Add sackbut to Early music instrument selector

• Apr 5, 2016 - 21:58

It would be great if Alto sackbut, Tenor sackbut, and Bass sackbut could be added to the Early music instrument selector of the New Score wizard.

Thanks,

Peter

Comments

• Apr 5, 2016 - 22:17

Sound is very similar to the trombone but softer and sweeter with clearer articulation.
Ranges are the same as the modern equivalents.
Alto sackbut generally plays in either alto clef or octava treble; occasionally just regular treble.
Tenor sackbut generally uses either tenor clef or octava treble.
Bass sackbut generally uses bass clef.

If you have to chose clef for each, I'd make it octava treble for alto and tenor, and bass for bass.

A. Sackbut / A. Sack
T. Sackbut / T. Sack
B. Sackbut / B. Sack

No transposition.

Let me know if you (or anyone) needs any other info.

Thanks!

Peter

Reply

• Apr 5, 2016 - 22:39

That looks like everything needed to set it up, thanks.

As to sound, we'd want to find the closest possible match in the General MIDI standard. Euphonium plays back with the tuba sound, which in that range is definitely "softer and sweeter." Does that sound about right?

Reply

• Apr 5, 2016 - 22:55

Great! In that case, it could hardly be easier. The next version of MuseScore is a long way off (since the most recent version is one day old), but in the meantime you can make it work for yourself very easily:

1. Create a score using standard trombone equivalents (alto, tenor, and/or bass varieties).
2. Change the clefs, if necessary, by clicking on the initial clef and then double-clicking your choice in the Clefs palette on the left.
3. Right-click anywhere on the staff, select "Staff Properties...", and you change the instrument's name.

EDIT: Here's a template, for example. Does everything seem right?

Attachment Size
Sackbut Trio.mscz 10.1 KB

Reply

• Apr 5, 2016 - 23:47

NOOO!!!!! Sackbuts are definitely at concert pitch (I'm a professional sackbut player, so I would know). The confusion arises in that historically, and depending on the country, the standard concert pitch was often around A=466 (i.e., a semitone higher than today's concert pitch). Thus, although most of the surviving historical instruments are in Bb (that is, their fundamental pitch is a Bb at A=440), historically, they were thought of as being in A (that is, their fundamental pitch was A at A=466). But that's not the same as transposing.

To put it differently, a modern trombone will sound a Bb in 1st position and doesn't transpose. When played at modern pitch, sackbuts also sound Bb in first position and don't transpose. When played at "high pitch" (i.e., A=466), sackbuts sound A in first position... and don't transpose.

We sackbut players frequently do play at historical pitch nowadays and thus think of our instruments as being in A rather than Bb. But that's very different from transposing. Trombones, whether modern or historical, play the written pitch.

I hope I'm being clear here. I'd hate for someone to implement this and include some weird transposition.

Reply

• Apr 5, 2016 - 23:59

I'm afraid I don't quite follow. The way I understand transposition, if an instrument is in either A or Bb, that means that it's not in C/concert pitch—i.e., in order for the player to play a C, the note they read on the staff has to be an A or a Bb.

Reply

• Apr 6, 2016 - 00:25

Actually, for transposing instruments, like Bb trumpets or Bb clarinets, it's just the opposite. For them, a written C results in a sounding Bb. So in order to sound a C, they have to play a written D.

But trombones ARE NOT TRANSPOSING INSTRUMENTS. Yes, the fundamental note of a tenor trombone is Bb, but that's just a coincidence that arises from the length of tubing. Tenor trombones are not "Bb instruments" in the same way as trumpets and clarinets are. Trombones are only Bb instruments in that you play Bb in first position. But a written Bb always results in a sounding Bb. The thing to remember, when writing for trombones, is that they always play the written pitch.

When a sackbut player says they're "playing in A" (which is what we generally do when playing at the historical high pitch of A=466) what they actually mean is that they're thinking of the trombone as having a fundamental of A rather than the usual Bb. This means we have to learn a whole new set of slide positions, but ultimately, it's easier than mentally adding a # to every note!

I hope this makes things a little clearer.

Reply

• Apr 6, 2016 - 02:50

You believe everything you read on Wikipedia?? ;o)

Actually, it is difficult to get clear info on these instruments. NONE of my print references contain more than a passing reference, and most of what turns up on a web-search is vague or of so general a nature that it is useless. The only web source I could find which gives any details is a manufacturer which mentions a number of different transposing key tonalities (E-flat; B-flat; F; G) at different pitches for various ranges. This appears to contradict the OP, but as he said, there is confusion on this point, and people too easily use the phrase 'transposing instrument' incorrectly.

The point is that when someone playing a 466 instrument works with a 415 ensemble (this does happen at the professional level), either the soloist or the ensemble is going to have to do some transposing (or play from transposed notation)...but that doesn't make any of them 'transposing instruments' in the sense that that misnomer is normally misused.

This confusion isn't limited to the sackbut. You will hear people talk about an alto (treble) recorder as an 'F recorder' or a soprano recorder as a 'C recorder' (even Dolmetsch's official glossary of recorder terms uses this sloppy language!). But the fact is that even amateur recorder players learn two sets of fingerings--in effect, learn to transpose on sight--so that the notation doesn't have to be transposed for them. The practise of writing soprano recorder parts to be played using alto fingerings did exist, but it was almost unknown outside of England and did not last long. It had a certain currency up until the mid 1730s after which it died a well-deserved death. Sammartini's Concerto in F Major for soprano recorder (c.1729-37) is the last documented piece to be written in that manner.

Anyway, sorry to have veered off on a rant; sloppy terminology is one of my pet peeves. ;o)

Reply

• Apr 6, 2016 - 03:23

The trombone/sackbut is not a transposing instrument. It never has been. THERE IS NO CONFUSION ABOUT THIS. Yes, there are situations where any instrument might have to transpose for any number of reasons (and yes, this even occurred historically, such as some Bach cantatas, in which the trombone parts were written out a tone lower so that the trombone players, who were playing in A=466 could play with woodwind instruments playing at A=415). But there's no point in getting into that for this discussion about MuseScore. It's an edge case and just confuses the issue.

Nor do I think it's sloppy terminology. It's normal for different sizes of the same instrument to be referred to by their fundamental note. There's no reason not to call a bass trombone whose fundamental is G a "G trombone." How else are you going to know where to put the slide? It's normal to make a distinction between a G-alto recorder and an F-alto. It doesn't mean they are transposing instruments.

It only gets sloppy when "composers/arrangers" don't know which instruments use transposing conventions and which don't. The trombone/sackbut doesn't. Period.

Reply

• Apr 6, 2016 - 05:22

Somehow, I think you misunderstood the gist of my post. I was trying to support your statement that sackbuts are not transposing instruments, backing you against what Zack saw on Wikipedia.

You're not actually wrong to say that it's 'normal' (in certain circles) for different sizes of instruments to be named by their fundamental (or lowest) note, but please remember that just because it's 'normal', that doesn't make it right. It's not. A 'G trombone' is a bass trombone. If it has an F or E attachment, does that make it an 'F' or 'E' bass trombone? Huh? A contrabass viol with a low-C extension is still a contrabass viol; it is not a 'C contrabass.' In a score, a good orchestrator or editor will include a performance note specifying if a particular part requires a non-standard version of an instrument. But the part will still be named 'bass trombone' or 'contrabass viol'.

Think about it: Do you propose that every instrument name should be preceeded by its low-note or fundamental? How about C-gambas and G-gambas instead of '7-string bass viol' or 'tenor viol'? Maybe violins should be called G violins? Are violas to be labeled C-violas? And what would you call a 14-string viola d'amore, which often as not is tuned in scordatura?

Nooooo!!!!!

Reply

• Apr 6, 2016 - 06:06

Of course I'm not proposing that every instrument name be preceded by its fundamental. But it can be useful to do so when distinguishing between different kinds of instruments of the same family. G trombones were used as bass instruments mostly in the late 19th c. / early 20 c. in Britain. Bass sackbuts came in all sorts of varieties: D, Eb, F, even BBb. But I don't see why a trombone can't be simultaneously, say, a G trombone and a bass trombone. And indeed, one might correctly say, "I think I'll play that bass trombone part on my G trombone." or "I think that bass sackbut part will sound better if I use my D crook." How else can one convey this information? It may not belong on a score (and perhaps this is where you misunderstand me), but that doesn't make it wrong to utter the phrase "G trombone"!

The point is that if you know trombones are non-transposing (and any composer/arranger should), then it's not confusing (or indeed incorrect) to talk about a G trombone or a sackbut in D. It's obvious that this refers to the kind of instrument and not a transposition.

Reply

• Apr 6, 2016 - 00:49

Well I spent about 3 months making Instruments.xml MusicXML 3 compatible by providing musicXMLid tags for nearly all the instruments, and I believe it's something that was planned to be implemented, but Leon VInken is the MusicXML guy so you need to ask him.

The MusicXML 3 sounds list can be found here.....
http://www.musicxml.com/for-developers/standard-sounds/

Sackbuts are in the list, and I'm not sure why I didn't include them at the time. They have a double t at the end unlike the normal spelling - perhaps a comment on the author's posterior?? - so make sure you include that in the musicXMLid tag when you add them.

Reply

• Apr 6, 2016 - 00:55

Please oh please change it to a single t. There are a gazillion historical spellings, so I suppose one could make as good a case for "sackbutt" as for "shagbolt" or "sagbut" but the giggle quotient on the word "sackbut" is already sky high without adding fuel to the fire.

If it's good enough for wikipedia, it's good enough for MuseScore!

Peter

Reply

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.