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
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).
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!
To add onto and to clarify what chunda21 mentioned:
From: Harvard Dictionary of Music, 2nd ed.
Yeah, congratulations! I was tickled to see that name on this morning’s column.
Come on in and take a bow!
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[sup]*[/sup] – but I can’t conceive of many people willing to learn such a different notation just for the few benefits it might offer.
*[sub][sup]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?[/sup][/sub]
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.
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:
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.
[sub]*A History of Western Music (6th ed.) by Donald Grout and Claude Palisca[/sub]
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.
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.
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 …
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.
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.
Well, color me more 
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:
Thanks, jr8. It’s good to finally have that cleared up in my mind.
To expand on the 1…4 line staff evolution with more references:
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).
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.
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?
Another qubble with the staff report concerns rhythm:
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.