# Musical Notation **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [May 17, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909 "2003-05-17T16:29:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![adelinamz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/b5ac83/32.png) [@adelinamz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adelinamz)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2003, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/1 "2003-05-17T16:29:04Z")
[http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mmusicnotes.html](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 ---
**Author:** ![chunda21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e495f1/32.png) [@chunda21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chunda21)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/2 "2003-05-19T12:32:43Z")
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). ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [May 19, 2003, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/3 "2003-05-19T13:03:37Z")
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! ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 4:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/4 "2003-05-20T16:30:10Z")
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._ ---
**Author:** ![White\_Lightning](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/f04885/32.png) [@White\_Lightning](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/White_Lightning)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/5 "2003-05-20T16:34:36Z")
Yeah, congratulations! I was tickled to see that name on this morning’s column. Come on in and take a bow! ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/6 "2003-05-20T18:24:27Z")
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[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] ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/7 "2003-05-20T18:48:09Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Greg\_Charles](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/839c29/32.png) [@Greg\_Charles](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Greg_Charles)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/8 "2003-05-20T18:56:54Z")
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? ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/9 "2003-05-20T19:36:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 > **re** sonare fibris > **Mi** ra gestorum > **fa** muli tuorum > **Sol** ve polluti > **La** bii 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. [sub]\*_A History of Western Music_ (6th ed.) by Donald Grout and Claude Palisca[/sub] ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/10 "2003-05-20T19:51:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/11 "2003-05-20T21:17:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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[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] \*\* 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. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![MacSpon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/34f0e0/32.png) [@MacSpon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MacSpon)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2003, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/12 "2003-05-20T21:19:14Z")
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 … ---
**Author:** ![rsa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/839c29/32.png) [@rsa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rsa)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/13 "2003-05-21T01:26:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 1:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/14 "2003-05-21T01:53:42Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 4:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/15 "2003-05-21T04:11:06Z")
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: > [@](#): > > _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. ---
**Author:** ![Loopus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/loopus/32/15343_2.png) [@Loopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Loopus)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/16 "2003-05-21T05:17:01Z")
Thanks, **jr8**. It’s good to finally have that cleared up in my mind. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/17 "2003-05-21T05:52:24Z")
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 [i.e., note heads] 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.” > [@](#): > > _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). ---
**Author:** ![amanset](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/8dc957/32.png) [@amanset](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/amanset)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/18 "2003-05-21T12:11:55Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Algernon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a183cd/32.png) [@Algernon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Algernon)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/19 "2003-05-21T12:39:58Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![chopinpa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/8baadc/32.png) [@chopinpa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chopinpa)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2003, 12:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909/20 "2003-05-21T12:51:42Z")
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. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/musical-notation/175909.md?page=2)