# Chromatic Note Names



## ElRay (Feb 11, 2008)

_This was mentioned in another thread and I was going to take it to PM's, but there was some (albeit minor) interest in Chromatic Notation the last time I posted something, so I figure I'll throw it out to the rest of the world:_

Mostly a question for Durero, but anybody else, please chime in:


Durero said:


> And for the chromatic notation I love using Brennik's (sp?) suggested solfege names in his reference materials:
> 
> ```
> ba    pa        ke    vi   ge
> ...



Do you use this universally? So a "C" becomes "do", "riffing in A minor" becomes "riffing in 'la' minor" and a D major scale would be "re--mi-ke-so--la--ti--ba-re"?

Or do you bounce back and forth and still use "Ab" as a pitch class label?

Ray


----------



## keithb (Feb 11, 2008)

I've never liked using the solfege syllables for anything other than solfege. However, that may be due to the fact that I was taught 'movable do' solfege where the first degree of the scale being sung is always do.

If I was used to 'fixed do' solfege, where do always corresponds to C, I might feel differently.


----------



## Durero (Feb 11, 2008)

ElRay said:


> Do you use this universally? So a "C" becomes "do", "riffing in A minor" becomes "riffing in 'la' minor" and a D major scale would be "re--mi-ke-so--la--ti--ba-re"?
> 
> Or do you bounce back and forth and still use "Ab" as a pitch class label?
> 
> Ray



Yah for me I use it universally exactly as you've described. It's really nice to have just one name for the #/b notes. If I'm talking to someone else I usually use the traditional system, but internally I'm getting more and more used to thinking in this chromatic solfege system.


----------



## ElRay (Feb 11, 2008)

keithb said:


> ... 'movable do' solfege where the first degree of the scale being sung is always do ... 'fixed do' solfege, where do always corresponds to C


Whoa! I have never heard the terms 'movable do' or 'fixed do' before. [action=ElRay]be-bops on over to Wikipedia[/action] OK, my idea of what solfege represents has always been 'movable do'. This: Solfege - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia seems to answer a whole bunch of questions. 'Fixed do' may be exactly what I'm looking for while doing scales and intervals.


Durero said:


> Yah for me I use it universally exactly as you've described. It's really nice to have just one name for the #/b notes. If I'm talking to someone else I usually use the traditional system, but internally I'm getting more and more used to thinking in this chromatic solfege system.


_If I had only waited a few more mins to reply ..._

OK. This is really starting to click now.  I wish had run into a teacher who knew/used this years ago.  

I had heard 'solfege' used before, but I thought it was a relative naming tool for studying modes: All major scales start on 'do', all minor on 'la', etc. And on top of that, only as a tool for vocal studies, not part of a standard instrument regimen. 

I didn't realize until just now that anything other than 'movable do' existed. The concept of something like this has been swirling around in the back of my head since I first saw A-B Chromatic Notation. It's a huge relief to see that I'm not reinventing the wheel.

So, to re-answer the question you asked here:


Durero said:


> Looks like you have a playing exercise in mind though, maybe singing the intervals in the all-interval-tetrachords just before you play them?


Yes. That is exactly what I have in mind -- to add this to the solfege 'singing' with scales, etc.

For anybody else having an epiphany moment, here's another thread with some tips for using solfege: http://www.sevenstring.org/forum/music-theory-lessons-techniques/6646-solfege.html. Thanks to DR, TDW and Strychnine.

Ray


----------



## Luan (Feb 11, 2008)

Well, I use movable do, and it's easier to people that speak spanish since we actually never use letters when we talk about notes chords, etc. But when we write chords or note names, we use the letters because it's like a standart
C is do, D is re, and B is si (in movable C solfege it becomes ti for a better pronunciation).
What I don't get is why chromatic notation should use different pronunciation, since it uses the same notes but in different location on the staff.


----------



## ElRay (Feb 12, 2008)

Luan said:


> What I don't get is why chromatic notation should use different pronunciation, since it uses the same notes but in different location on the staff.


I just caught somethings that don't mesh, but I'm not sure that's what you're referring to. Durero's post has:

```
ba    pa        ke    vi    ge    
do    re    mi  fa    so    la    ti
```
The Chroma Institute's site has:

```
ba    pa        ke    vi    ga    
do    re    mi  fa    so    la    ti
```
And the Wikipedia article has:

```
di    ri        fi    sil    li    
do    re    mi  fa    so     la    ti
```
Even allowing for different solfege names for enharmonic equivalents, I still couldn't get them to sync-up.

Or are you talking about Anglo-Saxon/Germanic countries typically using A, B, C, etc. for "music" and the solfege names just for vocal training, whereas "Romance Countries" tend to use the solfege names for almost everything (e.g. "Beethoven's 9th symphony is in Re minor".)?

Ray


----------



## Durero (Feb 12, 2008)

keithb said:


> I've never liked using the solfege syllables for anything other than solfege. However, that may be due to the fact that I was taught 'movable do' solfege where the first degree of the scale being sung is always do.
> 
> If I was used to 'fixed do' solfege, where do always corresponds to C, I might feel differently.


As far as I know, moveable do solfege is most often taught to singers, or in the context of singing. This is where it is most appropriate because there are no fingerings involved in singing, and the scale structures being sung are consistent from key to key, so moving the syllable do onto the tonic note of each key makes perfect sense.

Instrumentalists however, usually prefer fixed do, especially keyboardists. When do is always C, then the solfege syllables directly & consistently correspond to the fingering for each scale or key.

With fixed do the solfege syllables are directly translatable to the English letter names.


----------



## Durero (Feb 12, 2008)

Luan said:


> Well, I use movable do, and it's easier to people that speak spanish since we actually never use letters when we talk about notes chords, etc. But when we write chords or note names, we use the letters because it's like a standart
> C is do, D is re, and B is si (in movable C solfege it becomes ti for a better pronunciation).
> What I don't get is why chromatic notation should use different pronunciation, since it uses the same notes but in different location on the staff.





ElRay said:


> I just caught somethings that don't mesh, but I'm not sure that's what you're referring to. Durero's post has:
> 
> ```
> ba    pa        ke    vi    ge
> ...



The only difference between the chromatic notation solfege names and the traditional solfege names is on the 5 "black key" notes which require accidentals (#/b) in traditional notation.

In traditional notation the solfege name for C#/Db for example, can be named with two methods: 

1) do "sharp" or re "flat" (where the English word for "sharp" or "flat" is replaced by the equivalent in whatever language you're speaking.)

2) di or ra where the vowel sound for do has been changed to di to reflect that the note has been made sharp, or the vowel sound for re has been changed to ra to show that it's flat.


Both of these examples reflect the fact that traditional notation predates our 12 chromatic notes and was truly designed for 7 note scales only. The #/b accidentals are a kind of hack onto this old system which can use to change the keys of our 7 note scales but become a real mess when dealing with music which changes key a lot, or uses scales with more than 7 notes. Even notating the simplest 12-tone pieces is very unintuitive with this notation system.


So with chromatic notation the need for #/b accidentals is eliminated (along with key signatures and clefs,) so it is very appropriate to give the 5 "black key" notes their own proper names. Thus C#/Db D#/Eb F#/Gb G#/Ab A#/Bb become ba pa ke vi ge respectively.

(Note to Ray about my use of ge instead of ga - I'm going by Brennink's printed book on chromatic notation in which he refers to A#/Bb as gé and gives the pronunciation "gay" which in my head has become ge without the accent. My guess is that the page you referenced is just an error on his part, but it's possible that he's decided to change his recommended pronunciation, though I'd be surprised if that were the case as he's been using chromatic notation himself for decades (since 1960's I think.))


----------



## ElRay (Feb 12, 2008)

Durero said:


> (Note to Ray about my use of ge instead of ga - I'm going by Brennink's printed book on chromatic notation in which he refers to A#/Bb as gé and gives the pronunciation "gay" which in my head has become ge without the accent.


Makes sense. I don't think Brennink set-up the Chroma Institute's web site. I was also mixing-up "ee", "ay" and "ah" sounds. Lah-Gay-Tee makes much more sense than Lah-Gah-Tee or Lah-Gee-Tee.

I may have to hunt-up Brennink's book. (EDIT: Well, at over $100.00, it will have to wait)

Ray


----------



## Luan (Feb 12, 2008)

gay 

Well, one of the critics that some people do to the movable do system is that you don't say the correct names for the notes.
And saying pa for D# is just stupid IMO since it doesn't has any relationship with the name note.
But well.


----------



## keithb (Feb 12, 2008)

Durero said:


> As far as I know, moveable do solfege is most often taught to singers, or in the context of singing. This is where it is most appropriate because there are no fingerings involved in singing, and the scale structures being sung are consistent from key to key, so moving the syllable do onto the tonic note of each key makes perfect sense.





The only time I've used solfege was when singing (either as part of a choir or in music theory classes in high school)


----------



## ElRay (Feb 12, 2008)

Luan said:


> And saying pa for D# is just stupid IMO since it doesn't has any relationship with the name note.


What do you use for D#? Re-Sharp? Or do you just call it Re and implicitly "know" that it's supposed to be sharpened based on the context?

I'm guessing that Brennink's intent was to keep with the solfege single sylable model ("Re-sharp" isn't as singable as "Pa") and to keep the sounds of the chromatics unique, to avoid confusion. Looking at the Wikipedia article on chromatic syllables, the "standard" seems to be the more confusing route (D is Re and D# is Ri, but Eb is Me and E is Mi). It does makes sense from a "don't change "do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do" and "keep the ah-ay-ee" progression", but it does become a bit unweildy, especially if you have Eb-E (Me-Mi), etc.. In that case Brennink's Pa-Mi is more clear.

Ray


----------



## Durero (Feb 12, 2008)

Luan said:


> And saying pa for D# is just stupid IMO since it doesn't has any relationship with the name note.
> But well.


That's the whole point Luan - giving each chromatic note it's own name instead of trying to stretch 7 names to cover 12 notes. It's much simpler and clearer if you take the time to think about it and try it out.


----------



## darbdavys (Sep 23, 2009)

We use abolutely different system here.
for notes, written as one letter, chromatticaly it goes:
C - Cis/Des - D - Dis/Es - E - F - Fis/Ges - G - Gis/As - A - Ais/B/Bes (in newer notations) - H/B (in newer)

so we add a "*is" for sharps and "*es" for flats (Es and As are exceptions, it's quite hard to say Ees and Aes )


for standard (or solfege names, dunno how you call them), it's like that:

Do - Do diez/Re bemol - Re - Re diez/E bemol - E... etc.

diez instead of sharp
bemol instead of flat

FUCK NECRO


----------

