 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-07-01 17:36
This bit of whimsy is a spin off of a thread in which I discovered that the octave nomenclature suggested at the top of this page (C4 = "middle" C) increments at C (B3 is a half-step below C4) rather than at A. The logic of this escapes me, although I suppose it's because the C Major scale, containing no chromatics, is in its way the basic scale of Western music ("the key of the destitute"). But the discovery led me to wonder...
When Guido d'Arezzo used the first letters of each line of Ut queant laxis to name the scale degrees (ut, re, mi, la, etc.), the 7-note diatonic scale he described was presumably the standard scale (mode?) for music of the church.
I'm wondering (I don't know why I've never thought seriously about it before):
(a) whether the actual interval relationships among the scale ut through si were those of the modern major scale (ionian mode in the Greek system) or the intervals of some other mode (dorian seems to characterize a good deal of traditional chant that survives). Did a dorian hymn or chant begin on ut or on re (as our modern "moveable do" systems do)?
(b) why, when some Europeans (the Germanic musicians?) first began to identify notes with alphabetic names, ut or by then do in some places, became C and not A, the beginning of the alphabet. Why does our basic diatonic scale with no chromatic alterations begin on C rather than A?
I'd be interested in pointers to literature that might detail both the evolving use of Guido's Latin names and the transition to alphabetic names. Were alphabet letters substituted by the German followers of Luther and other German Christians whose break with the Roman church included the rejection of Latin as the liturgical language?
Are my facts completely off-track?
Whimsically,
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-07-01 18:15
Maybe because the C major scale can be divided into two tetrachords with a half-tone step between their two uppermost notes, and all other major scales can easily be derived from them. Add a sharp as needed in each subsequent scale.
CM: C D E F - G A B C
GM: . . . . . G A B C - D E F# G
DM: . . . . . . . . . . D E F# G - A B C# D
etc.
Well that's how my teacher explained the "logic" behind the whole thing. But it doesn't really explain *why* this is as it is.
Of course, you could have the same starting with the A minor scale...
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-07-01 19:14
In modal music (A minor = aeolian mode) the seventh and even sometimes the sixth step were often altered at cadences to produce a leading-tone effect, so the "minor" modes (those with lower third and, especially, lower seventh degrees) were rarely used unaltered as modern (20th century) modalists tend to do. So I'm not sure that A minor could have represented a "standard" scale - certainly not as much as C Major.
The structure of a major scale (with C Major being the "white-note" prototype) is indeed a pair of identical tetrachords and the logic you've described is the logic behind the "circle of fifths" and the Western European concept of dominant-tonic tonal harmony.
I just wonder why that major scale couldn't (shouldn't) have begun with the letter A with its relative minor beginning on the same note (on the keyboard, say) but with the *name* of F. Nothing need have been different in terms of interval structure, only the names. A would simply have coincided with Ut, B with Re, etc... But that assumes (re my first question) that Guido (who lived in the 11th century, long before our major/minor system of harmony evolved) was actually naming the degrees of the ionian mode/C Major scale, where his syllables ended up a few centuries later.
It means nothing now because the naming system has been in place for several hundred years and isn't going to change anytime soon, which is why this isn't a topic of earth-shaking importance.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-07-01 19:35
Well at least we can consider ourselves happy that not computer geeks named the notes, else we'd have to deal with NOTE0000 or atrocities like that. ![[tongue]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie6.gif)
(and then there's the Teutonic "H" for Bnat and "B" for Bb...and their ABCDEFGH would make quite an esoteric scale...)
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: CarlT
Date: 2011-07-01 19:59
kdk said:
<<the octave nomenclature suggested at the top of this page (C4 = "middle" C) increments at C (B3 is a half-step below C4) rather than at A. The logic of this escapes me, although I suppose it's because the C Major scale, containing no chromatics, is in its way the basic scale of Western music>>
Karl, I found an old thread that might shed some light on why C4 is a half-step above B3 on the BBoard. Please see Mark's last post on the thread below.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=1&i=183012&t=182907
Sorry it's not "live". I need to learn to do that.
CarlT
[ Link fixed - GBK ]
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-07-01 22:23
Doesn't improve the logic for me, but it does establish what the standard practice is. Thanks for the link. It also explains why Alex (EEBaum) was so quick to jump on the subject in the other thread. He's one of those who pointed it out back in 2005.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2011-07-03 15:19
Ah, Do = C...
well, I was taught (tho I don't know if it was right) that it's linked to where the semitones are in the scale. I have forgotten most of this but I recall singing a chromatic:
Do
(Di / Ra)
Re
(Ri / Ma)
Mi
Fa
etcetera. Now you see, you don't sing an E sharp or an F flat, because you can't make the sharp / flat construction of the syllable...
Disclaimer: this may be complete twaddle but it is what my memory tells me.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-07-03 20:18
Well, it's right as far as it goes (although I don't remember if there's a way to name E-sharp when it's the leading tone to F-sharp), but doesn't explain why the the first note of the "white-key" major scale (do or ut) was called C and not A (or, alternately, why Guido set his first syllable, ut, to C rather than A since C and A -see below - already existed).
I have found in the little I've so far run into on the web that's in English, that using letter names actually predates Guido's syllables by at least several hundred years, going back at least to the ninth century A.D.(C.E.). The G, C and F clefs have a history back into the Roman era. So one part of my original premise was incorrect - there was no mid-2nd millenium transfer from sol-fa syllables to letters in Germany or anywhere else. The letters were first, even in the Italian states.
There are a couple of modern titles I want to try to find. Most of what I have read so far tends to describe what the practices were, so far as anyone knows for sure, without going into any of the theoretical rationales for those practices. Unfortunately, most of the ancient primary sources that discuss the theories are, naturally, not in English and have not been translated or, at least, English translations are not readily available. (How lacking in foresight was Aurelian of Réôme to have written his Musica disciplina in Latin!)
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-07-03 20:49
Okay, I did some checking in some German newsgroups. Native tongue sometimes helps.
There, the majority of the people claim that the scale indeed began with "A" (which is still used as the reference note), but the "type" or mode was Aeolian, or today's Minor, which apparently was very popular in churches back then (not the A minor scale as such, but the aeolian mode). No accidentals needed.
With the "invention" of the Ionian (major) mode, the start note shifted to C (still no accidentals needed), and as songs outside the church became popular (to notate and to teach), the "consensus" on where the scale would begin also shifted to C, as we westerners are primarily "Major" music types.
So, in a nutshell, it (still) starts with A in Aeolian (minor) mode, and in C in Ionian (major) mode. Notation remained simplistic as no sharps and flats are necessary in either scale.
I can't tell whether or not the above is historically correct, I'm just paraphrasing.
--
Ben
Post Edited (2011-07-03 20:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2011-07-04 02:15
The odd thing is that the chant itself (Ut queant laxis...), if the modern rendition of it is faithful to the ancient melody, is to my ear Dorian, with a resting pitch of D, not Aeolian (with a "final" of A) or Ionic (with a final" of C) although in the modern version I've found it starts on C, the seventh. So the use of the first syllable of each phrase actually seems to defeat any correspondence of the series ut, re, mi, etc. to the actual mode of the melody.
Interesting if hopelessly esoteric.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2011-07-04 06:51
There was a thread on this a couple of years ago. I remember something about the A 'minor' scale being the principal scale (thus 'major' starting on C not A) because the 'minor' scale is built of two wide-narrow-wide tetrachords, which is somehow more appropriate historically... anyone?
The thing about the chant starting on C with a 'home note' of D is interesting. (But then think about things like 'Greensleeves' which are played in all sorts of ways these days.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2011-07-04 06:53
Karl, consider asking Dan Brown about this, this might be a conspiracy by the Ionian Temple Knights.
--
Ben
Post Edited (2011-07-04 06:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-07-04 10:20
I don't think this is going to answer the question but for the best explanation of the historical development of understandings and arrangements of music theory I would recommend Philip Ball, 'The Music Instinct: How music works and why we can't do without it'. It is the best explanation of musical explanation from Pythagoras on that I have come across (variable limits, I know).
In response to the OP's request for literature, I wouldn't attempt to precis Ball but he links his discussion of Guido of Arezzo with Medieaval modes that had tenor tones to anchor the mode and the development of the modern scale. I realise this is what you say in the original post but I'm just saying that Ball seems pretty good in this area.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony M
Date: 2011-07-04 18:05
Sorry, I should have given fuller details and, as you are interested, I will:
Philip Ball, The Music Instinct: How music works and why we can't do without it, London: Vintage, 2011. ISBN978-0-099-53544-7
That should make it easier to find.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Arnoldstang
Date: 2011-07-04 18:23
As a musician I made a point of teaching my kids the proper start to the alphabet......C,D,E.....
Freelance woodwind performer
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
