[lojban-beginners] Re: Music note names?

[Penguino <spheniscine@gmail.com>]

On 10/26/07, Alex Martini <alexjm@umich.edu> wrote:

On Oct 25, 2007, at 7:53 PM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Yes. We could attach them to some rafsi to make a fu'ivla. tog-
> would work, so we can have togydo-togyre-togymi...
>
> Of course, that makes the note names longer than they are in any
> language, but we really don't need it. strings of note-names could
> always be quoted.
> [ li'o ]
>>> On 10/25/07, Yoav Nir <yoav.nir@gmail.com > wrote:
>>> I believe these schemes are used around the world.  Any reason
>>> why we should opt for something completely different?
>>>> [ li'o ]
>>>>
>>>> On 25/10/2007, Penguino<spheniscine@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On second though, perhaps C should be no. That way intervals
>>>>> can be calculated in mod-12 arithmetic?
>>>>>
>>>>> C - no
>>>>> C#/Db - pa
>>>>> D - re
>>>>> D#/Eb - ci
>>>>> E - vo
>>>>> F - mu
>>>>> F#/Gb - xa
>>>>> G - ze
>>>>> G#/Ab - bi
>>>>> A - so
>>>>> A#/Bb - dau
>>>>> B - fei

I think that the numbers used as fu'ivla might work better.

The limitation with do-re-mi and A-B-C is that they can only describe
modern Western music (with 12 evenly spaced divisions per octave). In
my experience as a violinist, only choral folk know do-re-me in the
US. But in Europe, A-B-C is less common and do-re-me is more common.
This makes them less than neutral in my opinion. I think that
everyone can pretty easily understand numbering the notes. But
assigning them semi-random syllables is hard to understand if you're
not used to it. (Actually not that random -- they were originally
based on a hymn. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfege )

On the flip side, using numbers can describe whatever system you
need. Byzantine notation uses 72 divisions per octave, for example.
It's also all written by relative distance between notes, so the
numerical approach would make more sense to someone used to reading
that notation. And the traditional Chinese notations tend to be
tablature based (they describe where your fingers go) or numerical.

So you would have {togyno} {togypa} {togyre} and so on. You could
specify "European tugyno" for clarity, and just use bare {no} when it
was obviously a musical note. Also, is {togyno} valid? Jbofi'e
prefers {togrno}, and I seem to remember {r} being the typical rafsi
glue for making fu'ivla.

mu'o mi'e .aleks.

I think you're right there.

Hmm... I didn't know solfege had names for accidentals. Sure wish I knew that as a kid. As smart as I was, I "fixed" the system by ignoring the accidentals, so now I sometimes mistake close notes, as I can't get rid of that imperfect form of solfege from my subvocalization... .a'onai