Musical Notation

[adelinamz]

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmusicnotes.html

For the benefit of befuddled would-be musicians, I'd like to point out that there was one inaccuracy in this Staff Report (that I noted--pun intended!). The mnemonic for the spaces in the treble clef is NOT "All Cows Eat Grass." That's the mnemonic for the spaces in the bass clef. The spaces in the treble clef can be recalled by using the mnemonic: FACE . . . amz

[chunda21]

The way I learned about the now universal "double staves" was that it was originally a single "great staff" of 11 lines, with a stylized "C" clef in the center. Then, from the 16th to 18th centuries, the central line was removed, and the staff split (thus, middle C sits between the two staves, regardless of clef).

[C K Dexter Haven]

Sorry, we will correct the error. That's what happens when everybody proofreads it and nobody reads it.

... And congrats to Nate W on a great staff report!

[Eonwe]

To add onto and to clarify what chunda21 mentioned:


...the different staves were frequently written so close together that they give the impresison of a single staff of ten or more lines; however, the fact that on such a staff the same clef letter (c') is used simultaneously in different positions clearly shows that this is a juxtaposition of several staves rather than a single staff.


From: Harvard Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed.

[White Lightning]

Yeah, congratulations! I was tickled to see that name on this morning's column.

Come on in and take a bow!

[Musicat]

Good report. One nitpick with the Staff's Staff info:
The concept of a clef began when the musical staff developed. Staffs once had as few as four lines and as many as six. Standardization of staves at five lines began in the 16th century.
In the music history I studied, early staves were 1,2,3 or 4 lines. You can see this in medieval songbooks. Since the monks' chants were quite limited in scale and intervals, a single line would work for at least three pitches: above, on and below the line. Two lines, even better. I imagine someone decided to put a stop to all this when they reached five (or 11 and split them into groups).

Normally, my education, experience, and user name :) would be sufficient stature to allow me to make these statements, but since this is the SDMB, I will present a link:

from Basic Music Theory (http://www.jazclass.aust.com/basicth/bt1.htm)
To present accurate note pitches the device of the staff (or stave) was added. This began as a single horizontal line, then more where added until a four line staff was standardised for the plainsong (= simple melody line without chords or harmony). This staff was probably introduced for the first time by Guido d'Arrezo, a famous music expert around 1000-1050.

n.b.: I have seen experimental, proposed staff systems with 6 or 7 lines or more. One eliminated sharps & flats altogether -- with enough lines, you don't need them* -- but I can't conceive of many people willing to learn such a different notation just for the few benefits it might offer.

*If you assign a line to one pitch on a piano, and the next space to the next pitch, black or white, and continue up or down the scale, you don't need sharps or flats, since there is a 1:1 correspondence with a line or space and an actual note. Of course this means you need more lines and spaces than our present system to represent the same range of notes. Is that clear or muddy?

[Loopus]

Great staff report! While we're on the subject, there's something I was wondering. In musical notation, the letter C is often used to signify 4/4 time. Our band directors back in school always told us it stood for "common time," and 4/4 time is certainly common enough. I've often heard, though, that the symbol is, in fact, an incomplete circle. The explanation goes that 3/4 time was seen as perfect, because of the relation of 3 beats per bar to the three aspects of the trinity. Therefore, its perfection was symbolized by a complete cirlcle, while the "imperfect" 4/4 time was symbolized by an incomplete circle.

The most authoritative place I've heard this was in Tom Burnam's Dictionary of Misinformation, which is pretty reliable, I think. Cecil disagrees with him on a few items, though, so I still wonder if it's really true.

[Greg Charles]

Great column!

I learned in some music class that the do-re-mi notes came from Gregorian chant, where a series of words would be chanted in an ascending scale. The note names came from the first syllable of each word. We even saw a reprint of the poem that inspired the system. Something like:

Domine
Regolorum
Mi -- something?

Is this right? If so, where did "ut" come from? Also, the poem we saw printed only contained five lines, explaining the origins of do through sol. Where did la and ti (or si) come from?

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by Greg Charles
Great column!

I learned in some music class that the do-re-mi notes came from Gregorian chant, where a series of words would be chanted in an ascending scale. The note names came from the first syllable of each word. We even saw a reprint of the poem that inspired the system. Something like:

Domine
Regolorum
Mi -- something?

Is this right? If so, where did "ut" come from? Also, the poem we saw printed only contained five lines, explaining the origins of do through sol. Where did la and ti (or si) come from? Close but no antiphon. According to Grout/Palisca*, our friend Guido d'Arezzo (he of the Hand) took the syllables from the hymn text Ut queant laxis, in which each of the six phrases begins on the next note up from the opening note of the previous phrase. The text is:Ut queant laxis
resonare fibris
Mira gestorum
famuli tuorum
Solve polluti
Labii reatum
Sancte Joannes As you might imagine, in a world where music was taught through oral tradition alone, this was a pretty useful mnemonic device for teaching notes. The aforementioned Guidonian Hand, the diagram of which became a standard of music textbooks everywhere, is a transference of the solmization system to the hand; different parts of the left hand represented different notes, and by pointing to the different parts the "conductor" of the group (of monks, in this case) could indicate the next important notes via gestures. While the hand is attributed to Guido, scholars believe it was probably a later innovation, possibly by one of his students or one of their students.

The use of six-note scales (or hexachords or modes, the correct term depending on context) lasted quite a long time; the development of modern tonality is a whole other question that I have neither time nor energy for at the moment. Anyone really interested in the development of Western music notation should look up Willi Apel's "The Notation of Polyphonic Music 900-1600", but be warned that it's not exactly a thrilling read.

*A History of Western Music (6th ed.) by Donald Grout and Claude Palisca

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by Loopus
Great staff report! While we're on the subject, there's something I was wondering. In musical notation, the letter C is often used to signify 4/4 time. Our band directors back in school always told us it stood for "common time," and 4/4 time is certainly common enough. I've often heard, though, that the symbol is, in fact, an incomplete circle. The explanation goes that 3/4 time was seen as perfect, because of the relation of 3 beats per bar to the three aspects of the trinity. Therefore, its perfection was symbolized by a complete cirlcle, while the "imperfect" 4/4 time was symbolized by an incomplete circle.
While I've got THoWM out, I'll just mention that you are basically correct in your assumptions about the half-circle becoming 4/4 time. Time signatures originally reflected both "time" and "prolation", the latter being the subdivision of the larger beat.

Bearing in mind that 3 was better than 2 (or 4) for the reason you mention:

Perfect time and major prolation (represented by a circle with a dot in the middle) was three large beats subdivided in three beats each -- roughly equivalent to 9/8 time

Imperfect time and major prolation (semicircle with dot) is two large beats subdivided into three, or 6/8 time

Perfect time and minor prolation (empty circle) = three beats subdivided into two each = 3/4 time

Imperfect time and minor prolation (empty semicircle) - two large beats, each subdivided in two = 4/4 time.

Obviously the equivalences I mention are approximate and mostly for illustrative purposes, but you get the general idea. The cut-time symbol (the C with a line through it) was a later evolution of the same symbol.

[Eonwe]

Originally posted by Musicat
Good report. One nitpick with the Staff's Staff info:

In the music history I studied, early staves were 1,2,3 or 4 lines. You can see this in medieval songbooks. Since the monks' chants were quite limited in scale and intervals, a single line would work for at least three pitches: above, on and below the line. Two lines, even better. I imagine someone decided to put a stop to all this when they reached five (or 11 and split them into groups).

Normally, my education, experience, and user name :) would be sufficient stature to allow me to make these statements, but since this is the SDMB, I will present a link:



n.b.: I have seen experimental, proposed staff systems with 6 or 7 lines or more. One eliminated sharps & flats altogether -- with enough lines, you don't need them* -- but I can't conceive of many people willing to learn such a different notation just for the few benefits it might offer.

*If you assign a line to one pitch on a piano, and the next space to the next pitch, black or white, and continue up or down the scale, you don't need sharps or flats, since there is a 1:1 correspondence with a line or space and an actual note. Of course this means you need more lines and spaces than our present system to represent the same range of notes. Is that clear or muddy?

Gotta call you on this; there were many notations in which more than four lines were used. I have some examples in front of me, unfortunately they're not in e-form. But, the Harvard Dictionary of Music, which I quoted before, also backs the "Staff" report. :)

[MacSpon]

Like, I suspect, most young music students, I soon adopted different mnemonics for the lines on the staves. Actually, I still remember them using my big sister's versions:

(Treble staff) Every Grandma bakes dirty fleas.
(Bass staff) Good bugs deserve fruity Ajax.

Amazing what amuses young children. And amazing how much of it sticks later on ...

[rsa]

Originally posted by Eonwe
Gotta call you on this; there were many notations in which more than four lines were used. I have some examples in front of me, unfortunately they're not in e-form. But, the Harvard Dictionary of Music, which I quoted before, also backs the "Staff" report. :)
I'm not really qualified to answer for Musicat since the only thing that I can play is the stereo ;), but I think you may have missed his point.

I don't think that (s)he was saying that there were not more than four lines since the reply specifically mentioned five lines. I thought Musicat was taking issue with this: "Staffs once had as few as four lines and as many as six." This implies to me that four was the minimum. The way I read the reply was that staves with 1, 2, and 3 lines were also used.

But since this is all Greek to me I could be way off base.

[ShibbOleth]

Originally posted by White Lightning
Yeah, congratulations! I was tickled to see that name on this morning's column.

Come on in and take a bow!

Ditto. He's obviously a real renaissance man and not the schlub we thought. Too bad he didn't write it under his screen name.

[Musicat]

Well, color me more :confused: than ever. First, I think rsa interpreted me right.

I read the Staff report as ignoring possible staff construction of one, two or three lines; I don't question any higher numbers that do, did, or may exist. The Staff report seemed to indicate that four lines was the starting point and I believe a single line was, dating back further in time.

Eonwe quoted my entire post, then took issue with it, but I don't know what part. Surely not all of it? My addendum about experimental staves >5 lines was only a passing mention; I picked up a discarded manuscript in a Hollywood music copy shop around 1972 that had a 7-line, no-sharp, no-flat proposal. For all I know, that was the only copy in existance of that particular scheme, but I'm sure there have been others.

Here's one reference on the 1..4 line staff:

from The Silver Age of Chant: (http://members.ozemail.com.au/~oriens/7Chant.html)
Early staff notation suspended neumes [notes] on invisible wires around a real or imaginary line. The distance between each note indicated the interval, and the line was designated as F and coloured red. Later, another line (yellow or green) was added to indicate C, and then another two, to form the standard chant four-line stave. By the 12th century, Italian, French, Spanish and English monasteries commonly used staff notation.

[Loopus]

Thanks, jr8. It's good to finally have that cleared up in my mind.

[Musicat]

To expand on the 1..4 line staff evolution with more references:

from The Evolution of Musical Notation (http://www.zianet.com/egil/nonfiction/musicnot.html)

Some kind of absolute reference point was needed, and this was solved by drawing a single horizontal line, and placing the neumes above or below it. This helped for a while, since many chants have a relatively small melodic range and thus tended to hover right around the line. For songs which spent most of their time well away from the line, or had a greater range, this single line proved to be insufficiently accurate, and a second line was added; then a third, and a fourth. For chant, four lines were often sufficient for the vocal range a given song would cover, and this set of lines became known as a "staff."
[i]from Music Notation (http://psych.colorado.edu/~blackmon/Expt000403Subsite/ContentFilesExpt000403/Music/musical%20notation.htm)

Today's system developed over many centuries. The note shapes are derived from neumes, handwritten signs that were placed over the words of medieval chant. At first neumes gave only a vague indication of melodic directions and patterns. Gradually the shapes became more precise and, about AD 1000, staff lines were added: first one, then two, then four and five. By about 1200, the notation was reasonably exact as to pitch, but quite vague regarding duration.
from Music 2115 (http://www.music.vt.edu/faculty/howell/2115/2115ChapterHandouts/2115Chapter05.html)

Guido d'Arezzo (c. 990-1050)...Took the idea of staff lines and increased them to 4, sufficient for the narrow range of most chants
from Music Theory Online (http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory2.htm)

In modern printing of medieval chant, usually four line staffs are used. In medieval manuscripts, however, there might be no staff line, or between one and six lines per staff, where each line denotes a different voice. The failure of the neume system to maintain consistency in the performance of religious chant, inspired Guido d'Arezzo, in the 12th century, to perfect a new staff-based system of music notation.
In light of this scholarly support, I suggest it might be time to revise the SD staff report from "Staffs had as few as four lines..." to "Music pitch notation began with no lines, then one, two or more, often in different colors. A four-line staff was common in the late middle ages, but eventually became standardized at five."

BTW, the single-line staff is sometimes used today for indefinite-pitch instruments (percussion).

[amanset]

I occasionally see music with an "H" in it. The hymn book at my local Church has several hymns where there is an "H" chord.

Where did that come from? I was taught that music involved A to G.

[Algernon]

Originally posted by ShibbOleth
Too bad he didn't write it under his screen name. This comment interests me. I had always assumed that SDMB members wrote Staff Reports under their screen name, but if the Report was noted as having been written by, say, John Smith, then I thought it was some "outside" expert recruited by Cecil to write the column. I never considered that a SDMB member would use their real name. Interesting.

Would it be in bad form to ask the screen name of Nate?

[chopinpa]

Another qubble with the staff report concerns rhythm:

The first system of note duration is generally credited to Franco de Cologne in the 13th century in his work, Ars cantus mensurabilis. In this work de Cologne attempted to codify not only a note's pitch but also the length of time that it was held. A good beginning but somewhat limiting as most notes were either long (full) or short (one third of a long). Probably this would sound strange to those of us used to music having four beats to the measure (as the vast majority of western music does). A surviving part of de Cologne's system is the "triplet"--a rhythmic structure in which a specific duration is broken into three for effect.

There was an important and distinct earlier stage of rhythmic notation, "rhythmic modes," that goes back to the 12th century. Rhythmic modes first appear in manuscripts of Parisian organa from the mid to late 12th century; the principles of rhythmic modes were abstracted from these manuscripts by theorists in the 13th century. Johannes de Garlandia's De musica mensurabili (ca. 1250) gives the clearest description of the six rhythmic modes (each of which displays a different pattern of long and short notes).

Franconian mensural notation allowed for more complex and flexible rhythms than those permitted by rhythmic modes.

[C K Dexter Haven]

<< This comment interests me. I had always assumed that SDMB members wrote Staff Reports under their screen name, but if the Report was noted as having been written by, say, John Smith, then I thought it was some "outside" expert recruited by Cecil to write the column. I never considered that a SDMB member would use their real name. Interesting. >>

Note that Nate is not Staff, but *is* an "outside" contributor. And he chose to use that name. Whether it's his "real name"... well, that's a different question, eh?

[Eonwe]

musicat, I did misunderstand you, if rsa is explaining it right. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the evolution of the staff went directly from 1 up to 4 lines where it stayed to this day, which is not the case. Even two of the quotes you provide contradict each other.

One states "Guido d'Arezzo (c. 990-1050)...Took the idea of staff lines and increased them to 4," implying that before him there had only been less than four, where another says, "there might be no staff line, or between one and six lines per staff, where each line denotes a different voice. The failure of the neume system to maintain consistency in the performance of religious chant, inspired Guido d'Arezzo, in the 12th century, to perfect a new staff-based system of music notation," implying that notation was varied, from using no lines up to six. Just wanted to clarify that point. :)

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by amanset
I occasionally see music with an "H" in it. The hymn book at my local Church has several hymns where there is an "H" chord.

Where did that come from? I was taught that music involved A to G. In German pitch notation, "H" corresponds to B-natural (in English pitch notation), whereas "B" actually means "B-flat". Confusing, yes, but there you have it.

So the musical cipher you sometimes see of B-A-C-H is actually B-flat/A-natural/C-natural/B-natural.

French, Italian and Spanish music tends to use the scale degree names (Do, Re, Mi, etc.), using "Si" for B-natural.

[happyboy]

Well, first, it was nice to see Nate's name on this report. His dad is a fellow band director and sax player, although I believe he's retired now, while I'm still having fun. Nate was a talented trumpet player in high school; I conducted him at a few honor band rehearsals.

Second, there's a typo in the report: In the English solfege system, as it's commonly called, Si was changed to Ti, not Te. The report mentions that the first letter was changed, so the implication is correct. I only mention it here because Te is also a note in the solfege system. Te is a half-step lower than Ti (when C is Do, Ti is B, and Te is B-flat).

All the flats and sharps have been given syllables (I don't know when or by whom). The chromatic scale (one that uses every note in order without skipping any), ascending, is (major scale in bold type):

Do Di Re Ri Mi Fa Fi Sol Si La Li Ti Do

and descending is:

Do Ti Te La Le Sol Se Fa Mi Me Re Ra Do

This system is consistent with our letter notation: even though C# and Db (D-flat) are two names for the same pitch, so Di and Ra are also. Generally, when ascending, the vowel changes to the letter "i" (an "ee" sound--note that Mi and Ti ("leading tone")already have that), and when descending, changes to an "e" (a long "a" sound--Re, however, already has that and so changes to Ra).

Keep up the good work, everybody!

[regnad kcin]

May I direct your attention to my GQ thread:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=185460

Also I would like to make two comments:

H is still used in Germany to this day meaning B, and B is used for Bb. This drove me absolutely crazy while learning new songs in the band I played in there.

Whats worse, Germans don't say "flat" or "sharp", but put -is or -es on the end of the letter, thus Eb is "es", F# is "fis". Lemme tell ya, "dis" and "des" sound an awful lot alike when being yelled at you over loud electric guitar. What an impractical system they have there.

Also "ti" as a solfege syllable is certainly not used the world over. My Japanese girlfriend learned "shi" (granted the Japanese language has to "ti" sound -- the closest they have is "chi"). I would be curious to hear what differences other language speakers have.

[Jonathan Chance]

Hey! I'm back from Disney!

What did I miss?

Christ...

RED ALERT RED ALERT

From happyboy
Well, first, it was nice to see Nate's name on this report. His dad is a fellow band director and sax player, although I believe he's retired now, while I'm still having fun. Nate was a talented trumpet player in high school; I conducted him at a few honor band rehearsals.

I am NOT the trumpet playing guy from out west. We merely share the same somewhat unusual name. I knew he was out there...I just never thought it would come up here.

My dad is an airline exec. Sorry for the confusion.


OK, then...

First off, while I am aware of 0-3 lines staves I intentionally left them out as I was asked to write about the development of written music and thought I'd try to write about when the system began to be standardized. While I could have made that clearer (I admit) I don't consider a time when anyone could make up a staff to be that period. None of the research I did (ask Dex how late I was with the report) indicated that any standardization at all occured until the development of the 4-line staff.


Next:

jr8
Anyone really interested in the development of Western music notation should look up Willi Apel's "The Notation of Polyphonic Music 900-1600", but be warned that it's not exactly a thrilling read.

You're damn right, it's not. Lotsa info but wooden beyond belief.

[Musicat]

Originally posted by Eonwe
musicat, I did misunderstand you, if rsa is explaining it right. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that the evolution of the staff went directly from 1 up to 4 lines where it stayed to this day, which is not the case. Even two of the quotes you provide contradict each other.
I don't know how you got that idea from my initial post in this thread:In the music history I studied, early staves were 1,2,3 or 4 lines. You can see this in medieval songbooks. Since the monks' chants were quite limited in scale and intervals, a single line would work for at least three pitches: above, on and below the line. Two lines, even better.
Would it have been clearer if I said "1 OR 2 OR 3 OR 4"?

I'm not suggesting that there was an unbroken evolutionary sequence from 1 to 4 lines. I'm sure that given a lack of standards and poor communication in the middle ages, if monk A used a single red line, and monk B got wind of it and thought an additional green line was just peachy, he used it. Monk C might have had a similar idea independently and used 3 lines. "Heresy and blasphemous," thought Monk D, one is enough for all. Someone else might have tried 6 or even an entirely different notational system; there were probably ones that haven't survived historically, maybe for good reason.

And I don't feel the cites I supplied contradict each other, either, for the reasons just given. But there does seem to be a rough and somewhat natural evolution from 0 lines to 4, a pause at 4, then standardization at 5. And I felt the Staff report failed to cover this.

I also wonder about the "there might be no staff line, or between one and six lines per staff, where each line denotes a different voice" quote. I interpret that to mean each of the six lines represents a different person's pitch info, just like modern SATB music has four staff line sets, one for each voice: Soprano, Alto, Tenor, Bass. If a single line was adequate for a chant for a single voice, it makes sense that six lines could convey info for six different voices.

But this interpretation might be wrong; early medieval music was not heavily contrapuntal and six truly different harmony parts are not likely to be used simultaneously. Parallel 4ths and 5ths were the most exotic harmony they went in for those days.

[pfreeman]

I see a lot of info about where 'notes' started, but no one seems to have mentioned Pythagoras yet. Perhaps it's not strictly relevant... but the potential for an humurous reference to a lead electric triangle should surely be a driving force.

[Gyrate]

Originally posted by pfreeman
I see a lot of info about where 'notes' started, but no one seems to have mentioned Pythagoras yet. Perhaps it's not strictly relevant... but the potential for an humurous reference to a lead electric triangle should surely be a driving force. The whole band thing never really worked out for Pythagoras -- he would get absorbed in calculating the square of the hypotenuse and miss all his cues.

[RiverRunner]

The whole band thing never really worked out for Pythagoras -- he would get absorbed in calculating the square of the hypotenuse and miss all his cues.

Surely, if a modern major-general could do it, Pythagoras wouldn't have had to think too hard!

RR

[C K Dexter Haven]

Welcome to the Straight Dope Message Board, pfreeman, glad to have you with us... with such a pointed (ahem) first post!

[tracer]

Another minor inaccuracy in the staff report:
"Si" was changed in the 1800s to "Te" so that each note would begin with a unique letter.
When I had to learn solfege as a music-major undergrad, the last syllable was "Ti," not "Te."

This was important because when we did "chromatic solfege," we changed the vowel to and "e" (pronounced "eh") whenever we sang a flatted variant of the note.

[pfreeman]

Seriously, Pythagoras started the whole 'note' thing, didn't he? I'd heard he grabbed a bit of pipe and banged it with a hammer (wouldn't you?) and call the sound it made "A". Then he cut a third off the end of the pipe, banged it again, called that "B". Another third off the pipe, bang, and "C", and so on and so forth until G, where upon he probably ran out of thirds.

(...sigh...)

Or at least, that's what I saw on TV, and thus it must be true. I suppose the column is about notation, rather than actual notes though. Oh well, the lead electric triangle gag just had to go in, despite it being blatant Python plagiarism.