Welcome to one of the most active flamenco sites on the Internet. Guests can read most posts but if you want to participate click here to register.
This site is dedicated to the memory of Paco de Lucía, Ron Mitchell, Guy Williams, Linda Elvira, Philip John Lee, Craig Eros, Ben Woods, David Serva and Tom Blackshear who went ahead of us.
We receive 12,200 visitors a month from 200 countries and 1.7 million page impressions a year. To advertise on this site please contact us.
|
|
|
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts?
|
You are logged in as Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic: none
|
|
Login  | |
|
   
Ricardo
Posts: 14799
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
 RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
quote:
Whereas in the scale degree system it is just iv-III-II-I (and then specific info on intervals between successive degrees comes from what the specific scale is, i.e. II-I could be a minor second if flamenco (por-arriba; por-medio) tonality; or it could be a major second if major tonality, etc.).
Please explain what you think a “scale degree system” is exactly, as in WHO invented it WHEN and to describe WHAT MUSIC it applied first to, and show one example of such Roman Numeration, because I have never heard of such a thing.
To my mind, do re mi fa sol La Si derives DIRECTLY from other global music systems, ALL of which are MODAL. The names are approximations of the same idea as seen in Asia and Middle East maybe Africa. Chinese had 60 notes per octave, of which they assigned a name for each of the 7 types of notes that could be TUNNED for a specific song, however they deliberately set up their music to avoid the two intervals that created the tritone, hence, a bunch of pentatonic scales. India has 22 notes per octave, similar to Greeks that used 24, but they discard two they don’t like the sound of, but AGAIN, name ragas and such based on 7 notes, sa re ma pa ga etc I forget right now sorry. But many of these systems arrive at this 7 note scale after doing the math on stacking the 3:2 intervals....basically the lydian scale.
At the time tonal harmony arises in history this issue of a fixed vs moveable “do” became an issue due to whittling the number of notes down to 12 per octave (Equal temperment), such that our 7 note scale NOW “functions” to allow harmony (Which turns out being todays so named “Ionian”, instead of lydian for example, thusly changed to “major” because NONE of the other “modes” serve to function for this purpose), so some people found a need I assume to shift things around that were ORIGINALLY based on the MODAL system but now need to equate the naming of scale tones that are tuned to equal temperament, ie, NO LONGER MODALLY TUNED, which allows for and indeed EXPECTS that we will be changing keys mid song (ie, moving “do” to different pitches mid song). So fixed vs moveable do becomes a nice mess of concepts right off the bat.
Most people started realizing that this do re mi thing, was just not good enough for tonal music and replaced it with key signatures and a new system of naming 12 notes encompassed by the circle of 5ths using letters. Along with this comes the Roman Numerals which, via Rameau, are NOT a scale naming system but rather a CHORD NAMING SYSTEM. Chords and the concept of changing them were the new concept of tonal harmony that was not permitted in MODAL systems. Roman numerals seemed to function (due to capital vs lower case) with the advantage to show chord quality, however, he could have done this thing with MOVEABLE do if he wanted. DO re mi FA SOL7 la ti diminished, and THAT could have worked too. But clearly folks were recognizing this ancient practice needed to be phased out already.
In jazz the practice of calling the Ionian scale (and ONLY the Ionian scale) 1234567 is functioning in place of do re mi fa sol la ti. But it’s way simpler and more logical if you allow symbols borrowed from circle of 5ths, ie, “b”and “#” symbols, which is what jazzers do despite ignoring key signatures and tonal harmonic functions (other than 2-5-1). I am sure other modal based systems use some other sh1te for that if they have to write it on paper, but I don’t care what it is they do. The point is if you wanted to use Roman Numerals in place of those numbers, (in fact maybe THAT is what you think “scale degree system” is?)...well if you do this, you are in danger of mixing this up with the proper logical usage that Rameau already set up in late 1700’s. (Edit: Rameau Serves as basis for what was popularized by Weber, see my next posts). I have seen this done in order to learn site reading charts in keys that it’s not written in, ie “transpose on the fly”. All caps, no function or relations, just an exchanged for Chart style chord symbols. It is a skill that most musicians already know by “intuition”. Example “play entre dos aguas in F# minor instead of E minor”. For many good players it’s a no brainer, it all goes up two frets. That’s what they are doing with the “replace 1234567 with I II III IV I VI VII” in jazz. But then they call a piece in the minor “key” the same and don’t put the b or # like they do with their scales. So it’s busted logic. I wonder what they do for “So What” or “Oye Como Va”, but whatever they do it’s not really helpful IMO. They don’t need the Romans if people can read and memorize a chart. But this system of using Roman Numerals is not any good for “Musical analysis” anyways, it’s not use of Roman Numerals like Ramaeu did.....it’s totally not helpful whatsoever.
Yet I see people conflating the two ideas and making a mess.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 21 2020 1:54:57
 |
|
kitarist
Posts: 1715
Joined: Dec. 4 2012
|
|
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
quote:
Whereas in the scale degree system it is just iv-III-II-I (and then specific info on intervals between successive degrees comes from what the specific scale is, i.e. II-I could be a minor second if flamenco (por-arriba; por-medio) tonality; or it could be a major second if major tonality, etc.).
Please explain what you think a “scale degree system” is exactly, as in WHO invented it WHEN and to describe WHAT MUSIC it applied first to, and show one example of such Roman Numeration, because I have never heard of such a thing.
[...]
In jazz the practice of calling the Ionian scale (and ONLY the Ionian scale) 1234567 is functioning in place of do re mi fa sol la ti. [..] The point is if you wanted to use Roman Numerals in place of those numbers, (in fact maybe THAT is what you think “scale degree system” is?)...well if you do this, you are in danger of mixing this up with the proper logical usage that Rameau already set up in late 1700’s.
The Roman numerals have two meanings depending on context, but the labels in both melodic and harmonic context derive from labelling the consecutive notes of a 7-note diatonic scale from the root up, as I, II, III, IV, V, etc. and calling them scale degrees. Hence 'scale degree system', or if you prefer 'scale degree notation' or 'Roman numeral notation'.
If speaking about chords - which is the most frequent context admittedly - the same labels also refer to triads built from the respective scale degree. But the reason the V chord, say, is labelled "V" is because of being built from the fifth scale degree of the tonic scale with the V note (of the tonic scale) being the root of that V triad; same for all other Roman-numeric labelling. (Later on lower- vs. upper-case allowed distinguishing between minor and major triads and adding other symbols allowed further refinement - all in harmonic context).
The usage - but not the label - of a single symbol (however notated) representing a chord seems based in the Rameau writings/theory about the fundamental bass; however he did not use Roman numerals as far as I can tell.
Other notation systems also have dual meanings. For example C is both a single pitch and can also mean C major chord, etc. And in traditionally francophone countries we still pronounce this as 'Do majeur' i.e. we actually use the solfege names rather than the letter names as written.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
To my mind, do re mi fa sol La Si derives DIRECTLY from other global music systems, ALL of which are MODAL. The names are approximations of the same idea as seen in Asia and Middle East maybe Africa. [..]
At the time tonal harmony arises in history this issue of a fixed vs moveable “do” became an issue due to whittling the number of notes down to 12 per octave (Equal temperment), such that our 7 note scale NOW “functions” to allow harmony [..], so some people found a need I assume to shift things around that were ORIGINALLY based on the MODAL system but now need to equate the naming of scale tones that are tuned to equal temperament, ie, NO LONGER MODALLY TUNED, which allows for and indeed EXPECTS that we will be changing keys mid song (ie, moving “do” to different pitches mid song). So fixed vs moveable do becomes a nice mess of concepts right off the bat.
Most people started realizing that this do re mi thing, was just not good enough for tonal music and replaced it with key signatures and a new system of naming 12 notes encompassed by the circle of 5ths using letters. Along with this comes the Roman Numerals which, via Rameau, are NOT a scale naming system but rather a CHORD NAMING SYSTEM. Chords and the concept of changing them were the new concept of tonal harmony that was not permitted in MODAL systems. Roman numerals seemed to function (due to capital vs lower case) with the advantage to show chord quality, however, he could have done this thing with MOVEABLE do if he wanted. DO re mi FA SOL7 la ti diminished, and THAT could have worked too. But clearly folks were recognizing this ancient practice needed to be phased out already.
Solfege was always about sight-singing (not about man-made-instrumental music) and helping singers accurately reproduce the pitches and melodic intervals of a written melody. I can't find any evidence that either fixed or movable do systems had anything to do with the need for tempered tunings or with man-made musical instruments in general.
Solfege was introduced around 1024 by monk Guido d'Arezzo. He was frustrated that singers had to rely on memorizing melodies and was witnessing how they arbitrarily would change these sacred to him melodies on the fly. So he introduced both a written notation (arguably the first 'staff' notation and positional representation of pitch by its vertical distance from a line) and names for the six pitches in an octave that were used in church (no 'si'; known in north America/England much later as a 'ti').
Until I reviewed this again I did not appreciate that his hymn-derived syllables were not just a mnemonic device for the note names (they came from the first syllables of six consecutive lines of a hymn that everyone from that time would be familiar with), but also a melodic interval mnemonic for a major scale. This is because the starting pitches of the six consecutive lines also happened to form an ascending scale with whole, whole, half, whole, whole steps above the first syllable of the first line. Singing it, the first syllables of the first six lines, Ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la, would also form a proper ascending major scale.
(Ut became 'do' much later, as an Italian didn't like how that syllable did not end with an open vowel, rightly.)
_____________________________
Konstantin
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 23 2020 19:07:53
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14799
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
quote:
I can't find any evidence that either fixed or movable do systems had anything to do with the need for tempered tunings or with musical instruments in general.
Solfege was introduced around 1024 by monk Guido d'Arezzo.
Well, the indian book is dated between 200bc and 200ad that uses the exact act same type of scale names, for exactly the same reason. “Re” is identical for scale degree 2, maybe that is coincidence, but it’s the same concept. So I am dubious this monk deserves credit. I am too tired to go look into Ancient Greece regarding this topic. Indians understood “sa” to be the basis that the other notes are born from...ie they are mathematical constructs relative to the tonic ie based on modal tuning system. Each time you move “sa” the other notes are retuned based on the new position. That is modal music basic concept.
Around the same time the Western push towards equal temperament 1600’s, the Indians dumped the two “pa” options and fixed one only. That’s “sol” or the 5th. They also stopped moving the modes around ie “fix” the position and altered scale tones relative to “sa” rather than move it. So the basis for tonality was taking shape, perhaps globally because these people were not isolated. I doubt the monk came up with solfegio in isolation, but even if he did, it derives from the same freaking logic EVERYWHERE on Earth!!! To claim you don’t find “evidence” of solfegio running into problems with the arrival of temperament is like saying singing is not music.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svara
As far as Romans, based on Rameau ideas, this guy here first popularized what I understand is the logical use.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Weber
Here, see the chart of Romans that refers to NATURAL MODES. It’s pointless without lower case inclusion. But the true reason it’s all pointless is the basic concept of tonal harmony. The logic behind using Romans is revealed in the Aeolian example. That on its own can’t function... and it’s the reason they put (aeolian) in parenthesis but nothing special for the others. Because the MINOR key exists. Minor key needs Romans, but aeolian does NOT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 23 2020 22:32:52
|
|
kitarist
Posts: 1715
Joined: Dec. 4 2012
|
|
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
Well congratufinglations to GUIDO!!!! He invented new names for 123456 and even 7!!!!! All bow and worship the Guido! the reinvention of the wheel has never been so useful!!
Arabic numeral notation for individual notes (as opposed to for intervals as in harmonic analysis) seems to have been proposed in the Western world first in 1743 by philosopher, writer and composer Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his "Dissertation on modern music".
Some centuries earlier:
“The earliest practical notations served primarily a cueing function for celebrants reciting ecclesiastical readings and prayers. ... The notation of antiphons, responsories, and Mass-Proper items for the cantor and schola did not begin until the tenth century"(*), and
“Written tradition of Western music and of chant did not exist at the time of St. Gregory the Great, and not even when Roman Chant was introduced into the Frankish Empire. It did not begin until ca. 900. [...] Before chant was written down around 900, it was transmitted orally. To study the history of chant up to 900 is to study an oral tradition. “
That notation from around 900 was of neumes – squiggly lines suggesting voice direction written above the words, like this:
This is what Guido d'Arezzo improved on in 1024, to help with sight-singing accuracy and reproducibility.
(*) From Levy, 2016, quoting Corbin (1952) and other papers.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
 Attachment (1)
_____________________________
Konstantin
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 24 2020 8:11:43
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14799
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
quote:
Arabic numeral notation for individual notes (as opposed to for intervals as in harmonic analysis) seems to have been proposed in the Western world first in 1743 by philosopher, writer and composer Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his "Dissertation on modern music".
Ok look man. The issue about what note names are given is arbitrary. The point I am making is when you talk about music it has an inherent system, no matter where it came from, and therefore it’s own terminology. When talking about whatever music in some other terms than it’s OWN system uses traditionally or whatever, then, you are in a process of TRANSLATION, for whatever reason that may be. To do a translation it’s ideal to first see some table in order to relate to what you are talking about. The photo shows the Ancient Greek note naming system. In the middle, the vocalization symbols are different than the note names for instruments, but are equivalents. VOCALIZATION SYMBOLS ARE FREAKING SOLFEGIO!!!!!!!! This is ancient sh1t. I am sure they had the EXACT same fuking problems in discussions about music in Ancient Greece as the Original post is talking about for the same stupid reasons. Abstract discussions about SOUND. I am sure some smart Greek guy tried to explain stuff to some Ancient Greek confused people with some similar translation table, with similar wishy washy success.
What you see in the table, regardless how it is arranged or described, is the modern day lydian scale (FGABCDE) produced by stacking 3:2 intervals, the extra notes are math tuned accidentals (they didn’t use equal tempered 12 per octave system) and that Bb sticking out the side is forcing the F lydian math scale to become the popular and more musically stable modern Ionian/major scale. For Greeks it was tetra chords that needed that Bb to make decent music, for Bach it was the V-I that needed it. The logic behind the concept is the same, and I consider it a GLOBAL concept. For us, just as ancient Greeks, solfegio ALONE sucks and is an incomplete way to think about music in general, but derives from ANCIENT principals regarding communicating music.
Images are resized automatically to a maximum width of 800px
Attachment (1)
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 24 2020 17:09:07
|
|
kitarist
Posts: 1715
Joined: Dec. 4 2012
|
|
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Ricardo)
|
|
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
The point I am making is when you talk about music it has an inherent system, no matter where it came from, and therefore it’s own terminology. When talking about whatever music in some other terms than it’s OWN system uses traditionally or whatever, then, you are in a process of TRANSLATION, for whatever reason that may be.
I agree, and my writings in this thread were not about challenging this.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ricardo
For us, just as ancient Greeks, solfegio ALONE sucks and is an incomplete way to think about music in general, but derives from ANCIENT principals regarding communicating music.
Of course solfeggio alone is an incomplete way to think about music - it was a just a tool to help singers improve reproducibility and accuracy of singing; its main focus is still about being an educational tool (kids, etc.) for vocal training.
(I realize you are not just speaking to me with your replies, though)
Where did Steelhead go??
_____________________________
Konstantin
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 24 2020 17:47:01
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14799
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to kitarist)
|
|
|
quote:
Of course solfeggio alone is an incomplete way to think about music - it was a just a tool to help singers improve reproducibility and accuracy of singing; its main focus is still about being an educational tool (kids, etc.) for vocal training.
Right, but for each genre they have their own “solfegio” and it might function differently. When a cantaor uses it, and it’s RARE, it’s usually to clarify to a guitarist the TONOS or chords just in case there is confusion. No cantaor would use solfegio to sing a melody! Meanwhile, flamencologists are using it to describe a cantaor’s melody, just like Julie Andrews and her kids (ie musical theatre actors practices), then they replace tonos for Roman numerals (Weber use of harmonic analysis, not necessarily Schenkerian). Neither have anything to do with the traditional flamenco system, but they clearly want to translate to western tonal classical practice. However they Fail in translating correctly to people such as myself that were schooled in other disciplines because they clearly are not really advanced in either genre. I can easily wade through just like seeing a bad transcription and fill in the blanks myself, but in the end it all seems very superficial and lacking in most cases. FAUCHER has more correct western translations in the front ends of his transcription books than most musicologists attempts I have read. I pointed to carol Whitney article from the 70s that showed an unusual deep understanding imo.
In the end, I feel like anything, scale naming, Romans, solfegio, numbers, Greek tetra chords, paint by numbers lol, can work as a translation of what’s going on, but if I chose one, well, that would be (other than the tradition itself) the western classical one, slightly modified, as it covers about everything. Some specific jazz principals, not too advanced, can supplement that for specific modern cases or fusions. I tried to elucidate some of that earlier and in other threads, but the difficulty I run into is people not understanding ANY ONE of the above completely enough. Like if you don’t get the point of V-I in tonal harmony, then we can’t move to next steps with the translation. If you don’t get the difference of dorian vs Mixolydian then a jazz description doesn’t work. A big problem is also about rhythmic understanding, which is one major issue we managed to avoid in this thread but ties directly to harmonic and melodic understanding. (the rhythm I imposed on the Bach chorale for example, I hoped would clarify the harmonic implications of connection to flamenco). I feel that if someone is not ever “inside” the rhythm of the music themselves, then they can’t really understand it other than superficially.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Sep. 25 2020 17:38:39
|
|
Ricardo
Posts: 14799
Joined: Dec. 14 2004
From: Washington DC
|
|
RE: solfege vs. pitch-names - thoughts? (in reply to Steelhead)
|
|
|
quote:
Not sure what the issue is.
The issue is the following:
quote:
Plagal IV-I, for example.
The Plagal is a weaker substitute cadence when used in CLASSICAL MUSIC. I EXPRESSLY asked you to set this one and other similar WEAK cadences to the side in order for me to make my point. Your refusal do so means I feel stuck way back at my very first attempts at explaining how flamenco should be viewed to function when viewed from a WESTERN TONAL HARMONY vantage point. The reason why I am trying to simplify, streamline and discard other interpretations goes right back to my VERY FIRST post on the subject, agreeing with you that there is a problem with the way they are using music theory terminology to describe flamenco music and practice. The fact you want to bring in elements from the outside of my streamlined vantage point, means your are missing the point of what I am trying to clarify for you that the Flamencologists have been doing wrong, resulting in your rightful confusion about their terminology. So please DUMP the plagal cadence for now, we don't’ NEED it when talking about flamenco specifically. Please.
quote:
Or VIIb-I, in rock.
Without getting into why that is most often NOT a cadence, lets stop right at the term ROCK, which, again, is a totally different discipline than WESTERN TONAL HARMONY as it is done and learned via CLASSICAL MUSIC. Once again, the REASON that we don’t want to bring in the practices and terminology of OTHER disciplines is because, as I said, the major problem of your FIRST post is the CONFLATION of terminology from various unrelated music systems. So lets DUMP any Rock or jazz equivalent practices and terminology because, again we don’t NEED them when talking about flamenco specifically. Please resist the temptation.
quote:
both IIb-I and secondary-dominant-to-whatever (e.g., V7/VI) can function cadentially (or semi-cadentially), in their contexts.
In western classical music there exists no such thing as “bII-I”. So we have to first find a way to describe this function VIA the western classical theory system. That is exactly what I had tried to do, but keep getting stuck as you bring in outside music concepts. In classical music there exists two similar concepts:neoplitan 2 and aug6. I tried to offer that the CLOSER to flamenco concept is the Aug6 one...the Neapolitan is more like a sub or type of plagal cadence due to the voicing practice (It is inverted normally such that the bass moves 4 to 1, like Fmb6-C type thing, not very flamenco at all and you never write “bII6-I”, you write “N6-I” Cuz those types of Romans have no logical justification, and N6 normally found in minor keys), and again I wanted you to set aside plagal and OTHER TYPES of cadences, so I could focus on the CORRECT type of cadence that applies to a description of Flamenco. Again, we don’t NEED those other things, or at least, I don’t want them muddying the picture so I can get at the main point of how flamenco can be viewed properly through the lens of western tonal harmony. And yes, we NEED the secondary dominant concepts in flamenco as well. We could eventually bring in N6 even, but we don’t need to go that far yet.
So the main problem here is you don’t like my “lens”, the western tonal harmony as done in classical music vantage point, and want to keep pulling in outside practices such as Rock or whatever. I have NO problem attempting to describe flamenco through some other discipline, BY ITSELF, but mixing that together with the classical one is both UNNECESSARY, AND, creating the SAME problem that you brought up to begin with. It’s like I am trying to explain how kick ball is played using “rules” of baseball, but you keep bringing up how FOOTBALL game play shows exceptions to my “rules”.
Perhaps what you might not see right away is how doing a harmonic analysis of modern rock tune might fail? As a totally separate discussion we can get into why, logically, it’s not correct to conflate harmonic “function” as in the way classical tonal harmony is designed, with MODAL vamping etc. Ionian or Mixolydian or Aeolian progressions are quite distinct from how major or minor keys “function” and, again, this comes down to which terminology you want to use to describe and “translate” the music. I mean, we can use “rocK” terms and concepts to describe Bach or Mozart and it’s a different thing, we could discard Roman numeral analysis and call iv-V-i, dorian phrygian dominant and Aeolian.
In the end, my MAIN point has been restated till red in the face, STICK to ONE when translating a genre from it’s own terminology to another one. And in the case of flamenco, the baroque and classical embraces the bulk of flamenco practice with a few alterations and specific exceptions (plus you expressed understanding of secondary dominant function so I felt I could use that route). But we can’t even get to what THOSE exceptions are if we can’t embrace the system itself, ie the “lens”, at it’s fundamental levels.
_____________________________
CD's and transcriptions available here:
www.ricardomarlow.com
|
|
|
|
REPORT THIS POST AS INAPPROPRIATE |
Date Oct. 6 2020 0:44:06
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Forum Software powered by ASP Playground Advanced Edition 2.0.5
Copyright © 2000 - 2003 ASPPlayground.NET |
0.078125 secs.
|
Printable Version
the reinvention of the wheel has never been so useful!! The world will never be the same! And who would have thunk it? That a female deer would overthrow the eternal crown of Doni!