Even staff notation is written with a diatonic scale in mind, so once one leaves that(arguably archaic system) we're forced to 'sharp' or 'flat' some lines.The problem that arises is we're then forced to put naturals on some notes that aren't sharp/flat...
So my question is, why did this happen? Why did we keep this system when the 12-note octave was developed before the staff notation system?Lute pieces were written in tablature(with tunings) before the advent of staffs, and the lute family(lead to guitars) were very much chromatic and often had a very very wide range.
I'm just more and more confused, if not confounded. I understand what's being explained, I just don't understand why that method's being used.
I guess thinking ahead has always been a problem. They didn't leave room for much forward compatability and didn't expect the advent of 'well tempered' tunings.I doubt i'll post anything more in this thread other than "did you mean this, or this?" "Ok thanks." I mean, what else COULD I post!? BLAH BLAH BLAH.Also I know jack.
― Moisture G Mess (The GZeus), Monday, 19 February 2007 08:45 (seventeen years ago) link
Other than that, I don't have a lot of insight into the historical side of notation and tuning, although I'm sure the information is out there. But you're right that it was developed organically according to what was suitable at the time rather than by planning for the future.
I'm not sure what you think would be better, though - a staff with 12 lines/spaces, and a different name for each?
― steve schneeberg (steve go1dberg), Monday, 19 February 2007 16:29 (seventeen years ago) link
― Moisture G Mess (The GZeus), Monday, 19 February 2007 17:11 (seventeen years ago) link
― nklshs (nklshs), Monday, 19 February 2007 18:27 (seventeen years ago) link
― Moisture G Mess (The GZeus), Monday, 19 February 2007 19:45 (seventeen years ago) link
― Jubalique die Zitronen (juicefriend), Monday, 19 February 2007 20:14 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shadowcat (A-Ron Hubbard), Monday, 19 February 2007 20:54 (seventeen years ago) link
― Moisture G Mess (The GZeus), Monday, 19 February 2007 21:06 (seventeen years ago) link
― nklshs (nklshs), Monday, 19 February 2007 21:09 (seventeen years ago) link
― Shadowcat (A-Ron Hubbard), Monday, 19 February 2007 21:18 (seventeen years ago) link
http://www.andymilne.dial.pipex.com/Scales.shtmlhttp://www.andymilne.dial.pipex.com/Diatonic.shtml
― John Justen wheedly wheedly whee chugga chugga whee dunt dunt dunt (John Justen), Monday, 19 February 2007 21:49 (seventeen years ago) link
It's like the english language: people never fixed the phonetics because they were too lazy. Well, Webster came out with a phonetic dictionary after his current usage one, but everyone had bought that one already...LAZY.
― Moisture G Mess (The GZeus), Monday, 19 February 2007 21:52 (seventeen years ago) link
I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at with some of your other questions.
X mode in Y key is just A mode in B key. Why have two names?
Could you give an example of what you mean by this?
More than the staffs, the names of the notes. Why not just go to L?
Going out on a limb here...
First, there weren't 12 different notes used in medieval music. Second, enharmonically equivalent notes have only been interchangeable since equal temperament, and in commong practice theory they mean different things. Writing a C# can indicate an expected resolution to D, while Db will resolve to C. A performer on an instrument without fixed pitch may still perform them differently as well.
You take that diatonic system and transpose it a semitone and the idea of it being simplified based around a scale goes to hell.That scale, even in another mode is not full of the sharps and/or flats that it avoided.What of bebop scales, or the spanish 8 tone?
I don't follow what you're saying here at all.
The history of musical tuning and scales is convoluted, but the system continues to be used because it works well, particularly for music with functional harmony.
― steve schneeberg (steve go1dberg), Monday, 19 February 2007 22:26 (seventeen years ago) link
― fake pablo (Pablo), Monday, 19 February 2007 23:35 (seventeen years ago) link
There's no rule that says bebop/8-note scales aren't allowed. There are accidentals all over the place in sheet music. And besides just being convention, having 7 names for notes is simply easier for people to wrap their heads around than 12.
The (modern, simplified) modal system is a bit silly, too.X mode in Y key is just A mode in B key. Why have two names?
I like modes ;_;
― step hen faps (Curt1s Stephens), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 00:20 (seventeen years ago) link
― step hen faps (Curt1s Stephens), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 00:26 (seventeen years ago) link
― step hen faps (Curt1s Stephens), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 00:29 (seventeen years ago) link
But I think the more significant point is that gzeus wants to simplify things by using a single name for enharmonic pitches (e.g. using A-L means only 12 different names for pitches, which would eliminate enharmonics), but the fact is that enharmonic pitches are not simply interchangeable.
― steve schneeberg (steve go1dberg), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 00:35 (seventeen years ago) link
Music is a language, and languages, especially their written forms, are often convoluted. *shrug*
We know when Webster came out with his two dictionaries, but I've never heard of any competing systems.
I'm often REALLY inarticulate.Sorry.
― Moisture G Mess (The GZeus), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 00:55 (seventeen years ago) link
― steve schneeberg (steve go1dberg), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:04 (seventeen years ago) link
History of notation of accidentals
The three principal symbols indicating whether a note should be raised or lowered in pitch are derived from variations of the letter B: the sharp and natural signs from the square "B quadratum", and the flat sign from the round "B rotundum".
In the early days of European music notation (4-line staff Gregorian chant manuscripts), only the note B could be altered (i.e. have an accidental applied to it): it could be flattened, thus moving from the hexachordum durum (i.e. the hard hexachord: G-A-B-C-D-E) where it is natural, to the hexachordum molle (i.e. the soft hexachord: F-G-A-B♭-C-D) where it is flat; the note B is not present in the third hexachord hexachordum naturale (i.e. the natural hexachord: C-D-E-F-G-A).
This long use of B as the only altered note incidentally helps explain some notational peculiarities:
* the flat sign actually derives from a round B, signifying the B of the soft hexachord, that is, B flat (hence the name of the flat sign in French "bémol" from medieval French "bé mol" — modern French "bé mou" — or "soft b") and originally meant only B♭; * the natural sign derives from a square B, signifying the B of the hard hexachord, that is, B natural (hence the name of the natural sign in French "bécarre" from medieval French "bé carre", earlier "bé quarre" — modern French "bé carré" — or "square b") and originally meant only B natural.
In the same way, in German music notation the letter B designates B flat while the letter H, which is actually a deformation of a square B, designates B natural.
As polyphony became more complex, notes other than B needed to be altered in order to avoid undesirable harmonic or melodic intervals (especially the augmented 4th, or tritone, that music theory writers referred to as "diabolus in musica", i.e. "the devil in music"). The first sharp in use was F♯, then came the second flat E♭, then C♯, G♯, etc.; by the 16th century B♭, E♭, A♭, D♭, G♭ and F♯, C♯, G♯, D♯ and A♯ were all in use to a greater or lesser extent.
However, those accidentals were often not notated in vocal part-books (but the correct pitches were always notated in tablature). The notational practice of not marking implied accidentals, leaving them to be supplied by the performer instead, was called musica ficta (i.e. "feigned music").
― fake pablo (Pablo), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 01:35 (seventeen years ago) link
http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/harmony/tritone.html
― John Justen wheedly wheedly whee chugga chugga whee dunt dunt dunt (John Justen), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 02:13 (seventeen years ago) link
― just m@tt he1g3s0n (Matt Helgeson), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 02:19 (seventeen years ago) link
― John Justen wheedly wheedly whee chugga chugga whee dunt dunt dunt (John Justen), Tuesday, 20 February 2007 03:28 (seventeen years ago) link