This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
It is requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument or component be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality by demonstrating the way it sounds or alters sound. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
Is quite nonexistant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.162.219 ( talk) 19:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
There's a video circulating on FB [1] which claims to be a sub-cb sax. I'm not an expert. Is it one? Ma t c hups 23:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The "instrument" in the video link is not a real sub-cb sax. This is one of the instruments mentioned in the article that "was able to produce musical tones, with assistants opening and closing its pads due to the instrument's lack of keywork, witnesses stated that it was incapable of playing even a simple scale." There are 2 real full-sized sub-cb saxes that exists today. One by Eppelsheim and the other by J'Elle Stainer. Plus one compact sub-cb also by J'Elle Stainer. And there is the Tubax which there is debate about. TAWhite ( talk) 00:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
while they aren't found much, if at all, outside of church orchestras in Brazil, they still exist and have been for at least 2 years, as that is the earliest videos you can find ( The video in question). There isn't a ton of information on them but I'd assume they have a range of Db0 (posible C0) to Ab2 (posible A2), 1 octave below the contrabass. To find the rare videos of these, atleast on YouTube, you have to search "Saxofone octacontrabaixo," which I'd assume to be Portuguese for octocontrabass saxophone. I feel that there is enough information on these to put them into this article, or at least acknowledge their existence. That1Person2500 ( talk) 19:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
References
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
It is requested that one or more audio files of a musical instrument or component be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons and included in this article to improve its quality by demonstrating the way it sounds or alters sound. Please see Wikipedia:Requested recordings for more on this request. |
Is quite nonexistant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.209.162.219 ( talk) 19:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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
There's a video circulating on FB [1] which claims to be a sub-cb sax. I'm not an expert. Is it one? Ma t c hups 23:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
The "instrument" in the video link is not a real sub-cb sax. This is one of the instruments mentioned in the article that "was able to produce musical tones, with assistants opening and closing its pads due to the instrument's lack of keywork, witnesses stated that it was incapable of playing even a simple scale." There are 2 real full-sized sub-cb saxes that exists today. One by Eppelsheim and the other by J'Elle Stainer. Plus one compact sub-cb also by J'Elle Stainer. And there is the Tubax which there is debate about. TAWhite ( talk) 00:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
while they aren't found much, if at all, outside of church orchestras in Brazil, they still exist and have been for at least 2 years, as that is the earliest videos you can find ( The video in question). There isn't a ton of information on them but I'd assume they have a range of Db0 (posible C0) to Ab2 (posible A2), 1 octave below the contrabass. To find the rare videos of these, atleast on YouTube, you have to search "Saxofone octacontrabaixo," which I'd assume to be Portuguese for octocontrabass saxophone. I feel that there is enough information on these to put them into this article, or at least acknowledge their existence. That1Person2500 ( talk) 19:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
References