Talk:Time unit box system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I like this page, and the linked-from polyrhythms article.

Is it an absolute truth that TUBS is easier to see than conventional notation, I wonder, or just what you are used to? Conventional notation, sure, is a code, but once you know it, it works quite well. I can hear the rhythm in the conventional one much more easily than looking at the TUBS.

I don;t feel strongly enough about this to want to edit the article ... it's just a thought really. Nevilley

Actually, I can hear it better in traditional notation too, but I suspect that people who can't read music would find TUBS easier to decypher.

I think TUBS is easier for complex tuplets; in conventional notation, you just write a bunch of notes and put a number over them; it doesn't really convey much for 7 over 4 for example. For rhythms of 3s and 2s traditional notation works fine, but for other things TUBS gives you a common denominator. -- Merphant

I thought James Cutting invented TUBS!?! 213.22.64.246 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

One benefit with the TUBS system is that it is more clear in relating WHICH drum is to be struck (as the symbol will be solid, hollow, italic, etc. uniquely for each drum) as opposed to being on a different line of the staff, which can be more difficult to see. More importantly, the SYMBOL used inside of each Time Unit Box relates HOW the drum is to be struck (open tone, slap, bass, rim-shot, etc) which is not as easily conveyed with staff notation. The accent (or pulse) is demonstrated by shadowing the box, which is easier to see than a small accent mark. For me, it is much easier to play, faster, more accurate African or Afro-Cuban percussion patterns using the TUBS notation as compared to conventional staff. NRHarris 19:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC)