It's fine with me if we recoil in horror from this goofy error, and, in the interest of presenting a more intellectually respectable appearance as a community, fix the nomenclature. I think "Rick" has suggested in the past, just call them Bb and C tubas. We can start doing that right now, and there will be no misunderstanding. I think the only reason we don't do it more often is that we think we'll look like we don't know our stuff because we don't use the group jargon. If we're doing it to look sophisticated, we're kind of shooting ourselves in the foot.

[Rick Denney]

If we are going to decide to ignore the self same universally accepted system that we have consulted to designate the name of the fundamental pitch in the first place, just in order to preserve some notion of "tradition", we'd might as well call it a tuna fish sandwich and be done with it.

Of course the reason we don't, is that "tuna fish sandwich" is not traditional nomenclature for any size of contrabass tuba.

Is there a typo in your post? I don't understand how CC can at the same time be "explained" by bloke and also be an "error".

The naming scheme clearly comes from / refers to the Helmholtz notation. (Anyone can see that, bloke only gets credit for having introduced that point in the conversation.) It is clearly in error when it puts the C and Bb contrabasses in the same octave. QED

It's fine with me if we recoil in horror from this goofy error, and, in the interest of presenting a more intellectually respectable appearance as a community, fix the nomenclature. I think "Rick" has suggested in the past, just call them Bb and C tubas. We can start doing that right now, and there will be no misunderstanding. I think the only reason we don't do it more often is that we think we'll look like we don't know our stuff because we don't use the group jargon. If we're doing it to look sophisticated, we're kind of shooting ourselves in the foot.

Where's the "like" button?

We can either make it our mission in life to correct every misuse of Helmholtz's notation scheme, or we can name things clearly so that people understand and avoid the error ourselves. I vote for the latter.

Rick "play tuba" Denney

[roweenie]

I don't recall "recoiling in in horror".

I have no "dog in this fight", and I don't give a damn what we call our "whirling cones of brass".

I can also see that my attempt at hyperbole was unsuccessful, at least to some, anyway.

However, I say we make it our "mission in life" (among other things that are more important - "multitasking" is allowed when talking about a life) to call things what they are.

I personally think it would be a great idea to simply drop the whole Helmholtz business and just identify the horns by their pitch name, too. It certainly would be less cumbersome.

My point is simply this: definitions lose their meaning when they are changed mid-game, or applied in an inconsistent manner. Some might consider this the stance of an OCD stickler, but I maintain that words (and symbols) actually mean something, and should be used carefully.

That's my $.02

[Bob Kolada]

Welcome to the party! I've only been calling them by one letter names for fifteen years...

[roweenie]

Welcome to the party! I've only been calling them by one letter names for fifteen years...

That's funny - my tubas usually have 4 letter names...

[sloan]

The naming scheme clearly comes from / refers to the Helmholtz notation. (Anyone can see that, bloke only gets credit for having introduced that point in the conversation.) It is clearly in error when it puts the C and Bb contrabasses in the same octave. QED

Only one question: why does bloke "get credit" for pointing out an explanation that doesn't explain the accepted names?

Oh dear...one more - are you seriously suggesting that bloke is the first one to point out the Helmholtz connection? You must be a newbie here.