11 pieces for orchestra with low Db = steak dinner

[KevinMadden]

I can think of two pieces with the infamous Db1, Adams, "Short Ride in a fast Machine" also, Corigliano, "Circus Maximus" (obscure? maybe, but certainly NOT widely played)

as for playing the low Db, play the D above or C below and use these:



or I'll pull out the eefer and play it as a 1st valve pedal
(i've got four valves, about as much experience as James, maybe more, have yet to need five, if I actually can't get by without #5, I'll go and buy a new horn)

[tubadude08]

I do believe that William Walton's Symphony No.1 has a low Db as well as a CC# it may only have one of them, but i believe it has both.

[Nick Pierce]

For the purposes of this contest, must the note be actually notated as a Db in that register, or does it still count if it is a C#?

[Todd S. Malicoate]

For the purposes of this contest, must the note be actually notated as a Db in that register, or does it still count if it is a C#?

There is no contest. The offer (wager) was made and rejected. The conversation that has come after, though, has been quite enlightening. Not a terrible thing, I think.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

a string player would do a quarter tone if both notes (C# - Db)followed each other

I'd really like to know where this comes from, as I see it frequently in print and hear it spoken as well.

As a string bass player, I would never have done this. Upper voices may have to change their pitch slightly according to chord function, but not 50 cents.

And, as an additional point of discussion, what's special about string players and their intonation? If they should do this, why wouldn't, say, a flute player or a cornet player?

EDIT: Ok, here's a hint...Google "Leopold Mozart" and "comma"

[windshieldbug]

If one uses a temperament other than equal, the notes are NOT the same. Even without strings.

Use your ears, not your eyes.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Its called a quarter tone, but really is not 50 cents difference.

I don't understand. It's called a quarter tone, but it's not really a quarter tone?

They will change the tuning slightly between notes as they do serve a different chord function.

C# and Db (or any other enharmonic pitches), in a vacuum, don't serve different functions at all. Here's an example:

Beethoven, String Quartet Op. 59, No. 2 in e minor. Allegro, mm. 71-74.

In the cello part, do the Eb in the first bar and the D# in the third serve a different chord function? How about the Gb and F# in the viola parts in the same bars? Should they be played differently? I would argue that they shouldn't, and wouldn't be by modern professional players. How does the poor second violinist, who has Bb in both the Eb minor chord and D# minor chord, know to play his/her note differently?

String bass, assume your the root of the chord

Chord function should never be assumed, but heard. String bass parts (or tuba parts) don't always stay on the roots of chords. But I agree with what I think you meant here. By my thinking, the lowest voice should generally always play in the "center of the tuner" and allow the higher parts to adjust by interval above the bass accordingly. When the bass voice is on the third of a major chord, Instead of lowering that note play it perfectly in tune and allow the minor sixth above (the root) to be raised by those players. Some conductors and "rehearsal specialists" disagree, and would tell you, the tuba player, to lower your chord voice so the root can be played perfectly in tune.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

If one uses a temperament other than equal, the notes are NOT the same. Even without strings.

Use your ears, not your eyes.

Temperament, schemperament. Here's an example from Kopprasch #51:

Do you play the two arpeggios any differently? I sure don't...they're the same notes to me.

[windshieldbug]

If one uses a temperament other than equal, the notes are NOT the same. Even without strings.

Use your ears, not your eyes.

Temperament, schemperament. Here's an example from Kopprasch #51:

Do you play the two arpeggios any differently? I sure don't...they're the same notes to me.

Therefore, you ARE using equal teperament, and every chord is equally out of tune with every other.

The adjustments made to notes in a chord HAVE VALUE only when you play with someone else, not by yourself.

What if a Violin is on an upbow on a Eb for example, and the chord changes to a D#FXA# chord. The D# and Eb are the same note in a vacume, but the tunings are different in the chord

Follow?

It's not that people don't understand, they understand MUCH TOO WELL.

For a chord in an equal temperament tuning, you only need to raise a minor third by 2 cents, NOT 50, and lower a major third by 14, again, NOT 50.

What we're trying to tell you is "Use your ears, NOT your eyes".

[Todd S. Malicoate]

In my adv theory class this was a term I learned, quarter tone.

Now you know exactly what a quarter tone is...half of a half-step...precisely 50 cents.

It probably applies more to 20th century music, but we were informed that strings change tuning.

You mean you were informed that strings always change tuning with enharmonic respelling? You were poorly informed. It has nothing to do with 20th century music, and has everything to do with the context of the enharmonic respelling, not the spelling itself.

In A CEbG chord, you raise the Eb because the minor 3rd is flat correct.

Yes, absolutely.

What if a Violin is on an upbow on a Eb for example, and the chord changes to a D#FXA# chord. The D# and Eb are the same note in a vacume, but the tunings are different in the chord

Yes, if the violin part changed from an Eb in a c minor chord to a D# in a D# major chord, they would have to lower the pitch on the second note a bit. But not because the note was respelled D#. They would still have to lower the pitch if they stayed on Eb but the chord changed in the same manner. Function, not note name.

Look at the Kopprasch example I posted earlier. Would you play the f minor arpeggio higher in pitch than the e# minor arpeggio? If so, why? Is Ab just "supposed" to be higher in pitch than G#?

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Temperament, schemperament. Here's an example from Kopprasch #51:

Do you play the two arpeggios any differently? I sure don't...they're the same notes to me.

Therefore, you ARE using equal teperament, and every chord is equally out of tune with every other.

The adjustments made to notes in a chord HAVE VALUE only when you play with someone else, not by yourself.

I would slightly raise the Cs (or B#s) and also slightly raise the Abs (or G#s), producing a more in-tune sounding minor chord. I would take the same approach in a Bach unaccompanied sonata or similar work. I would also mention multiphonics as another example when intonation adjustments have value even though you are playing alone. Isn't this where a player diverges from equal temperament? By my understanding, a piano is restricted to equal temperament since it can't adjust pitches up and down for interval tuning.

I'm just saying I wouldn't play the second (enharmonically-respelled) arpeggio any differently from the first simply because it's notated differently. I apologize if my terminology differs from yours, but I would be interested to learn something from your take on the matter.

[windshieldbug]

I'm just saying I wouldn't play the second (enharmonically-respelled) arpeggio any differently from the first simply because it's notated differently.

Todd, I might or might not do the same, but if I were performing this for anyone, I would let my ears guide me in both context and interpretation.

However, one plays both studies and etudes with a different outcome in mind than just over-all performance, as you well know.

Playing with a professional group, one very quickly learns the application of what was once theoretical in music school, and that is what I think we're all trying to tell James. Advanced Theory isn't the answer, it's only THE BEGINNING. And that's why you take it early in college, not high atop some mountain from a zen guru.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Todd, I might or might not do the same, but I were performing this for anyone, I would let my ears guide me in both context and interpretation.

However, one plays both studies and etudes with a different outcome in mind than just over-all performance, as you well know.

Playing with a professional group, one very quickly learns the application of what was once theoretical in music school, and that is what I thing we're all trying to tell James. Advanced Theory isn't the answer, it's only THE BEGINNING. And that's why you take it early in college, not high atop some mountain from a zen guru.

Agreed, and that's a very good answer. I think we have reached the same conclusion that one should play enharmonically-respelled notes differently if and when it sounds appropriate to do so, not because of any "rule" learned in a theory class.

I do get annoyed when I hear the old "string players play them a quarter-step apart" thing. It makes no logical sense, and yet is parroted so widely it is somewhat self-perpetuating. Perhaps we need a university-funded study with a variety of college-age string players (n=50 to 100) playing isolated notes on flash cards for someone behind a screen with a tuner? Just to put the issue to rest, of course.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

I guess this is what happens when all your professors are old and learned about strings many years ago

Well, I'm sure the faculty at your university would appreciate that, James! They don't look that old to me.
http://www.acu.edu/academics/cas/music/ ... index.html

[Todd S. Malicoate]

All the old ones I had retired or are not teaching for ACU anymore......I missed them

Of course. I'm sorry. I should have known it would be something like that.

[TonyTuba]

Also, Prokofiev 6th has a great low Db in the second mvt. Great stuff.

Also, along with John Adams' "Harmonielehre" his "Slonimsky's Earbox" has a low Db too.

If anyone has a chance to play John Harbison's "Ulysses Raft", there is a solo cadenza for the tuba that ends with a low Db. I played that piece many moons ago in the Fellowship orchestra at Tanglewood.

-Matt

matt, you shouldn't get into this.. that kid is gonna wanna transfer and study with you.

[Todd S. Malicoate]

we tune to an oboe (nonmajor), IDK if she has a tuner. One day i had to push in so much and we had to retune, i turned my tuner on and she was showing 22 cents flat, no ones faultI guess.

I just tuned to what I heard, which is all I can do. No point in saying anything, im in tune with the band.

And now you know that 22 cents flat is A=434 (not A=420), thanks to Bloke. Isn't it great that we can all learn stuff on TubeNet and then converse in a more intelligent manner?

Sounds a lot like what Sean wanted for this website in the first place, but I suppose I could be wrong.

[KevinMadden]

So I've watched the often occurring pissing matches that have reduced several threads in this board to shouting between Todd and James, I've lurked having said my bit about James back when he first joined the board, but this argument here is just silly; I believe it ended here:

If one uses a temperament other than equal, the notes are NOT the same. Even without strings.

Use your ears, not your eyes.

Temperament, schemperament. Here's an example from Kopprasch #51:

Do you play the two arpeggios any differently? I sure don't...they're the same notes to me.

Therefore, you ARE using equal teperament, and every chord is equally out of tune with every other.

The adjustments made to notes in a chord HAVE VALUE only when you play with someone else, not by yourself.

What if a Violin is on an upbow on a Eb for example, and the chord changes to a D#FXA# chord. The D# and Eb are the same note in a vacume, but the tunings are different in the chord

Follow?

It's not that people don't understand, they understand MUCH TOO WELL.

For a chord in an equal temperament tuning, you only need to raise a minor third by 2 cents, NOT 50, and lower a major third by 14, again, NOT 50.

What we're trying to tell you is "Use your ears, NOT your eyes".

Todd, I believe you were talking out your *** a bit, we all knew what you were going for, but i feel that most of us knew what James was getting at as well, despite his unclear posts, you have been clarified here. James your information was hard to follow, and mostly incorrect as well, but you have been given the correct information here. This is where this thread should have ended, all questions are answered, all things are cleared up. Instead, Todd continued to post against James and James returned defensively. James should've let it go, but so should've Todd. You're both being immature here. James, I've read and been irked by many of your posts, you know why, everyone here has told you. Todd, stirring the pot is helping no one, and probably upsetting many.

Let's all drink beers and eat food and play tuba.

[TexTuba]

If anyone is looking for the job of "referee" or "mentor", I suppose they could email sean (at) chisham.com

I always find it funny how people come on this board and ask for everyone to get along. It's not like anyone is going to listen...

The reality is no one has to read anything. I read certain posts because I like seeing the pissing matches and all of the other crap. This kind of stuff makes me laugh.

If you have been on this board long enough, you know who is truly full of crap and who really knows their stuff. You also know who is on here to agree with just about everything to look good/act like they really know/whatever...

In all of the time I've read TubeNet, the only conclusion I've come to is that people really are what they type. You've got the ones who can get their message across clearly and intelligently...and then the ones who type as if they do not know if the mouthpiece goes on their face or up their @$$...

[Todd S. Malicoate]

Todd, I believe you were talking out your *** a bit, we all knew what you were going for, but i feel that most of us knew what James was getting at as well, despite his unclear posts, you have been clarified here. James your information was hard to follow, and mostly incorrect as well, but you have been given the correct information here. This is where this thread should have ended, all questions are answered, all things are cleared up. Instead, Todd continued to post against James and James returned defensively. James should've let it go, but so should've Todd. You're both being immature here. James, I've read and been irked by many of your posts, you know why, everyone here has told you. Todd, stirring the pot is helping no one, and probably upsetting many.

Let's all drink beers and eat food and play tuba.

I have no idea what "talking out your ***" means, but I am sorry you feel like I'm "stirring the pot" (which I do understand). If you can be more specific about what "talking out your ***" is, I'll try to avoid it in the future.

Maybe you missed the last exchange where James still didn't understand that when the oboe player was 22 cents flat that's not "A=420." Some other readers probably thought the same thing. Obviously all questions weren't answered yet.

I think you've got it backwards...I didn't continue to "post against James." I responded when he posted incorrect information. He simply can't back up his ridiculous statements and turns to his defense mechanisms and excuses. You're trying to paint me as a bully, and there is a difference between a bully and someone who respectfully points out misinformation in an attempt to have a conversation where everyone benefits through better understanding of a topic. No shouting, no "pissing match," just talk about musical ideas.

But, I am amused by being called "immature" by someone who recommends we "drink beers and eat food." That's super. Thanks for your concern. The "foe" button is right over there if my posts bother you so much.

Ironic that this thread, near 10 pages now, was started as a reaction to a ridiculous statement by James, and will likely now be locked due to the reactions to more ridiculous posts by him. Priceless.