Talk:Subcontrabass saxophone

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] External links

Sorry, guess that edit wasn't obvious. The point is, this is an article about subcontrabass saxophones -- not tubaxes. That same link exists on the tubax article. I see it as confusing to have a link to a tubax performance on an article on subcontrabass saxophones. I readily admit this is not the most persuasive argument ever made for removal of a link, and I'm fine with leaving it there pending consensus. -- Rsholmes 00:25, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] (tm)? C?

Is Tubax trademarked by Benedikt Eppelsheim? I would tend to assume so, but I see nothing on his B flat Tubax page or his E flat Tubax page to indicate so -- no "(tm)", no "Tubax is a trademark..." etc.

I just searched the US patent office at http://www.uspto.gov/ and it's not listed there. You can always write to Eppelsheim and ask; he is friendly and responds to emails. Badagnani 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

And is there really a C subcontrabass Tubax? It's not mentioned on Eppelsheim's site as far as I can see. -- Rsholmes 00:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

As with other saxes, the C version is not a big seller. See http://www.saxpics.com/the_gallery/Eppelsheim/info/1.htm and http://www.paschart.ch/dateien/agenda_frame.htm . Badagnani 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is the Tubax a saxophone? Comments from Jay C. Easton

  • From: "Jay and Adrienne Easton"
  • To: Badagnani
  • Subject: Re: Questions
  • Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 10:22:29 -0700

You're welcome- one comment on the Tubax article if you have the ability and inclination to modify what's there- " Although the tubax has the same fingering as a regular saxophone, it has a much narrower (though still conical) bore, somewhat like that of a sarrusophone, so is not technically a true saxophone. "

Although the bore is narrower than a standard saxophone, it is nowhere near as narrow as the bore of a sarrusophone. I have played both instruments side-by-side, and the Tubax is unmistakably saxophone-like, whereas the Sarrusophone sound much more like a full-toned bassoon even when it is played with a single-reed mouthpiece.

Benedikt Eppelsheim wrote to me recently that he has heard people stating that the Tubax is essentially a modified sarrusophone (he has built true sarrusophones in the past) and he said, "If only they knew how such a beast would behave!"

This brings up an interesting question- does a narrower bore make it a different instrument? After all, the C-melody sax has a much narrower bore in proportion to it's length than the Bb tenor. (A C-melody/C-tenor bell is no larger than an alto.) So does the F mezzo-soprano compared to the Eb alto. (A mezzo bell is no larger than that of a Bb soprano.)

Essentially, the C-tenor is acoustically a "stretched alto" and a F-mezzo is a "stretched soprano." Likewise, the Tubax is a "stretched baritone," although it is stretched a bit further than the smaller horns.

Also, the original instruments by Adophe Sax had rather different bore designs than modern saxophones- there is debate about the importance of the degree of parabolic vs. conical shape to the bore within the saxophone world, and some people maintain that no "saxophones" made in the last half-century are truly saxophones because they have lost the essential parabolic aspect of Sax's original design. Having played 5 original Sax saxophones (soprano through bass) earlier this year in comparison with modern horns, I must agree that there is a significant difference. (Whether better or worse is a matter of personal preference, but the Sax instruments were superb!) Indeed the older horns have such different bores that modern mouthpieces do not work, and vice-versa.

This has bearing on other instruments too- how is a metal oboe different from a soprano sarrusophone? what is the dividing line between schawm and oboe? is the heckelphone truly a member of the oboe family or not? Which is the "real" oboe: modern or baroque? (They have very different bores) And so on...

Also, the Eb, C, and Bb Tubaxes all have an extended range of over three octaves, with an extra octave key that allows standard fingerings up to "altissimo" D or higher.

Just my 2 cents worth.  ;-)

Nice articles!

Jay

Badagnani 01:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why you claim I left out the other point of view -- I put it there and it's still there, to wit: "The B♭ subcontrabass Tubax(tm)... is described by Eppelsheim as a 'subcontrabass saxophone'".
I also am puzzled as to why you removed a sentence, rather than adding something to summarize Easton's view. The question of whether the Tubax ought to be regarded as a saxophone or not is important, because the very subject of this article either exists or does not depending on that question. The fact that there are two views on the subject needs to be stated explicitly. Furthermore, the construction of the final paragraph is nonsensical without the deleted sentence: it makes a claim (Tubax as sax is disputed), summarizes the basis for the dispute (Tubax timbre differs due to its different bore) -- and then leaves the reader hanging, with nothing to connect the sentence about the timbre to the question of whether the Tubax is a sax. The reader is likely to be left confused as to what the point of that paragraph is supposed to be. Whether the last sentence can be added back on its own, or it needs to have a further exposition of the contrary view -- either way, the paragraph really has to be completed. Right now it's incomplete.
I won't do any further editing at the moment, though, since I don't understand your objections to what I wrote. -- Rsholmes 02:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I didn't remove the text (I respect you as a knowledgeable editor) but simply hid it with editing brackets, as I felt it overstated the case, viz. "many reputable people don't really think it's a sax"... Not only its builder believes it to be essentially a saxophone (albeit with a more manageable wrap and bore for its size), and Jay C. Easton gives some compelling ideas on the matter. Still looking forward to your comment on Easton's thoughts on the matter--have you looked through those? Badagnani 02:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I still don't understand what you're objecting to. I said (1) Eppelsheim says it's a sax (2) Some people disagree. I have no problem with adding that Easton apparently thinks it's a sax too. What I think of Easton's arguments is beside the point... though since you ask, I think they're reasonable, though not overwhelmingly so, and that this is one of those cases where the human tendency to pigeonhole things runs up against reality's tendency to have grey areas. I've tried to write agnostically on the subject, partly because I more or less am agnostic on the subject. Is it your assertion that the "not a sax" school of thought is too marginal to acknowledge? If so I can't put up much of an argument; I don't know how many people feel one way or the other. But I get the impression there are a good number of people on both sides. -- Rsholmes 02:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No, as I said before, your text made it sound as if it's many vs. one--i.e., "many reputable scholars think it's not a sax" vs. "the guy who makes it thinks it is a sax." If it's balanced out (I don't even know if there are published articles from people who think it's not a sax, are there?), then it should be fine. Badagnani 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, now I see the problem; you're right. Perhaps best to just cut back that paragraph, just say there's disagreement and refer to the Tubax article for details. -- Rsholmes 13:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Right, you're thinking the way I am--of course, if there are published articles discussing this subject (I know there are probably blog and discussion board postings) then they can be discussed in detail but just stating that it's controversial would be fine. Perhaps a couple of Easton's commments/qualifications could be mentioned. Badagnani 18:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should just dig up Adolphe and ask him Arc88