dizforprez

me too!

nieuwguyski

I have always named notes in relation to the staff and the C's -- "G in the staff," "G on top of the staff," "G above high C," "G above double C," etc.

Simple systems for simple minds!

Double_G

Fourth ledger is Double G...I should know...hehe.

Alex Yates

Me too. G above high C was always just high G. I don't call an F above high C double F, it's just a high F. (that's about as high as this orchestra nerd needs to worry about)

Manny Laureano

The lowest G is low G.

The G above the staff is G above the staff.

Middle G is the G in the middle of those two.

High G is the highest G I can play, so, it's high G.

That's my version.

ML

Alex Yates

----> insert dizzy emoticon <----- ^^

RusTrumpeter

Good .
may be we will doing one system
It is very simplify:
pedal c ,c1-g1 ,c2-g2, c3-g3,c4-g4,c5-g5,c6-g6, (c7-g7 in future :) )
This is only for writing. It will be understand by all I think...
Very confuse.

Best Wishes
Senya, Moscow

Lawler Bb

Didn't think I'd weigh in on this discusson, but here goes:

I learned that starting with G above high C (four ledger lines) is called double G. The F immediately below that is just high F. This means that F above double C is double F, but G above double C is triple G.

I guess this would make sense because you would have low G (right above the lowest note on the horn), middle G, high G (on top of the staff, and hey, it was high G when we were young!), double G (G above high C), and so on.

This method somewhat goes along with Double_G and Alex and makes the most sense to me. It seems this is Wayne Bergeron's way of stating this too. In a lesson he killed some double As and double Ds on my horns, and I believe that's how he referred to them. I am with Alex, I certainly don't use most of this stuff.

Back to Wynton??

hunsicker

When I studied with Claude, he insisted that 4th leger line G was "high G" (consistent with Manny's terminology) and that the "double-Highs" began with the A-flat just above that. He claimed that that was the terminology used by all the LA studio folks during his tenure there. Of course, I've seen other studio folks say otherwise on the TH. So there doesn't seem to be a real consistent agreement about it.

But I kind of like that system -- seems most people who play well up there at least agree that there was a real break there that took some doing to get thru when they were developing.

Tootsall

Not so easy is it? To my mind it makes sense that if the "highs" start at 2nd ledger C, then the "double-highs" would start AT the C above that. Therefore 4th ledger line G is "only" high G.

You can't arbitrarily start changing the "system" part way through an octave at different positions just because it makes it seem like you can play super high (high enough already!) By this argument you'd never change from "high F" to "Double high G". (Otherwise the D above "high C" could as easily be "Double high D" as it could be "High D"!

(Well, I guess you can.... but you'd be introducing a mess of confusion such as we see here...!!!!)

The bottom line seems to be that, as Senya has suggested, sticking to the "formal" system of Ci, Cii, Ciii (or C1, C2, C3) isn't as much "fun" but everyone knows what the heck everyone else is talking about!