Talk:Time unit box system
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. |
Untitled
editI 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 — Preceding undated comment added 22:27, 7 November 2002 Ed Poor (UTC)
- 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 — Preceding undated comment added 04:41, 22 November 2002 (UTC)
I thought James Cutting invented TUBS!?! 213.22.64.246 13:54, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Copyrighted?
editAnyone know if TUBS is copyrighted? I am a music teacher and am working on producing materials that build upon the system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warjianrumoelliu (talk • contribs) 06:48, 21 October 2011 (UTC)