 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Brenda
Date: 2003-06-05 20:47
Any of you music theorists know why middle C is named C and not A? After all, A is the beginning of the alphabet, and the C scale is the one with no sharps or flats. Why isn't it named A? There's probably a very good reason, but it's hard to explain to a student if you don't know yourself.
Also, are "do re mi" are the same as C, D and E, or does it simply represent the note placement in any scale? My husband scoffs at the alphabetical naming of the scale since the rest of the world outside of North America, it seems, uses "do re mi" or a variation thereof. We have some musician friends who are from South America and are unfamiliar with the N. American system of naming scales.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ralph G
Date: 2003-06-05 21:14
In my ear training class years ago, even if we were singing scales in F# major, it was still "do re mi" etc. Solfege is not key specific; "do" merely represents the tonic. (Anybody know what the solfege syllables are for minor scales?)
Wish I had an answer for your first question; I'd like to know as well. But after awhile it just seems natural for the musical alphabet to start on C.
________________
Artistic talent is a gift from God and whoever discovers it in himself has a certain obligation: to know that he cannot waste this talent, but must develop it.
- Pope John Paul II
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: contragirl
Date: 2003-06-05 21:28
Major: Do re mi fa sol la ti do
Minor: Do re me fa sol le te (or ti, depending on which minor) do...
yeah, depends on if it natural, melodic or harmonic when it goes down too, of course. hehe
Then there's chromatic up: do di re ri mi fa fi sol si la li ti
and down: do ti te la le sol se fa mi me re ra
The "do" as the tonic in the "moveable do" solfege, as opposed to "immovable do".
--Contragirl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Henry
Date: 2003-06-05 22:16
Brenda...Your first question is intriguing indeed. Could it be because the minor mode was dominant in the past? In that case, it would be rational to call A the "base scale" in that mode (no flats or sharps). Just a guess.
Henry
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Stéphane
Date: 2003-06-05 22:26
Since "La" (=A in the N. American notation system) is the concert pitch, maybe that is the reason why it has to be the first alphabetic letter (just guessing).
Now the question would be why is La/A the concert pitch rather than Do/Ut/C since most instruments from the orchestra are pitched in C (starting with the oboe that is responsible for giving that famous concert A to the principal violin).
Stéphane.
After you've heard a work by Mozart, the silence that follows, this is still by Mozart.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Alphie
Date: 2003-06-05 23:11
Brenda wrote:
"My husband scoffs at the alphabetical naming of the scale since the rest of the world outside of North America, it seems, uses "do re mi" or a variation thereof."
I think the alphabetical system is used in the intire Anglo-Saxon part of the western world and cultures inspired by it. Solfege is mainly used in the latin world, mediterainian countries and Latin America.
Alphie
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2003-06-06 00:23
Alphie,
Have you seen the move Sounds of Music?
Vytas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2003-06-06 00:28
Ralph G wrote:
**Solfege is not key specific; "do" merely represents the tonic.**
What???
"do" represets the tonic in THE KEY OF "C"
Vytas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: contragirl
Date: 2003-06-06 00:38
That is not entirely correct.
Many people have learned the "immoveable do" system that has the "do" starting on C, which is what you are talking about. So if you were to sing a D scale, you would start on "re".
But the moveable system allows you to start on "do" in any key. So a D scale would start on "do." "Do" represents the tonic IN ANY KEY, as Ralph said.
There are two systems, which most people don't realize.
And I love "Ut"! I think we should still use it!
--Contragirl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Fred
Date: 2003-06-06 01:10
I really glad that there are folks out there that know this kind of stuff.
Organic chemistry was easy . . . .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ginny
Date: 2003-06-06 02:36
I think the five line staff (four lines at one point) is older than the now common major scale system, which we assume that all other scales and modes are derivatives of. The major scale became popular in the Baroque, but was not so common prior to that, although music was written down well before this in those codex books and beautiful illuminated manuscripts of chants.
They had a different concept of music theory in the middle ages. My old music history book claims that the major scale was not recognised until around 1550! A fixed pitch was not even a concept during the middle ages.
If I recall correctly Pope Gregory was not pleased to hear the way some chants were sung in Spain and wanted a method to notate them. This evolved into our staff.
I am not sure when C got its name, or the concept of fixed pitches began. I do know that major keys were not popular in the Renaissance, so this may explain something.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Francesca
Date: 2003-06-06 04:01
I imagine it's called "middle C" because it is exactly half-way between the treble and bass clefs of a grand staff. As to the sol fege system, I've used both methods for sight-singing. I personally prefer to call the tonic "do", but the immoveable system really allows you to develop your sense of pitch.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2003-06-06 05:45
I guess you could call any note anything you want, as long as everyone you have to get along with agrees to the 'standard'.
If that's not confusing enough - why do Germans (other European nationalities as well?) call the seventh note, "B" -- "H" ?
C, D, E, F, G, A, H, C ... never did figure that one out.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Rene
Date: 2003-06-06 06:03
It is the whole idea of the do-re-mi that they are not bound to a specific base tone. So they do not change. I never heard about the minor solfeggios, but they sound like a very good idea.
The system seems to have been invented in the 9th/10th century by Guido von Arezzo. I looked that up in a dictionary (Lexikon der Mathematik, DTV, p. 189). It seems that the syllabels come from a latin Johannes hymn from the 8th century. The orginal text is
UT queant laxis, REsonare fibris, MIra gestorum, etc.
and ut-re-mi-fa-sol-la fell on c d e f g a, with a characterstic halftone between mi and fa. This is called the hexachord system. You can build the complete tone system on overlapping hexachords, and the singers were supposed to think in hexachords. The system was modified in the 16th century to become do-re-mi-fa-so-la-si/ti-do as we know today. So the lexicon.
To start the note alphabet with A seems to be merely historic, when greek modes were translated into church modes (with some errors by the way). Maybe it was quite arbitrary. It too comes from the 10th century.
Rene
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2003-06-06 06:07
The German B is called "H" because for the Germans, "B" is actually B-flat. Is this scary, or what?
As for do-re-mi, I doubt that the immoveable do system would have much value except for singers involved in classical music. Most other western music is well-rooted in the system of keys, and most musicians who play by ear for a living use a numerical equivalent of moveable do in their thought process. This nomenclature is very compatible with that of chordal harmony (in tonal music, that is).
There are at least two systems of notation that use numerals to describe pitches relative to the tonal center. One is the Nashville Number System, which is primarily for chord charts. Another one may be oriental in origin. A chinese student gave me a copy. The system accurately notates melodies using 1-2-3 instead of do-re-mi, and appears to work over a pitch range of at least three octaves. In the piece that I have the key signature is simply the statement "1 = F". Grace notes and notes down to a 32nd seem to be accommodated using features that may be contained in a word processor. I'm experimenting to see if I can reproduce all the features in Word 2002.
As for why C and not A, I dunno. I think that the greater prevalence of minor melodies in the past is the best explanation that I've heard so far.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: contragirl
Date: 2003-06-06 07:00
GUIDO!!
(as my renaissance teacher would say)
Supposedly, French didn't like to say "Ut" very much. haha.
The only things that I thought of that explain middle C is that it is the middle note of the piano which seperates the left and right hands, and that it is in the middle of the GRAND STAFF (big voice), which are both fairly obvious.
Then I was thinking maybe it has to do with frequency. C4 is 261.63Hz, whereas A4 is 440 Hz. But the more even number of A would just justify why C should be called A! Plus, historically, I don't think they knew what frequencies really were.
But... otherwise, I'm stumped! Someone grab Grove.
--Contragirl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-06-06 07:39
As far as I understand it, solfège is the system where Do is always C. Tonic sol-fa is the other system where Do represents the tonic of the major scale. In the British system of Tonic sol-fa, the minor scale starts on La rather than Do!
I don't know why C isn't A, etc. I don't think it has anything to do wth frequency because A has been anywhere from 392Hz to 460Hz, and old tuning forks have shown frequencies like eg. A=438.5 etc.
Using letters of the Roman alphabet to represent notes goes back to the 5th century. Perhaps the best theory is Henry's, about music being written in modes rather than major/minor.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ron b
Date: 2003-06-06 07:49
Seems to me, now that I'm almost half awake, that in high school music theory class we used Roman numerals to describe notes. I remember that it seemed sorta logical at the time. The root (tonic) being I, a major scale was therefore: I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, vii, I .... something like that.
Our instructor was also a math wizard, so things eventually got very complicated (to me). I think I came very close to flunking that class.
Didn't some composers of Bach's era use numerals in their compositions?
I doubt anyone's going to change anything at this point ![[frown]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie2.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Liquorice
Date: 2003-06-06 08:08
ron b, the Roman numerals that you are reeferring to are used to describe chords, not individual notes. Large numerals for major chords and small for minor. Students are taught to "analyse" music of composers from Bach's era using this system.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bart
Date: 2003-06-06 13:18
ron b: Bach himself did it - in his very last, unfinished fugue, with his own name as the theme. Allen's email above explains how that's possible. As always, the Germans have a system with an iron logic enlivened with notable exceptions, which (bear in mind the German language) make it impossible for non-natives to master :-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2003-06-06 15:30
Oh Good!!!! Something else to worry about besides mpc, ligs, reeds, barrels and clarinet models.
Why C and not A?? (I dunno neither.....sorry)
Nor do I really care, although it is an interesting question.............
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2003-06-06 17:28
All this concept of moveable system sounds ridicules to me. It's like someone tries to convince himself that apple is an orange or yellow is red. Wheel was invented long time ago.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-06-06 17:45
Vytas wrote:
> All this concept of moveable system sounds ridicules to me.
> It's like someone tries to convince himself that apple is an
> orange or yellow is red. Wheel was invented long time ago.
Ah, but your idea of an immovable system would sound ridiculous to someone who believes in scales ... or transposing instruments ...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Gretchen
Date: 2003-06-06 17:57
I think it's middle C because of gregorian chant where there was only one or two staff lines just so they could track where their melodies were. As they sang more and wanted to be more accurate they added rhythms, and three, four, etc. staff lines until they couldn't keep track of what note they were on...imagine 7 or 8 staff lines! Eventually they would get to an octave, so they broke it into different staves and the transitional note between the two staves was C. That's what I learned atleast.
As for the solfege question...some people are saying that the tonic is always C and some are saying that it's whatever the tonic of the key is. And actually...everyone's correct depending on which solfegge system is used. You're gonna hate me.
There is (for major keys): fixed do and moveable do. You guessed it...fixed do is where Do is always C no matter what key you're in...and moveable Do is when Do is whatever not the tonic of the key is. So..if you're in lets say D major, the solfegge for fixed do is: re mi fi sol la ti di re, and the solfege in D major using moveable do is: Do re mi fa sol la ti do.
As for minor keys, there is La based minor and Do based minor.
La based minor is made for the relative minor of the major key. Meaning, if you go up the solfege scale in C major, the solfege name La is the note A. If you start on A and go up the scale to the next A (not changing any notes), it would sound like a minor scale but you would be using the same notes as in C Major. So, if you're in C major, the relative minor is A minor because the notes all stay the same (no sharps or flats.)
Do based minor is made for the parallel minor of a key, meaning the actual name of the scale stays the same but the notes change a little. So, the scales are C Major and C minor...they both start on C. In parallel minor, C Major becomes C minor by adding 3 flats Eb, Ab and Bb to make it sound like a minor scale. So the C major scale is spelled C D E F G A B C. C minor would be C D Eb F G Ab Bb (or B natural if it's harmonic minor) C.
ok...so now to clarify, no matter what minor scale you are relating to, the major scale will stay the same. So C Major will always be C major but it's minor scales will differ depending if you are talking about the relative minor or the parallel minor. (I hope i haven't totally lost you...i probably have.)
So...if you use Relative minor, the solfege for A relative harmonic minor scale would be: la ti do re mi fa si la (notes spelled A B C D E F G# A).
If you used parallel minor, the solfege would be (for harmonic minor):
C D Eb F G Ab B natural C. Same sound, different notes.
I hope this helped in some way. I'm sorry if i totally lost you!
Gretchen
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Don Berger
Date: 2003-06-06 17:59
As someone said of other technology, my Chem Eng was simple compared to the above lessonS in music-theory [and other ancient history], but TKS anyway for the education. As to the movability of our alphabetic 7 letters, playing [bass] clarinet music on [bari] sax and vice/versa, for me requires some thot, as do other transpositions due to inst "keys". Others like bass clef! and the viola!, are a jungle to me. Use "crutches"!! Sure glad I'm just an injenuer trying to make music! Don
Thanx, Mark, Don
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Vytas
Date: 2003-06-06 18:27
Mark, I believe in REAL scales but not in the phony ones. For me F# major starts F#,G#.... and NOT do, re.... or C, D... System when you learn one scale and think you know them all is really ridiculous. Who comes up with this suff?
Vytas
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2003-06-06 18:40
Vytas wrote:
> Mark, I believe in REAL scales but not in the phony ones. For
> me F# major starts F#,
And moves in predetermined intervals.
BTW - what's F#? Seems to be different in different places - or on different instruments. So F# is not "immovable" itself.
Solfedge, both immovable and movable do, has been around a lot longer than any of us.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Benni
Date: 2003-06-06 20:03
I would think moveable 'do' would be a very useful system considering you don't have to have perfect pitch just to know how something sounds . . . True, w/o a starting note, you might be in a different key, but as Mark said, scales "[move] in predetermined intervals," so you won't be singing the wrong notes for whatever key you're in. I guess the moveable 'do' is akin to using Roman numerals for chord progressions instead of writing out the specific chord names . . .
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ginny
Date: 2003-06-06 20:33
Please correct me if I am mis-recalling. I thought that the Do re mi came from the words to a chant that went something like
Domani Rey...
and meant that God is King...and continued on.
Does anyone know the date when the alphabete names came into being. I recall seeing an old Lute tutor that name the frets (or probably strings tied around the neck, give the period) alphabetically, with A being the first fret, B being the second etc.
And Vytas, the pitch we call C is not the same pitch that was called C in Mozart's time. In Java and Bali each village had its own scale for its gamelon, and in ancient China 'do' was reselected for the new ruler! Even my son with perfect pitch understands movable 'do' as it describes the scale relations nicely. When he was very little a D major scale was puzzling to him, as he hear it both as C and D at the same time and could not make sense of it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-06-06 21:08
ginny queried: "...Does anyone know the date when the alphabete names came into being..."
Boethius, (c.480-524) who was a Roman writer and statesman was the first to document the use of letter names for notes. Thus the term "Boethian notation" ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-06-07 01:24
contragirl, you rock. And GBK speaks true, as always.
Immovable (fixed) do is used by many, while others use movable do. Movable do is good for singers who are establishing intervals. And the seventh degree of the major scale is not "ti" to all users. Friend of mine who graduatted from a Brasilian Conservatory uses "si" for that tone. He is, by the way, conversant with both movable and fixed do.
On the other hand, if you don't like movable do, use the "characteristic" names of notes. Tonic, subdominant, dominant, etc. (I can't remember all of them!). It's surely tougher to sing, but those names move all over the place depending on key, just like movable do.
And I will rely on GBK to validate my belief that J. S. Bach never used what we now call "Theory Notation" (I, ii, iii, IV, etc). Figured Bass was the order of the day when he was around... and Figured Bass is still used (in, confusingly enough, more than one style of notation -- although they are pretty easy to distinguish). Or have I slipped a cog on that one, GBK?
What a bizarre topic. Next we'll be discussing the relative merits of British and American note duration names.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2003-06-07 05:46
JMcAulay is correct, as the notational system of the Baroque was the thorough bass (or more commonly called the "figured bass") this was also called "continuo" as it continued through out the piece.
This was a numerical system to indicate accompaniment by designating the intervals and chords to be played above the bass note. This was the universally accepted notational system of the Baroque. It evolved from the improvisational techniques of the 16th century...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: contragirl
Date: 2003-06-07 18:42
Thanks JMcAulay. I was gonna bring up figured bass, but I didn't want to get into it. It's still used in some piano music, but not all the time.
but the original Solfege system went "Ut re me fa sol la ti do". Later versions and improvements changed the harsh sound of ut to do. It was all based off of the gregorian chant that Rene pointed it out.
--Contragirl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2003-06-07 21:28
I do forget things now and then. Should have mentioned in answer to the original question "Why 'C' and not 'A'?" that A is also the scale with no sharps or flats. It just happens to be called "minor" instead of "major." The answer to the question, even the question itself, depends on which scale seems more important.
Personally, I really like what we now call "Dorian mode," with steps along the scale full-half-full-full-full-half-full. With no sharps or flats, this scale begins on D. The most common (and most popular) version of the old English song "Scarborough Fair" is a good example of music played entirely in Dorian: blank key signature, no accidentals, D is "home." So one might ask, "Why 'D' and not 'A'?"
All depends on your perspective.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: javier garcia m
Date: 2003-06-07 23:42
Contragirl, in the first western scale, the note was SI, not TI, because of the inicials of Sanctus Ioannes, at the end of the Hymn "Ut queant laxis, resonare fibris, mira gestorum,..."
SI is still used in latin countries. UT (instead of DO) only in french speaking countries.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Micaela
Date: 2003-06-08 03:01
JMcAulay wrote:
>What a bizarre topic. Next we'll be discussing the relative merits of British >and American note duration names.
I would appreciate being able to say "hemidemisemiquaver" occasionally. But nooooo, I have to live in New York. I'm taking German in the fall so I can use more really long words in everyday conversation.
Micaela
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jim lande
Date: 2003-06-08 03:24
Having always had poor vision, I always relied on playing by ear and have almost forgotten how to read music. Since I mostly play along with guitars, the only thing I know for sure is that my notes are not their notes. And since I sometimes use an A or an Eb clarinet, I get totally confrused if I try to play something based on any type of notation.
I used to think I just couldn't read music. Now I realize that I am much more notationally illiterate than I ever realized.
The French might have learned "ut" from the Saxons. It was one of the Saxon chants at the battle of Hastings, meaning "out" as in kindly go away.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: contragirl
Date: 2003-06-08 04:38
Yeah, Javior. At first I wrote la-si-ut, but I suddenly thought I was wrong. And I accidently wrote "ti do" when I should have written "ti ut". But you're correct. My faux pas.
I used to always ask music people if they knew what a hemidemisemiquaver was, and no one knew. (I knew, but I just wanted to be annoying.) hahaha! Hooray for being nerds and finding new ways of saying sixty-fourth note!
--Contragirl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2003-06-08 05:36
>Mark, I believe in REAL scales but not in the phony ones. For me F# major >starts F#,G#.... and NOT do, re.... or C, D... System when you learn one >scale and think you know them all is really ridiculous. Who comes up with >this suff?
Moveable do and its more modern numeric relatives are frequently applied in very real situations where musicians may be forced to alter the key of the piece that they are playing. The Nashville Number System, for example, was developed by studio musicians so that players might more readily adapt a piece of music to the range of an unfamiliar vocalist.
In the movie version of "The Sound of Music", Do was actually a B-flat (or B if you're German), so I take it that it was 'moveable do' that they intended. The scene depicted the teaching of notes as they related to the tonal center and became organized into scales. This is far from a ridiculous practice.
The concept of moveable do is so practical and user-friendly that it has resulted in any number of alternative notation systems based on its working principle. One particularly notable version is that of shaped noteheads. This system, used mostly in hymnals I think, piggybacks the moveable Do system onto conventional notation.
Bottom line - the concept of moveable Do has sufficient universal value that musicians have reinvented it again and again to help serve their purposes. Its importance may not be readily apparent to us button-pushers, but it is well respected by those who make their music out of thin air--and who may have never even heard the term 'solfeg.'
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msloss
Date: 2003-06-09 13:58
Aside from tormenting students in sight-singing class, solfege is actually a useful device when you are in an ensemble situation where you have instruments pitched in C, Eb, F, A, Bb, etc. You can use concert pitch, but solfege is often more convenient -- I've had several conductors with European or Russian schooling use it. Everyone speaks the same language and you don't have to do the mental gymnastics of transposing from clarinet to french horn to blowzaphone to describe a passage. Do is do is do regardless of what key your instrument is pitched in.
In the words of the great American philosopher Homer Simpson -- "Doh!"
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
