Attention, music and math lovers. I found this fascinating site while trying to find something else. He starts off with how fractions are used to denote intervals in music; for ex., 5/12 = 5/6 = 5/3 = 10/3 = 20/3. The last section is one I thought you might be particularly interested in, Musick: "4. What Do Pure Intervals Sound Like?"
Running perty fast and loose with them equalses there, Jackie. Gonna post the site's url to back them up?
I don't know what pure intervals are, but I would guess that octaves, perfect 4ths and perfect 5ths might be good contenders for the title.
Will be interesting to read here whether 'tis so...
About to check it out, but it looks like
http://home.earthlink.net/~kgann/tuning.htmlis the one. Entry #2 on a Google search.
"What Do Pure Intervals Sound Like?"Am I right in thinking it's impossible to get a "pure" interval? I recall (possibly incorrectly) that all tunings - including the well-known
Well-Tempered - deviate from "purity" to favour particular keys.
In fact that
definitely strikes a chord.
you can have pure intervals, just not a whole string of them(no pun intended. yeah, right!) stacked on top of each other. you can tune all the octaves(say "C"), and the 5ths to them, but if you try to tune the 5ths of the 5ths, bingo! trouble. the math just doesn't add up. the 5ths of the 5ths would be the seconds and ninths of the octaves, and the frequencies wouldn't quite add up. you are left with a hole. or too much, I forget.
Well-Tempered tuning alters all of the tunings so that all the intervals work pretty well; all your major thirds are fairly major like, etc.
it's a huge and deep topic, and if you get a chance to hear a group play with Just Intonation, it's really quite interesting. it can be hard to accept to our compromised ears, however.
this of course, really only deals with music from Western Civilization, as other cultures use different tuning systems, with different numbers of notes between the "octaves".
Uh oh. Don't get Faldage started on Pythagorus.
Don't get Faldage started on PythagorusYeah, we don't want the summation of squares.
It's certainly not impossible to get a pure interval. THe fifth you get out of a well tuned piano won't be one. It'll be close but.
The fifth of the fifth isn't where the problem is noticed. The fifth is not half an octave so we shouldn't expect two fifths to make an octave. If you tune a perfect fifth (it's a wee tiny bit sharp of your piano fifth) from a C and call it a G, then tune a fifth from that to a D and so on, you'll get the famous circle of fifths:
C-G-D-A-E-B-F#-C#-G#-Eb-Bb-F-C
but the C you end up with won't be the same C you started with. If you read the page wofa posted you'll see that the pure interval fifth is 702 cents (Don't panic folks, one cent is one one-hundredth of a half step. That's the half step on your well tuned piano.) Add up the seven half steps in the fifth and you get only 700 cents. This is two cents flat of the pure interval fifth. Add up all those two centses in the circle of fifths and you'll see that the C you get when you're done with piling all these pure interval fifths on top of each other is 24 cents sharp of the C you started out with. Oh, oops. This is called the Pythagorean comma and it's not a problem as long as you're only playing in one key with no accidentals, but as soon as you want to modulate or have an instrument that will play in any key (such as a piano) you're in big trouble. It took us a couple of hundred years to get this all settled out. We got a lot of compromises along the way that left us with the idea that different keys have different characters. They used to even as recently as Mozart's time. If they still do, it is merely because composers think they do and write music accordingly.
There. Din't even sum no squares.
I read this three times and for the first time in many years I am at a loss as to how to translate it. My job is to take complicated stuff and reduce it to simple stuff, but in the beginning I have to have English language. Whatever this stuff is it AIN'T English.
To me a fifth of a fifth is nothing more than a damned strong drink, about 6 oz. A cent is a hundredth of a dollar, not of a half step.
A comma is used for punctuation, Pythagorean has to do with right triangles and other stuff like that, and accidental is how Sasha (well never mind about that.)
I read this three times and for the first time in many years I am at a loss as to how to translate it.
Don't worry your pretty little head about it, then. Sorry there's no puns in it.
"...when you're done with piling all these pure interval fifths on top of each other is 24 cents sharp of the C you started out with..."Mathematically this may be true, but your issue is only worth a penny less that two-bits as it manifests seven octaves apart, which *nobody in their 'right minds' will be juxtaposing for its fullest effect... let alone be able to discern it.
The tuning adjustments are done at a smaller intervals and more accurately by ear by listening to a combination of ratios or a more complex ratio (such as 5/6 instead of 2/3), or so it is to my ear...
On the note of different keys have different characters: A piano's sounding board and stringing has
also had a lot to do with the character of key centers. The b natural (or b flat depending) below "mid" c is the point at which the note on a piano changes from comprising of three tuned strings to two tuned strings per note. This has a clear effect on how we (for example) relate c-major and a-minor (keys which share the same notes, but not the same "resting" point). This effect of
timbre is minimized by correctly tuned instruments of the finest caliber... but how many of those are out there?
It's certainly not impossible to get a pure intervalAhh, that's it - I was thinking about the impossibility of getting perfect intervals right the way across a keyboard, as you so eloquently describe, Faldagious One. Yeah, just getting one pure interval so you can hear how it sounds is easy (ish). Mind you, you should hear a guitar I've tuned.
We got a lot of compromises along the way that left us with the idea that different keys have different charactersThis interests me. Are you saying that, in a non-well-tempered universe, all keys would sound more or less the same, and have the same "feel"? In other words there would be no advantage to writing music in any particular key (other than, perhaps, to fit in comfortably with vocal ranges).
Edit: ackshully I think musick just answered my question (ta mate)
In reply to:
The fifth of the fifth isn't where the problem is noticed.
I used this just as a starting point; to show that it was the adding up of continued "pure" intervals, that ended up causing the trouble. you finished my thought. thank you.
In reply to:
We got a lot of compromises along the way that left us with the idea that different keys have different characters.
I always thought that it was the other way around. the Greeks knew that each tonal center(key) had a different sense to it. Db sounded different than C because it was different. the frequency variations would cause a different resonance with the listener and the space around them. this is still true today, though since we have forced the keys to behave, the resonances don't ring true anymore. frankly, I think we lost a major part of what music could do to people. it is a testament to the power of vibration that music still moves people today.
musick: your idea of timbre is a good one, but I think it goes deeper than just two or three strings. think about the different instruments/voices that are used...
so Onabi, I think it is crucial to pick the right key for each song, not only for the instruments and voices that are to play it, but for the deeper resonances of nature that reside in each key.
I think it is crucial to pick the right key for each song, not only for the instruments and voices that are to play it, but for the deeper resonances of nature that reside in each key.
Nice way of putting it, eta.
I agree, albeit from the perspective of one who has never really heard much of alternative tunings.
A friend has a Korg keyboard that you can easily set to a variety of tunings; quite interesting to hear the same music "filtered" in different ways. But we tend to agree that one tuning system is the best for any given tune, even if it's not the same for each.
the frequency variations would cause a different resonance with the listener
I have been trying to find out what the characters of each of the keys are. Do you know them all? I know that D major, for example, is supposed to be martial and F major pastoral (I think) but that's about as far as I can go. I think the point about certain keys sounding good on certain instruments is a valid point but is it cause or effect? D is martial because D is a good key for brass instruments and brass instruments sound martial so when one wishes to write martial music one does so in D so it will sound good on the martial instruments. Perhaps, at some point during the tweaking of the scales to get around the Pythogorean comma, D was more martial feeling because of its particular thirds and fourths and sixths and what-all, so when brass instruments were designed they were designed with the key of D in mind. But would a piece written in D sound less martial if transposed to F and played on a brass instrument designed for F the way a normal brass instrument was designed for D?
Then there's the consideration of keys that are naturally set for strings.
The violin's strings are G, D, A, and E, a fifth apart. Those keys, both major and minor, are easiest to play for the violinist--or perhaps a better way to state this would be, they're more available. And there are countless works set around those keys.
It works for the cello and viola, too, though there's a little difference here:
C, G, D, and A being the tunings of their strings.
I don't offer the above to suggest that other keys are avoided in any way--instead, just to point out that a great deal of the literature is built around those keys because of how the string instruments are set up.
Those keys, both major and minor, are easiest to playThis gets me thinking - major and minor are significantly different (even to non-musicians), but with "modal" music you end up with something that's neatly in between, that easily flips either way. Major and minor are more like opposite poles on a continuum than discrete entities.
Flipping between major and minor would probably be expressed by "accidentals" in musical notation, but in a way this is cooking the books to make the notation work.
And here's the thing -
the same applies to keys in general. Guitar is a good instrument to "suss" this one: the chord Gsus4, for instance, is somewhere half-way between G and C.
I could be playing a song that is officially written in G or in C, yet the chord that fits that song best overall is Gsus4. You can't say "this music is written in the key of Gsus4" as there's no way to express that in standard musical notation - it's nonetheless meaningful, and also
very useful to musicians aware of other chord-shades that they've found to work well with Gsus4.
Musical notation, like language, is a convention that enables understanding and communication. But marvelous as it is, it's still just a finger pointing at the moon - and it shouldn't be confused with a reality where its rules don't necessarily apply.
Errr IMHO
First; a question: What notes are in a Gsus4 chord?
OK. Modes.
The major and minor keys are probably about 99% of modern western music but they are just two of seven different modes possible with the note distibution (two half steps scattered amongst all the whole steps) available to western music. They are often described in relation to the white notes on a piano. The standards are the major (C to C on a piano) and minor (A to A on a piano, but there are variations called harmonic and melodic minor that would just confuse things so we'll stick to what we can call the pure minor, A to A). These are not the only possibilities and, in fact, in the days of Gregorian chant, were not used very much, if at all. The modes have been given Greek names (that have nothing to do with anything the ancient Greeks called any corresponding modes but). These modes can be roughly divided into major and minor modes based on whether they had a major or minor third.
Starting with the one we call Ionian they are:
Ionian - This is the major mode. C to C on the piano.
Dorian - D to D. A minor mode. D minor has one flat, Bb. This is the sixth. It is a B natural in Dorian, so Dorian is minor with a raised sixth.
Phrygian - E to E. A minor mode. E minor has one sharp, F#. The F is natural in Phrygian, so Phrygian is minor with a minor second.
Lydian - F to F. A major mode. F major has one flat, Bb. The B is natural in Lydian, so Lydian is major with an augmented fourth.
Mixolydian - G to G. A major mode. G major has one sharp, F#. The F is natural in Mixolydian, so Mixolydian is major with a flatted seventh.
Aeolian - A to A. This is the pure minor.
Locrian - B to B. This is where things get scary. It's a minor mode but. B minor has two sharps, F# and C#. They are both natural in Locrian so Locrian is minor with a flatted second (the C#) and a diminished fifth (the F#). Since the perfect fifth is so basic to Western music use of the Locrian is almost unheard of and, indeed, thought by some to be Evil.
Anyone still awake can go back to sleep now, and pleasant dreams (as if)
I don't have the time today to research this as much as I'd like, but a quick search for "tonal center" brought up several interesting sites, this one in particular:
http://www.sohl.com/sohl/mt/maptone.htmlit's not quite what I'm looking for, but has some neat ideas, and both verbal and graphic explanations.
perhaps a search for Greek music might give up something worthwhile.
I'll be gone all day(sheesh, I have to go to the lake and spend time with the family
), but I'll get back to this. it's going to make for some possible lesson plans with my middle school music classes!
ok, how about this:
http://www.unconservatory.org/articles/hexperience.htmlscroll down to
The Dark Sidewell, here's a list for you!
http://www.xs4all.nl/~huygensf/doc/bib.htmlthis will take days to get through, a huge bibliography(with many links) of tuning and temperament. yeeha!
Musical notation, like language, is a convention that enables understanding and communication. But marvelous as it is, it's still just a finger pointing at the moon - and it shouldn't be confused with a reality where its rules don't necessarily apply.This is the most sensible thing I've heard all *day!
musick: your idea of timbre is a good one, but I think it goes deeper than just two or three strings. think about the different instruments/voices that are used...Much deeper! I suppose should have put the words "for example" a little earlier in that paragraph. Your comments on resonance are exactly what timbre is *about! Wordwind makes it clear for strings and Faldage makes it clear for brass. The answer is: there is a reason why things are set into certain keys: because they sound better. The fundamentals and the harmonics are both more pronounced. A stringed instrument will resonate the fullest as certain keys provide the most direct (mathematical) relationship with the open strings. Whether or not a Tenor sax, a b flat instrument, would be considerably different if it was constructed to be a c "concert" instrument is not worth much argument, but "built into" its physics certain frequencies resonate better, and I would suspect those would *transpose as well.
I doubt if one would be able to make much sense anymore out of any historical description of what key is called what "emotion", as they probably were labled before "just" tuning, but each instrument will have more overall "pastoral" sounding collections of notes... that may just *suggest a key. The modes are a different story. I'd be guessing also, Faldage, but your descrition of F (lydian) and D sounds like Plato's (that's the guess) description of the modes... where F is pastoral and D (dorian minor, not major) is the mode they played for soldiers to prepare them for battle, as it had a focusing effect. Dorian sure can't be used to get anyone pumped up, unless you really don't like (for example) the pop singer Sade.
Fishy - "Alternate tunings" should be split into two concepts. Techniques like tuning your guitar's lowest string to a "D" so the first three strings produce a D - A - D (or *open fifth) structure is a technique employed by *rockers who need to spend more energy on tounge than finger extensions (and rightly so!) is what is generally called alternate tunings (ie. using the same notes just grouping them differently).
This is much different than Harry Partch
http://partch.edition.net/Bhpsv1n2.htmlor other microtonal tunings that takes years of exposure to get be *functional, and even then only personally (but, then again, is there any other kind of *functionality?).
Music, by definition, is structural and repetitive. Vary too far and you risk getting *it called noise... but then again, that's not saying much for the "three B's" is it?
It is the only way most relate to some music as being a "sad" song or a "happy" song (and I'm not talkin lyrics here) but these are environmental effects and repetitive contexts - not intrinsic qualities.... IMHO, of course.
...indeed, thought by some to be Evil.This explains my comment about the "three B's"...[eg]
First; a question: What notes are in a Gsus4 chord?= G, C, D, (F)
Depends on the song / arrangement you are playing. The (F) may or may not be appropriate to the implied key center, it may contradict or overpower the melody note (or erroneously anticipate it). In rock it'd be difference between, say, Journey and AC/DC. In Jazz, the 7th in this case is *available cuz there ain't no rules, and nobody seems to care much. In Folk, it is just as written (three notes). In other traditional styles, well that's not traditional notation.
EDIT : tsuwm - You'll like this one. I did a search for 37 note tunings ...and found one!http://www.seriouscomposer.com/Tunings.htmI can't stop laughing...
What notes are in a Gsus4 chord?
= G, C, D, (F)That would certainly be technically correct, muso, but fairly difficult to achieve in pure form. I suppose it's always an issue [a delightful one, mind
] that playing the same notes simultaneously on 2 or more strings of a guitar
isn't equivalent to playing the note on one string. The chord takes on a drone, a different flavour, and different compatibilities with other chords (and shades thereof). As such most chord-shapes are trade-offs, even the beginner's "standards".
The sort of shapes I'd use for Gsus4 would be:
6th String 3rd fret (G)
5th String 2nd Fret (B)
4th & 3rd Strings open (D & G)
2nd String 1st Fret (C) * only difference from a basic G
1st String 3rd Fret (G)
or -
6th String 3rd fret (G)
5th String open (A)
4th String 2nd Fret (E)
3rd String open (G)
2nd String 1st Fret (C)
1st String 3rd Fret (G)
- to go more in an Am7/C direction.
Then take your finger off the 6th String (making an E) and move it down to the 5th string 3rd Fret (making another C) and - hey presto! - you have a C (add G) shape.
You can also make a totally different Gsus4 by doing an Esus4 shape (3rd, 4th & 5th strings 2nd fret, rest open) barred on the 3rd fret. That makes the notes
G,D,G,
C,D,G - closer to a pure version.
You may gather that I just love the "shadiness" or "merginess" of guitar.
For any guitarists out there, here's my favourite recent discovery. It's a luvverly Am shape (I think Am7+9 ish) that stretches your fingers a bit, but worth the effort!
6th String open (E)
5th String open (A)
4th String 2nd Fret (E) [2nd finger]
3rd String 4th Fret (B) [4th finger *this is the stre-etch]
2nd String 1st Fret (C) [1st finger]
1st String 3rd Fret (G) [3rd finger]
Works brilliantly with the Eurythmics'
Here Comes The Rain Again...
Speaking of picking nits... er... notes:
5th String 2nd Fret (B)
... 'taint no sus with a "B" in there!
... and if Faldage thinks a 'tritone' is the devil's interval he'll really *enjoy a 'minor 9th' (artfully 13 half steps)
if Faldage thinks a 'tritone' is the devil's interval
Interestingly enough, a good quarter or more of the works we do in the community chorus, and most of them religious, have a demented fifth tucked away somewhere in them. And that's just counting the bass part.
Y'all want fries with that? [snapping gum-e]
a demented fifth tucked away somewhere in them. And that's just counting the bass part.That 'splains a lot.
You know, for me, reading this thread is a little like trying to read a newspaper in Danish. I keep getting cream cheese on the comics but it is fun to imagine that I am understanding something, even if it is only my personal interpretation.
An algae-bra is something that a buxom plankton wears.
But the moosick part is interesting! I'll try out that guitar chord, shona! :)
'taint no sus with a "B" in there![sigh] Have you learned
nothing?
[points finger skyward]
That sounded suspiciously like the mating call of a pezcyclando
What key would that be in?
the mating call of a pezcyclando What key would that be in?Bottom sea flat, con - a Bass key, of course.
In reply to:
there is a reason why things are set into certain keys: because they sound better.
I would say that it goes even deeper than just a relationship to the instrument being used. the different frequency energies based around each key center will resonate with various life experiences. if D is martial, perhaps there is some correlation between the combined energy of marching(simplistic picture, I know) and the emotions necessary for battle with the frequencies most prominently found in the key of D. likewise, those keys which seem more pastoral may relate directly to the life energies found in a meadow or field. etc., etc. this may seem like a bunch of hokey, but I would like to see some thought about it. I've read(somewhere, wish I could find the source) that whale song and many natural vibrational processes(Earth's orbit) are centered around the key of Db.
anyway, I guess I believe there are connections to be found, and patterns hidden deeply within those things that move us most.
RE: You know, for me, reading this thread is a little like trying to read a newspaper in Danish. I keep getting cream cheese on the comics but it is fun to imagine that I am understanding something, even if it is only my personal interpretation
you and me both connie.. i have been thinking of demanding wav files so i can have a clue... or else get emanuala in here, and give me frequencies in Hz, and let me generate the tones.. so i have some sort of clue.. (i might not always here the difference, but i might be able to parse the math..) still its like godel, esher and bach.. every once in a while a word or two strung to gether make some sort of sense.... goodness knows i found that book to be one of many i have encountered that consisted of words strung together, and while each indivigual word worked, the string were meaningless!-- but i still think i might have been able to understand it as a multi media presentation.. if i could hear, and read, and see, all at once.. maybe, maybe something would make some sort of sense, even if only temporarily. (like quantum mechanics.. when is see it on TV show, or hear a lecture (a really good lecturer) it perfectly clear, and i can fully understand it.. and 24 hours later, its back to being mush!)
'taint no sus with a "B" in there!
[sigh] Have you learned nothing?
[points finger skyward]
I know, I know... it was a weak attempt at trying to pick at the word used to *prescribe it.
---------
etaoin - The *only hard thing to 'believe' is that emotions vibrate at specific frequencies for all preceivers.
----------
Algebra Schmalgebra!
Oh that was good! I prostrate myself before you, trebling in awe.
trebling in awe
Well, every good boy deserves favour, TEd, but don't quaver, don't even semiquaver. It's a breve feeling and I'm sure you can stave it off.
Get down the bar and take a rest for a minim.
Interestingly enough, a good quarter or more of the works we do in the community chorus, and most of them religious, have a demented fifth tucked away somewhere in them. And that's just counting the bass part.They're so much more tasty in the lower register!
A demented fifth seeks to resolve itself... I'd be
even more interested if you sing any deficient ninths down there. I think you'd be *edging toward a virtual reformation.
Running perty fast and loose with them equalses there, Jackie. Gonna post the site's url to back them up? Ohmigawd, how horribly embarrassing. I am so sorry. Thanks, wofa--that is indeed it. I had had a message that day that frightened me not a little (it's not every day that I hear someone say, "Don't make enemies unless you're prepared to kill them."), and then got an unrelated one which was devastating, and which I am still reeling from. I am glad the belated find sparked the good discussion I'd hoped it would.
Jackie, I'm saddened to hear of the threatening message.
Back to demented fifths: musick, I might take a lickin' from Faldage on this, but I agree they need to be resolved, sort of a suspended devil if you will. For example: "Ma-ri-a" from West Side Story... you gotta have it go on.
Perhaps I read the posts too hurriedly, but I didn't see any mention of the recently published book "Temperament" by Stuart Isacoff. A very readable book, it discusses tuning down through the ages, engaging "such great thinkers as Newton, Kepler, and Descartes as well as musicians, craftsmen, church leaders, and heads of state. At the heart of their dispute is the question of how the tones of a musical scale should be selected."
I haven't read neither the book nor the reviews, but after composing a nice long reply to AnnaS and the etc... I mistakenly erased it (grrrrr)... but I think I remember the punch line.
"...At the heart of their dispute is the question of how the tones of a musical scale should be selected."
After all of that dispute they'll come up with the answer *they knew all along - - - "By ear".
By ear. Yes, Musick.
Not to write about scales per se, but:
And beauty is in the ear of the beholding culture. We've written about this before on this board, but it bears repeating:
Different western cultural orchestras tune their concert A's differently--American orchestras tune to a different A from European orchestras. And the baroque orchestras tuned to the lowest A I'm aware of.
So, there are ears and there are other ears.
I don't mind at all since I don't have perfect pitch.
After loosing any hope to understand anything in this thread, I am asked to add my two cents... well, I will try
I am able to play the computer indeed, but I fear that I am not able to write the sounds as in the English way.
Our "notes" are do re mi fa sol la si do. Don't remember where the intervals are simple or double, anyway from a note and the same note in the following octave( is that correct?) there are twelve such semitones.
Well, La is, for example, 440 hertz ( in basic, sound 440, 10 gives a sound "la"for 10 units of time)
The following La is 880 hertz.
In between, in the well tempered way of tuning, all the notes can be obtained in this way:
la = 440
la + one semitone = 440 times (twelveth root of two)
la + two semitones = the previous number times (twelveth root of two)
and so on.
Approximately,
(twelveth root of two) = 1.059463094359295264561825.
It is an approximation, of course, since the number is not rational = it is proven that it cannot be written exactly with a finite number of decimal digits.
twelveth root of two
I love it.
la = 440
Ed. note: La is our A
This puts paid to the idea that the European concert pitch is different nor the USn's.
I have it on excellent authority that European orchestras tune to a 444 A, Faldage. And I have it on equally excellent authority that the baroque orchestras tuned to an A somewhat flatter than the 440. I will go back to my sources, dig 'em up, but I'm sure of this. Now perhaps in Italy the 440 A is used, and perhaps this somewhat sharper A tuning to 444 is not consistently used throughout Europe, but I'll look up sources because I've heard many a conductor mention the difference between American tuning and European tuning--and I doubt these men were in error.
But I'll see. Have been wrong before and could be again, but I doubt it this time.
I have it on excellent authority that European orchestras tune to a 444 A
But not in Italy?
I agree on the older lower pitch tuning. A414 sticks in my mind. From Emanuela's notes on the twelfth root of two=~1.06; 440/414 =~ 1.06 so A414 is approximately one semitone down from where we do it today. 444/440=1.0090909..., roughly a sixth of a semitone. This would be scarcely noticeable to even the most perfectly pitched ear.
there are regional differences in the US as well. the Boston string players like to tune up to around 442, which drives the oboe players nuts, because it makes it hard for them to keep the whole instrument in tune... etc., etc.... my understanding of the old days is that the instruments(strings) couldn't handle the higher tension of the higher tunings, and only as instruments inproved could the higher tunings be used consistently. string players like higher tunings because it makes the instrument brighter, therefore it seems louder. tuning has oscillated throughout history...
Pure interval?
The first time your baby really "sees" you, and smiles.
Our "notes" are do re mi fa sol la si do.
and our "Notes" are do re mi fa sol la ti do!
(from Do a Deer, a song from the musical "The Sound of Music" about the Von Trapp Family singers, based on Maria Von Trapps book. the word in bold is close to how we say the names of the notes.
Do, a deer, female deer doe
Re, a drop of golden sun ray
Mi, a name i call myself me
Fa, a long long way to run fa(r)-the r is not voiced
sol, a needle pulling thread sew-the l of sol is not voiced
La, a note to follow sol, la
Ti, a drink with jam and bread tea
that will bring us back to do!
I studied adult beginner's violin from a Chinese woman who had earned her performance masters degree from Julliard.
She consistently sang: si do; never ti do.
At first I thought I was just misunderstanding her accent, but then I asked her about it (rude little thing that I am), and she was very clear: "Si Do."
Interesting, don't you think? Every voice class I've ever taken, we used ti do. So, I don't know where the division of schools of singing has occurred or why.
well is it any wonder this discussion about music seem worse than discussions about grammer? we can't even agree on the names of the notes!
we definately need some wav files somewhere -- so we can hear-- the intonations.
Do, a dear, female dear
Re, a drop of golden sun
No, no, no. It's:
Dough what I use to buy my beer
Ray, the guy that sells me beer
Me, the guy that drinks my beer
Far, a long way to get beer.
So, I think I'll have a beer,
La, I think I'll have a beer.
Tea, no thanks I'm drinking beer
And that brings us back to
(looks at empty beer glass)
D'oh!
From The Simpsons
I just sang Loftan the Simpson's Beer Song. She likes it and will sing it to her solfege teacher this year--she'll be in year two of solfeggio.
In year one, she learned a cute little solfege challenge. I offer it here for you beginning musicians:
Sing, "I'm a Little Teapot" in solfeggio. What do you notice?
no "
tea"! hahaha!!
very fun!
Yeah, etaoin! This is just the kind of lame joke that works for me everytime, juvenile sense of humor that I'm forever burdened with!
But it wouldn't work for the la-si-do camp, whoever they are. They'd need a song with no "sea" in it, I suppose.
WW
The scale was originally ut re mi fa sol la si ut. It's from the initial syllables of the lines of a chant that I have on CD. The tones for each of the syllables go up scale. All I can remember off hand is
Ut queant laxis
Resonare fibris
Miserere nobis
Famili tuorum
but that might be filled with errors. I'll check tonight and give y'all the straight skinny.
And if you're a real sweetie, Faldage, you'll translate for us less-than-Latin-learneds, ok? It'll also be interesting to see whether there's wiggle room in that ti v. si choice...
if you're a real sweetie, Faldage
That's one mighty big if there Dub' Dub. Well, just cuz it's you I'll make some effort at translation when I manage to find the CD that I have the original chant on. Or either they'll have a translation in the liner notes and you can have a good translation.
Boy did *I screw it up:
UT queant laxis REsonare fibris
MIra gestorum
FAmuli tuorum,
SOLve polluti LAbii reatum, Sancte Ioannes.
Ok, Faldage, you found the right text, I take it. So, even though you're not really a sweetie (though I know you really are!), please translate the passage for those of us who don't speak Latin.
And a great big Harrumph!!!... to get you goin!
For Pogo's sake,
WW
I found the CD. I did web research yestiddy.
A) The good news is they have a translation in the booklet with the CD. The bad news is it's in French. I'll be better off translating the Latin. Or either I could transcribe the French in here and get one of y'all to do the dirty work for me.
2) The whole ut re mi thang came from the fevered brain of an Italian monk in the 11th century. Apparently he wrote the words and/or music for the purpose of coming up with the scale note names. But. He only took it as far as la. This is where I start getting confused. Some German dude in the 16th century decided that ut was too hard to sing so he changed it to do. And. In one version of the story he changed si to ti and in another version he added the si/ti.
So there you have it.
ah, good ol' Guido of Arezzo!
rough translation(from Grout):
That thy servants may sing freely forth the wonders of thy deeds, remove all stains of guilt from their unclean lips, O Saint Johna happy little text...
search for "Guidonian hand", and you should find more than you want.
Let me get this straight: is Guido the fevered Italian monk? And what's 'Grout'?
This is a fascinating thread, one of the best discussions we've had in a looooong time!
Guido would be the monk, and Grout is a venerable music textbook:
A History of Western Music, written by Donald Jay Grout.
So, there are ears and there are other ears.
I don't mind at all since I don't have perfect pitch.
Me neither, WW - but I reckon we all respond to the most subtle differences nonetheless. I think it was eta (earlier in this thread) who talked about how our entire bodies resonate to music. We aren't limited to what our ears and brains can detect.
I think artful imperfection (knowing when not to follow rules) is the essence of music. "Perfect"/law abiding intervals and harmonies fail to move us in the same way as more natural/imperfect sounds. You have to be inventive to make digital sounds work on their own.
On that front, can anyone tell me why CD reproductions of analog recordings invariably sound flat and lifeless until they're remastered by someone who knows their stuff? And what does that remastering involve?
The difference between digital and analogue reproduction lies in the peaks and troughs of the sound waves. If you just take an analogue tape and transcribe it "as-is" to a digital medium, the highs and lows are "clipped" which takes a good deal of the life out of the recording - it makes each sound rather disjointed, almost as if there is a pause in the middle of each sound.
Competent remastering involves packing all of the sounds fromt the analogue source within the usable range of the digital medium, a kind of compression of the sound. It restores the continuity, although it still leaves the digital recording sounding somewhat flatter than the analogue. Go and compare your favourite LP with a remastered CD of the same music. It will still sound like rubbish in comparison.
I read a brief description of how it's done ages ago, and this explanation comes from that. The technical hoopla involved is beyond my ken!
It will still sound like rubbish in comparison.
Which is the very reason you can still find high end turntables in electronics stores catering to the true audiophile.
Hell, that's just like you, Faldo. NAD, NAD, NAD, NAD, all day long!
...And what's 'Grout'?
That's the stuffing they put in between two pieces of music to make them resonate on the same plane.
------------
...hoopla involved is beyond my ken
there's a 'barbie' joke in there... somewhere... TEd???
-------------
Although most cannot distiguish much over 15,000 hz, sounds in this spectrum add an ambiance to music that just ain't there with 16 bit sampling rates. This effect is very clear when reproducing the sound of a piano, and even more striking when recording cymbals... both of which gain lots of lively 'roundness' up there.
-------------
Not to be a pain in the ears, but...
We aren't limited to what our ears and brains can detect.
... certainly, to what we can interpret with *them!?!?
