Re: [Rosegarden-user] Note Naming [was: Stone soup]

[<mi...@im...>]

Luis Garrido wrote:
> Regarding note naming for twelve-tone Western European tradition
> systems (no need of bringing microtonality into the discussion):
>
> - There is no such thing as an "European system." Last time I checked
> the WikiPedia, the UK was considered part of Europe, although I
> understand this might be arguable on many levels. Other European
> countries like Italy, France or Spain use the "do re mi" syllables
> (and those names represent absolute pitches there -fixed Do-, not
> scale degrees as they do in some solfege methods used in certain US
> schools -movable Do.-) German-tradition countries use H for the note
> one semitone below C. Lot of disparities exist also in the notation of
> the different octaves.
>
> - Since we agree on using English as a common language in these kind
> of  multicultural situations I would assume people to use also the
> English-tradition note names here unless otherwise stated, without
> making any political statement of it, just for the sake of efficient
> communication.
>
> - Totally off-topic and as personal preferences go, I consider all
> these note naming systems just plain weird and unefficient. I just
> cringe thinking of the countless hours music students all around the
> world have devoted to master the intricacies of these hopelessly
> outdated constructs just for the sake of tradition. I remember
> devising my own modulo-7 notation system (which probably has been
> thought of or reinvented for hundreds of music students before) when
> studying species counterpoint after struggling with traditional naming
> conventions. Geeky me. After that, counterpoint rule abiding formulae
> just popped out of the numbers. Not that this particular system helps
> much in other situations, mind you, but is a language much better
> suited to describe that problem. Finer minds have developed even
> better approaches, but economy and politics are unsurmountable
> obstacles against their adoption. Only Microsoft could pull off a
> product end-of-life policy at this scale.
>
> - That said, and considering the structures of both the piano keyboard
> and the traditional staff notation, my compulsive pattern seeking mind
> sees German H as just plain extra-weird ;-) (yup, I am aware of the
> historical context) but seeing how many fine musicians the German
> tradition has contributed to the history of music, who can complain?
>
> References:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfege
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe
>
> Cheers,
>
> Luis
>   

The need for chord naming convencies is coming
from practical musicians' needs I suppose.
Maybe It's coming from harmonic chord signatures,
but that one is relatively modern.
Exchanging chord names for backgrounding songs
with naming convencies between the people is matter of 20th century.
Jazz music boosted it a lot IMHO.
I know few names who had tried to describe these conventions,
but it's still unclear all over the world.
But some convetions exist if you like it or not.
It depends, who the music is written for.
There is difference in H/B (7th tone natural aeolian major scale).
In german (and czech :( ) we have H tone.
All others (european, american, ..) has B .
But B is in german theory Bb (B flat), that's all problem.
My teacher, old profi arranger of swing,
recommended me : Use such naming to be clear and readable
for any musician from any country. Even if it looks strange.
So, as I said before :
If you intent using your staff outside of middle-europe,
use B|=| (where |=| become a sign lowering sharps and highering flats)
for B natural (7th tone aeol. major scale) and do not use H. It's useless.
Then the meaning is absolute clear. Even at cost some weirdness.
B flat is normal then : Bb

Michal