Dear Jon, thanks! That was exactly the explanation I was looking for! I have learned that in middle european sources the "squared b" was written (at least in several sources) like an h (obviously to avoid confusion with the "round b").
best wishes Thomas Jon Murphy schrieb am 26.09.2003: >Ooops, correction, where I said sharp I meant natural. > >Best, Jon > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jon Murphy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "Thomas Schall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Arto Wikla" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Cc: "Doctor Oakroot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Mailing List" ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 11:11 PM >Subject: Re: Different note names (was: Baroque pitch) > > >> Arto, >> >> A good answer, the hexachord system (I'm not going to look up >solmisation >in >> the dictionary) is the probable source. And you correctly point >out that >the >> do,re,mi finishes with la. And I'm sure you understand the origin, >but >I'll >> take the liberty of explaining it to others. (And in the interest >of >> brevity, and the possibilty that I'm "preaching to the choir", >we'll not >get >> into the system). There was a hymn used for teaching music as well >as >> prayer, Ut queant laxis, and each phrase begins with a part of the >do,re, >mi >> (except the ut was changed to do, probably for euphonics). >> >> I have a possible disagreement with you on the form of the scale. >But that >> may also be one of international differences. I have pulled a book >from my >> shelves and am looking at a hexachord scale (same page of Grout's >History >of >> Western Music - in the Gregorian Chant and Secular Song in the >Middle Ages >> chapter) - and the modern notation for Ut Queant is on the same >page. >> >> Oops, left out that the sol and la were added later when we went >to the >> octave. >> >> As I see this the second "ut" is on the fourth, the fa of the first >> hexachord (and that hexachord starts at G two below middle C - and >the >> designation of that note is the capital Greek Gamma - so the second >"ut/do" >> is C below middle C. The next time we see "ut" is also the fourth >(the >third >> ut is another "fa", which is F below middle C). But now it breaks >down. >The >> fourth "ut" is the "re" of the third hexachord scale, and is >therefore G >> below middle C. And it is here we get into the dichotomy of B (or >H, or >> whatever). In the 3rd hexachord the B below middle C (and I use >this >tiring >> notation as the caps and smalls and 2's and primes for general >pitch are >> inconsistant between harpist and lutenists) is a flat, but in the >4th >> hexachord it is a sharp, and this is the first time the sharp and >flat >raise >> their ugly heads. That low B in the first hexachord is always B. >> >> The fifth and sixth hexachords again go back to the original >pattern, they >> start on the "fa", or fourth, of their predecessors. And the >seventh >starts >> on the "re" of the sixth, G above middle C,(again giving the >dichotomy of >> the B). >> >> The hexachords on C and G use B natural, the one on F uses B flat. >The >> symbol in English notatation for the B flat was a was a round b (b >> rotundum), and for the natural was a squared b (quadrum), the >notation >> evolved into the our notation. But the same, or similar, evolution >of >> notation could give the "h" and the other notations mentioned. >After all, >> the hexachord was a big advance over the Greek tetrachord (and no >one >knows >> the middle notes, it has been said that they varied by the player, >but I >> have no CDs of Homer on his harp (lyre, whatever). >> >> Best, Jon >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Arto Wikla" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> To: "Thomas Schall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Cc: "Doctor Oakroot" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "Lute Mailing >List" >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2003 6:43 PM >> Subject: Re: Different note names (was: Baroque pitch) >> >> >> > >> > Dear Thomas and lutenists, >> > >> > on Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Thomas Schall wrote: >> > >> > > I've read somewhere that there is a reason why it's not a b c >d e f g >> > >> > I think the explanation is to be found in the hexachord >solmisation, >> > where they had only the six notes c, d, e, f, g, a; or more >properly >> > ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la. And when the melody went over la or >under >> > ut, they changed the "reference point". >> > >> > But why is that so, exactly? Why the b is missing? >> > >> > In the hexachord, if they wanted the "high thing" (my h, English >b), >> > they changed the former sol to a new ut, and got their new mi as >> > the major third on the "g". And if they changed the original fa >to >> > a new ut, their new fa was the minor third on the "g". >> > >> > But why was the "b" lacking in the system od the "old Europe"? >;) >> > Or was it really? >> > >> > Arto >> > >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> > >
