Re: [Harp-L] Why is C not named A?

["Rick Dempster" <rick.dempster@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I tend to read this post from Michael as probably meaning that the
student can't learn the theory until it makes sense.
I doubt that Michael means that he or she can't learn to play their
instrument, otherwise they wouldn't have gotten so far as to be taking
lessons. If that is so, it would be bizarre.
Assuming my original assumption to be correct, I would say this student
is a 'big picture' type. I remember most other students when I was at
school would take on maths and  music theory without question. They
would write harmony excercises without having any apparent interest or
practical experience in music, while I, with, in general, a little more
of the latter and an ear sharper than averager, found the theory lessons
a tortuous jungle, which only became navigable as I taught myself
through playing in later years.
Questions regarding trigonometry to the maths teacher regarding 'what
is it for?' 'why 'are we doing it ' 'how do you use it' were always met
with flabergasted amazement and 'you don't need to know that; just do
it'.
However, if he'd said, for example, 'for producing an accurate drawing
of a bridge arch or a sound wave' the door to reasoning might have
opened a little further. I might even have become interested. Not
everyone's mind works in the same way, and maths teachers - and maybe a
lot of music teachers too - generally don't see the need to express
themselves in any other way than through the 'pure language'.
The question seems like a red herring, but for some people, musing on
stuff like this can help you understand that music theory is an attempt
to formalise  sound frequencies into a language that can be collectively
understood. It is the creation of an imperfect science that attempts to
make systematic tools for dealing with the aesthetics and vagaries of
art; like the old attempts of early astronomers to make the theories of
the solar system reflect beliefs religious concepts. On the way, some
real truths were discovered.
The number system is based on ten, 'cause we have ten fingers; if we
had only five we would count 1-2-3-4-10, except the last figure's name
would be five, not ten - same deal - an attempt to formalise the
quantifying of matter; inhently approximate (no two real objects ever
being exactly the same, so the question remains: 'one? one what?')
But for most practical purposes, it works.
You can look at the musical staff as keyboard tablature turned on its
side, if you want.
Personally, I'd skip the theory and let the student learn by ear.
They'll figure the rest out in their own good time, if they're ever
going to.
RD

>>> "Vern Smith" <jevern@xxxxxxx> 22/09/2006 9:07:57 >>>

Visit my harmonica website www.Hands-Free-Chromatic.7p.com 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Michael Rubin" <rubinmichael@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 2:39 PM
Subject: [Harp-L] Why is C not named A?


It should be sufficient to explain that the name of the note "C" is 
arbitrary.  It may be that it came from "cantus", the name of a 2"
organ 
pipe.  With his mind set, he will probably ask "Why was a 2" organ pipe

called a cantus?"  And away you go, chasing your tail.

Refer your student to the entries for "Letter Notation" and "Pitch
Names" in 
the Harvard Musical Dictionary.  He will find that "a system starting
with 
the letter A for the tone c seems to have been employed chiefly in 
connection with certain instruments such as the monochord , or sets of

bells" He will find that there are different names for the notes in 
different languages. If he needs a reason for the name "C", then he
will 
also need separate reasons for "do" and "ut" in other languages.

Also have him look up the word "name" in the dictionary:  "A word or
words 
by which an entity is distinguished from others."
Point out that names are arbitrary and need no reasons.  As long as
there is 
general conensus for the thing to which a name refers, its history is 
irrelevant to the study of music.  Why  is a rock called a rock and the
wind 
called the wind?  He can spend his life studying the origins of
language but 
it is a diversion from the study of music.

>  So, why are the notes named as they are?  It seems that C should be
named 
> A.  Then a major scale would be played when starting on A and not
hitting 
> the white notes.  I transposed all my scales into this new system and
it 
> works fine.  I could see no problems with it.

There is an infinite number of names you could give the notes (Sam,
Pete, 
Bob etc.) without changing music theory. The only difficulty is that no
one 
else would know what you were talking about!

>  My initial thought was that the Aeolian scale or natural minor scale
was 
> the scale that was the most standard during the time when the notes
were 
> named.  Anyway, what's the history?
>  I know this seems to have no harp content.  Pretty bad for my first
day 
> back on list.  I maintain that all theory questions are inherently
harp 
> content because knowing theory will inform your playing.

This is not a music theory question, it is a language question.

>  Also, please consider I am a harp teacher.  Teachers, what do you do
with 
> students who make statements such as these?

1. Say "I don't know."
2. Refer them to sources such as "On the Sensations of Tone" by
Helmholtz, 
Grove's Encyclopedia of Music, and The Harvard Dictionary of Music.
3. Say "if you find out, let me know".
4. Move on with the lesson.

Vern 

_______________________________________________
Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org 
Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx 
http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l