Rudolf van Berkum wrote:
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 10:09:01 jef wrote:
helmholtz's system (middle-C = c^1 or c') is used almost exclusively in german-speaking lands, and the system defined by the acoustical society of america (middle-C = C4 [or C with small, lowered 4]) is predominant in canada, and it seems to me in the US.
what is commonly used in the UK, australia, other english-speaking areas for pitch references? is there a different reference system used in journals and scholarly writings than is used informally?
-------
I took a straw poll a few years ago in my bit of Australia, and Helmholtz still held sway at that time. Mind you brass bands are a significant part of the musical scene, so we're used to BBb and Eb tubas. An Eb two tuba just doesn't roll of the tongue the way single Eb does.
Mind you C6 is easier to say than thrice-marked c. But as Andrew said: "if it ain't broke don't fix it."
Haven't you ever had to explain to people why Tubas (which are Bb instruments) are named with 2 Bs (BBb) yet trumpets are named with 1 B (Bb) and why it appears there is only one octave between them, as normally printed yet there are really 2 octaves and trumpets should be printed bb instead of Bb? Which is easier to say: "double-b-flat" or "b-flat-1?" Yes, "e-flat-2" may be harder than "capital-e-flat" but nobody every says "capital-e-flat," they just say "e-flat" so the proper Helmholtz nomenclature doesn't make its way into speech anymore than the midi nomenclature does when labeling instruments.
When people see the tuba designation of Eb printed, they don't think "Ah, the octave below the bass-clef-second-space-C. They figure it's just a printing convention. Bb trumpets are printed with capital Bs yet their proper octave is small-b-flat, as are Bb clarinets, Eb soprano clarinets are printed with capital Es when their proper name should be e-flat-prime, and none of the normally printed names of those instruments designate proper octaves. The BBb tuba may well be the only instrument which is labeled (and spoken of) with the proper octave designation.
I think it really is a broken system, and it does need fixing, unless it's alright to maintain two distinct sorts of classification: one for musical theorists and one for working musicians.
Walk up to your favorite best classical pianist and ask them quickly to calculate the number of octaves between CC and c''' and I bet they'll just stare at you and try to recollect what they may have learned in music theory 101 many years ago. Then ask them to calculate the number of octaves between C1 and C6 and I bet you get a quicker answer.
But as someone else posted, it matters which you learned first and use the most. So I guess we are really stuck with two different labeling conventions, and the most versatile among us will teach and use both systems and teach and use the conversions between them.
-- David H. Bailey [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
