<< 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?
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.
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.
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).
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.
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:
You’re damn right, it’s not. Lotsa info but wooden beyond belief.
I don’t know how you got that idea from my initial post in this thread:
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.
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.
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.
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.
