Reconciling two note range-naming conventions

Discussion in 'Trumpet Discussion' started by ComeBackKid, Aug 26, 2009.

  1. ChaseFan

    ChaseFan Banned

    320
    2
    Mar 25, 2008
    As my father already pointed out to Rich in Trumpet Herald:

    Buddy Childers said that High G is above High C:
    "I mean, my second parts under Maynard for some of the things that Shorty Rogers wrote for us never got below high C—and that was a second part. There’s one thing that he wrote, “Solo For Coop”—there’s a string of high G’s along there on the second part, that are just incredible"
    - quoted from
    http://www.jazzprofessional.com/technical/childers.htm

    And Bud Brisbois said that High G is above High C:
    "now most of you, to hit that high G if you were ever going to hit one, which is a good 5th above a high C"
    - quoted from
    http://www.seeleymusic.com/brisbois/brisart.htm

    Jerry Tyree said about Bill Chase playing an incredible High A which obviously is not the A just above the staff:
    "Story from Mosaic Records Maynard Ferguson Roulette records reissue, as recounted by Jerry Tyree..
    Well , we played one tune and he ended on a high A that just rattled the windows."
    - quoted from
    http://www.geocities.com/Paris/2912/remembered.htm

    Keith Fiala said that High A is above High C:
    "Here's Maynard SINGING on a High A (Above High C) in M. Park in the 1970's (Live At The Top)."
    - quoted from
    http://www.brassplayersolution.com/Blog/

    Bobby Shew said High A is above High E:
    "Suddenly I went above that high E and ended on a big fat high A. This was my first high A. With this new system I also got up to double C."
    - quoted from
    http://abel.hive.no/trumpet/ntf/nr2-99/Clinic.html

    Rich claimed in TH that those quotes were being misrpresented:
    "All your quotes - your inserted conclusion is out of context. The quotes were accurate, your conclusion is wrong.
    Read their language exactly, you are making an interpretation."

    Which elicited this response from my father:

    OK, let's take a look at the quotes I gave, one by one:

    Bud Brisbois said:
    "now most of you, to hit that high G if you were ever going to hit one, which is a good 5th above a high C"
    - quoted from
    http://www.seeleymusic.com/brisbois/brisart.htm

    Show me how that can be interpreted to mean that High G is really *below* High C, although Bud Brisois explicitly said that High G is *above* High C.

    Keith Fiala said:
    "Here's Maynard SINGING on a High A (Above High C) in M. Park in the 1970's (Live At The Top)."
    - quoted from
    http://www.brassplayersolution.com/Blog/

    Show me how that can be interpreted to mean that High A is really *below* High C, although Keith Fiala explicitly said that High A is *above* High C.

    Buddy Childers:
    "I mean, my second parts under Maynard for some of the things that Shorty Rogers wrote for us never got below high C—and that was a second part. There’s one thing that he wrote, “Solo For Coop”—there’s a string of high G’s along there on the second part, that are just incredible"
    - quoted from
    http://www.jazzprofessional.com/technical/childers.htm

    If the charts never came below a High C, but the charts contained a string of High G's, explain how those High G's could be *below* High C as you claim.

    Bobby Shew said:
    "Suddenly I went above that high E and ended on a big fat high A. This was my first high A. With this new system I also got up to double C."
    - quoted from
    http://abel.hive.no/trumpet/ntf/nr2-99/Clinic.html

    Rich, you claim that High E is above High A, but Bobby Shew explicitly said "I went above that high E and ended on a big fat high A".

    Dean
     
  2. Rich Wetzel

    Rich Wetzel Pianissimo User

    131
    3
    Dec 27, 2003
    Tacoma, WA
    Your quotes are not the problem, your absolute conclusion prefaced above each quote is the problem. Your conclusions are wrong.

    Do guys sometimes use these terms interchangeably and mean the same note? YES.

    Do they sometimes use both expressions even in the same conversation? YES, I hear them do it all the time and mean the same note.

    Are you guys taking particular quotes and ascribing wrongly I might add that this proves you are 100% right? Yes, you are.

    In the real world people often call these notes either way but most often to clarify they will say yes a double A, or in seperate conversations simply say double A right off the bat.

    When I talk to top pro players who earn a living playing these notes - and anyone says double A, I guarantee you we ALL know we are talking about the A above high C.

    When any of us says a triple F or G, I guarantee you we ALL know it is the F or G above double high C.

    Are there a few people advocating something else? Yes, but that does not change the fact professional trumpet players have been using the nomenclature I pointed out for decades and still do. That is a fact.

    It is obvious I am not going to change your mind and that you sincerely believe what you are saying but I am telling you for an absolute fact this is the way most of the trumpet world, at least out here, not hacks but the top call guys have called these notes for decades.

    I wish you well, all the best!
     
  3. ChaseFan

    ChaseFan Banned

    320
    2
    Mar 25, 2008
    In other words, you did not bother to read the second half of my post,
    where I showed that those famous trumpet players explicitly said and meant those things:

    Bud Brisbois said:
    "now most of you, to hit that high G if you were ever going to hit one, which is a good 5th above a high C"
    - quoted from
    http://www.seeleymusic.com/brisbois/brisart.htm

    Show me how that can be interpreted to mean that High G is really *below* High C, although Bud Brisois explicitly said that High G is *above* High C.

    Keith Fiala said:
    "Here's Maynard SINGING on a High A (Above High C) in M. Park in the 1970's (Live At The Top)."
    - quoted from
    http://www.brassplayersolution.com/Blog/

    Show me how that can be interpreted to mean that High A is really *below* High C, although Keith Fiala explicitly said that High A is *above* High C.

    Buddy Childers:
    "I mean, my second parts under Maynard for some of the things that Shorty Rogers wrote for us never got below high C—and that was a second part. There’s one thing that he wrote, “Solo For Coop”—there’s a string of high G’s along there on the second part, that are just incredible"
    - quoted from
    http://www.jazzprofessional.com/technical/childers.htm

    If the charts never came below a High C, but the charts contained a string of High G's, explain how those High G's could be *below* High C as you claim.

    Bobby Shew said:
    "Suddenly I went above that high E and ended on a big fat high A. This was my first high A. With this new system I also got up to double C."
    - quoted from
    http://abel.hive.no/trumpet/ntf/nr2-99/Clinic.html

    Rich, you claim that High E is above High A, but Bobby Shew explicitly said "I went above that high E and ended on a big fat high A".

    So stop claiming that I am misrepresenting what those famous trumpet players said.

    Dean
     
  4. Rich Wetzel

    Rich Wetzel Pianissimo User

    131
    3
    Dec 27, 2003
    Tacoma, WA
    Dean or Morris, it does not matter how many times you post it, you are not entitled to your own set of the facts.

    Top pro guys for years have called it the way I described.

    You obviously did not read my last post, lol...

    Do people sometimes use other terms or advocate another way? Yes. That does not change the fact many top pros use the system I described and have for decades.

    I wish you all the best, have a nice day!
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2009
  5. veery715

    veery715 Utimate User

    5,010
    1,802
    Mar 6, 2007
    Ithaca NY
    This discussion is and will always be similar to Shubert's Symphony #8 - unfinished. Many will try to complete it but it probably won't happen.

    The problem isn't which notes are which, it is the use of words like high and low, which are cousins of bright and dark, and many other descriptive adjectives. They are adjectives which convey a relative state - a comparitive to another state. They do not convey quantity or quality, and if we want to have a clear set of terms about pitch notation we need to dump them altogether.

    When you call something chocolate, you are not defining it. Is it dark, white, sweet or bitter? What about double chocolate? It says "MORE SO", but "MORE SO" what? More dark? More bitter? More chips? It simply means more of what is already ambiguous. If we wish to rid ourselves of ambiguity we must resort to odd things like NUMBERS, or representations thereof, like accents = ', '', ''', etc.

    So our standard Bb trumpet has a range we all understand. The playable pitches begin with F# (1,2,3) - third ledger line under the treble clef staff. By playable we understand that to mean using the three valves to play pitches which have a resonance point on the horn. Pedals are forced (relaxedly - is that an oxymoron?) pitches which we can play but which don't have a resonant point on the horn which locks them in. They are below that first F#.

    From that F# we can ascend as high as we want. The partial sequence becomes so jammed together as we go up and up that any wave length of standing wave will fit the resonant length of the tube - just tighten that standing wave and squeeze in one more node. There is no top note, unless our hearing is the limiting factor.

    So for the sake of some clarity, and to bid adieu to ambiguity, this is my suggestion:

    Lowest playable octave F# (3 ledger lines down) to F (first space treble clef staff), are all 1 - F#1 to F1. Beginning with F# (first space #) up to F (top line) are 2 - F#2 to F2. F# on same line is F#3, F above 3rd ledger line up is F3, and so on.

    Pedal C is C0. F on 3 ledger lines down is F0. Double (there we go again) pedal C is C00, F above it is F00.

    This way every pitch has a name we can agree upon.

    Now it is high time for a nice double dark chocolate cone.:-)
     
  6. ChaseFan

    ChaseFan Banned

    320
    2
    Mar 25, 2008
    Show exactly how I misrepresented or misinterpreted those quotes from those famous trumpet players.

    You keep claiming that I have misrepresented or misinterpreted those quotes, but you never show how regarding even one of the quotes.

    I will quote them one last time so that you can show where I have misrepresented what they said:

    Bud Brisbois said:
    "now most of you, to hit that high G if you were ever going to hit one, which is a good 5th above a high C"
    - quoted from
    http://www.seeleymusic.com/brisbois/brisart.htm

    Show me how that can be interpreted to mean that High G is really *below* High C, although Bud Brisois explicitly said that High G is *above* High C.

    Keith Fiala said:
    "Here's Maynard SINGING on a High A (Above High C) in M. Park in the 1970's (Live At The Top)."
    - quoted from
    http://www.brassplayersolution.com/Blog/

    Show me how that can be interpreted to mean that High A is really *below* High C, although Keith Fiala explicitly said that High A is *above* High C.

    Buddy Childers:
    "I mean, my second parts under Maynard for some of the things that Shorty Rogers wrote for us never got below high C—and that was a second part. There’s one thing that he wrote, “Solo For Coop”—there’s a string of high G’s along there on the second part, that are just incredible"
    - quoted from
    http://www.jazzprofessional.com/technical/childers.htm

    If the charts never came below a High C, but the charts contained a string of High G's, explain how those High G's could be *below* High C as you claim.

    Bobby Shew said:
    "Suddenly I went above that high E and ended on a big fat high A. This was my first high A. With this new system I also got up to double C."
    - quoted from
    http://abel.hive.no/trumpet/ntf/nr2-99/Clinic.html

    Rich, you claim that High E is above High A, but Bobby Shew explicitly said "I went above that high E and ended on a big fat high A".

    Rich, why don't you ever address what those players said above,
    instead of making the vague claim that I have somehow misrepresented what they said?

    Dean
     
  7. Rich Wetzel

    Rich Wetzel Pianissimo User

    131
    3
    Dec 27, 2003
    Tacoma, WA
    Dean or Moris, I addressed it in my previous posts.

    I wish you all the best!
     
    Last edited: Aug 27, 2009
  8. Schwab

    Schwab Mezzo Piano User Staff Member

    543
    95
    Feb 26, 2004
    Are you guys for real? You're really getting into an argument over how to name high notes? That most people can't even play? Really?

    I mean, really?
     
  9. rowuk

    rowuk Moderator Staff Member

    Age:
    61
    16,611
    7,955
    Jun 18, 2006
    Germany
    Dylan to the rescue!

    I think I am going to call everything above high C just "up there". "G up there" sounds pretty cool. Pedal notes could be called "down there". They have similar musical effects to "up there".

    When I am in doubt about knowledge, I believe the educated. When I want to know what works, I check the street.
     
  10. Sofus

    Sofus Forte User

    1,529
    17
    Jul 26, 2008
    I just LOVE this conversation!!:D

    Some people claiming there are more than one way
    USED to give the higher notes their names . . .

    Some people saying that there is only one CORRECT way
    of giving the higher notes their names . . .

    Althoug there is no contradiction between the two, it still
    could seem as if this is a fight where the most persistant WINS?:D



    Just for clarification, I´d like to add to what I´ve stated so far:

    we have the 4 methods of giving names to notes

    a) the F#-based method
    b) the C-based method
    c) the German number method
    d) the once-accented-twice-accented-thrice-accented method


    a) has, to my opinion, 2 drawbacks:
    1) the octaves are defined from F#, the lowest note on a trumpet.
    Since other instruments have other lowest notes than F#, if they
    define their octaves according to THEIR lowest note, this will be
    confusing when people playing different instruments talk to each
    other, since they don´t change names from low-to-middle-to-high
    octave at the same note.
    2) what we call the low octave won´t be what a double bass player,
    guitar player and many other players would call HIS low octave,
    neither would any of the other octaves be compatible, of course.
    This also is a factor that will cause players of different instruments
    not to understand each other without difficulty . . .


    b) has, to my opinion, 1 drawback:
    1) what we call the low octave won´t be what a double bass player,
    guitar player and many other players would call HIS low octave,
    neither would any of the other octaves be compatible, of course.
    This is a factor that will cause players of different instruments
    not to understand each other without difficulty . . .


    c) has, to my opinion, none of the drawbacks that a) and b) has, but
    although defined from C, it is defined from Sub Counter C (not sure this
    theminology is correct in English . . .) which is called C0. This note is the
    lowest in the Sub Counter Octave (around 16.35 Hz) and something that
    people usually can´t hear, although notes higher in that octave can be
    heard. Knowledge about all the existing octaves and the method of
    numbering them in this way is not something young students at school
    gain, and therefore this method must be considered unpractical.


    d) has, to my opinion, none of the drawbacks mentioned. As far as I know,
    this is taught in school, the way of defining and switching octaves at the
    note C would be equal to and understood by all instrumentalists, and finally,
    when talking of octaves also the same names would be used by all instrumentalists.



    I realize that this is NOT the way to make friends!:-)
    Now I´ve stated that I more or less disagree with
    EVERYBODY who have posted so far, but maybe
    our discussion actually CAN be the start of some kind
    of agreement about what therminology to use in the
    future.
    Of course, like someone said: this discussion COULD
    go on for ever . . .
     
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2009

Share This Page