Asking help with terminology . . .

[alzado]

While posting to this board, sometimes I need to explain where keys are.

Like, for example, a low G that is below the third leger line down.

Ditto for describing a note that is in the octaves above middle C.

I know it is possible to use key numbers, such as describing the lowest A as "Key #1."

Isn't there some easier way to describe individual notes?  Going back to my example, so my reader knows which G I am referring to? 

[m1469]

Isn't there some easier way to describe individual notes?  Going back to my example, so my reader knows which G I am referring to? 

Well the first "C" on the piano (at the bottom end) is C1.  And then each "C" above it is numbered accordingly with middle C being C4.  In between each "C", depending on which octave you are in, the other notes are numbered accordingly as well.  So if you are talking about notes in between C2 and C3 they will be labled with a 2 after them. 

For example, the bottom line of the grand staff is G2, located between C2 and C3 on the piano keyboard.


Hope that is helpful.


m1469

[perfect_pitch]

I was always taught another way as well...

The A just below middle C is just known as A (So the scale goes A B C D E F G) and when you get to the next octave up it goes A' B' C' D' E' F' G'    and then A'' B'' C'' D'' E'' F'' G'' etc...

Same when you go down...    C B A G, F, E, D, C, B, A, G,, F,, E,, D,, C,, etc...

[abell88]

Well the first "C" on the piano (at the bottom end) is C1.  And then each "C" above it is numbered accordingly with middle C being C4.  In between each "C", depending on which octave you are in, the other notes are numbered accordingly as well.  So if you are talking about notes in between C2 and C3 they will be labled with a 2 after them.

Just wondering what you call the A, A#, and B below the 1st C?

Another way I have seen -- I think it was British -- was something like the terminology perfectpitch used: middle c and up are lower case letters: c d e f g a b c' d' e' etc., below middle C upper case letters (reading down from middle C): B A G F E D C, B, A, etc.

[m1469]

Just wondering what you call the A, A#, and B below the 1st C?

Yeah, that was my question too.  I had learned it the way I explained in school (I think that's where I learned it).  And tried to find a good website to also show what I explained above.  I never found one that I loved so I did not post it.  But, I did find some where they talked about the same thing but for midi and those notes below C1 are 0's.  And then on the midi keyboards they went into negatives even.  So the A on the bottom would be A0, I guess.


m1469

[leahcim]

Yeah, that was my question too.  I had learned it the way I explained in school (I think that's where I learned it).  And tried to find a good website to also show what I explained above.  I never found one that I loved so I did not post it.  But, I did find some where they talked about the same thing but for midi and those notes below C1 are 0's.  And then on the midi keyboards they went into negatives even.  So the A on the bottom would be A0, I guess.

Yep, when it comes to midi middle C is note 60 - there's no actual octave assignment, notes are just frequencies relative to that, from 0-127.

But different implementations start midi note 1 as octave 0, which makes middle c=c5, some have middle c=c3, which gives you -1 and -2 octaves.

If you use the convention [an american standard, if not elsewhere too] for middle c=c4, you get octave -1 for the lowest midi notes, but the piano keyboard starts at A0. Roland use that, but yamaha's chart has A-1 as the lowest note and middle C = C3.

[sonatainfsharp]

Ummmm..... "middle C" is c1.

When you go down, you have c, C, CC. When you go up, you have c2, c3, c4, c5.

This is universal and doesn't only apply to piano.

(Also, the A and B below CC is AAA and BBB.)

[leahcim]

This is universal

Evidently for a very small universe

[sonatainfsharp]

Please see the image I have attached. This isn't something I just made up, and it isn't limited to the U.S., either. Again, it uses a piano keyboard as an example, but c1 is ALWAYS called c1, no matter what instrument you play it on--it is based on the frequency of which it vibrates, rather than "where on the piano" it is played.

The scanned image is from page 5 of Elementary Harmony (4th Ed.) by Robert W. Ottman.

(I apologize in advance if the photo shows up unreadable on the forum as it appears to bge automatically resized. How can I ATTACH the photo as a file so it shows up in the original [i.e. readable] size?)

[leahcim]

Please see the image I have attached. This isn't something I just made up, and it isn't limited to the U.S., either.

Sure, but there are other methods discussed in the thread that are used and they share the same characteristics of yours, they aren't  being made up nor are they limited to the US.

Hence, it's fairly obvious to see your method isn't universal, albeit, like the others that are used, it exists and is used by some - I'm sure there are others.

[sonatainfsharp]

Certainly, but my point is that you can't call the "lowest C" on the piano as "c1" when it simply isn't.

During my composition classes at the university and at a completely different music school prior to that, I had met with at least 20 accomplished composers and they all spoke in this way and we all knew what they were talking about without having to explain anything at all.

So far, all of the other methods I have read here would require a short explanation before continuing discussion.

Also, when I am composing, I can say to an oboist, "Let's transpose that passage, starting on e2," and they won't have to ask "which e is that?" or "what interval up or down is that from the original?"

With that piont in mind, if everyone uses their own was to label notes, they would have to explain their personal methods each time they talk to someone.

Again, the point I am trying to make is that this isn't my personal method; it is quite universal.  That being said, when I got to college, the theory teacher was shocked that I was the only one in the freshman class who had even heard of such a thing before, as it is standard practice among musicians, especially composers.

[leahcim]

Certainly, but my point is that you can't call the "lowest C" on the piano as "c1" when it simply isn't.

Hmm, your point seems to be that you want to argue that your method is the correct or proper one and the others are wrong

[Let's remember that what middle C is, i,e what the frequencies are for the notes which is defined in midi hasn't always been the same before we start trying to hope there's a singular definition for octaves] If A440 isn't the case, as in the past, then you'd effectively be  talking about something different, even if you thought you were talking about the same thing

I'm not that bothered arguing, since I just see numerous methods, yours no better or worse than the others.

Although I agree with you that having numerous, conflicting standards isn't an ideal situation when it comes to communication - part of my reply to m1469 you see I mention that more than one method exists - it just does, we'll have to get over it But I don't buy your appeal to authority of 20 people. Like I said, it's a small universe

[m1469]

Certainly, but my point is that you can't call the "lowest C" on the piano as "c1" when it simply isn't.

Okay, now, I did not make up what I described above and I did not learn it from the midi stuff.  Here is the very first page from my very first theory book from University (Tonal Harmony : Kostka and Payne):





So, apparently there is a whole crop of us Bohemians out there thinking this way.  Bad on us I guess.   Anyway, it's just how I was taught (and I am sticking with it  ).


m1469 

[sonatainfsharp]

Oh, you were using all CAPITOL C's. I have come across that method before, although I have never seen the capitols other than in some printed material.

I was using lower-case C's: i.e. CC, C, c, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5 with their names "sub-contra octave," "contra-octave," etc.

You were using the upper-case ones: i.e. C1, C2, C3, etc.

Also, the method I was using seemed to apply to all instruments, where as your versions seemed limited to piano.

:-)

[m1469]

Well, I suppose I should thank Thee for graciously enlightening the likes of me.

[m1469]

Oh, you were using all CAPITOL C's. I have come across that method before, although I have never seen the capitols other than in some printed material.

I was using lower-case C's: i.e. CC, C, c, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5 with their names "sub-contra octave," "contra-octave," etc.

You were using the upper-case ones: i.e. C1, C2, C3, etc.

Also, the method I was using seemed to apply to all instruments, where as your versions seemed limited to piano.

:-)

Okay (since you edited your post), I will give you a real reply.  The one thing I have to say on the matter of the way I was taught is that, it makes teaching the note names as well as the concept of registers on the piano, "easy" to teach as well as comprehend for the beginning students.  Especially the youngies who are just learning their alphabet and so on. 

The way I showed above is very easy for them to use and understand, and they can see it right there in front of them without needing any other knowledge to help them through it.

I will admit though, it does seem limited to piano even though it is located in a general theory book (not specific for piano).  And actually, I have truly not known of any other way to learn about the registers, so I a am truly happy to find out about another way.


m1469

[prometheus]

As far as I know Tonal Harmony : Kostka and Payne is a respected book, I don't have it though. But I was always under the impression that c1 (or c`) was the middle C. The Kostka and Payne book system is very confusing. Does anyone know if it is a common alternative?

[m1469]

As far as I know Tonal Harmony : Kostka and Payne is a respected book, I don't have it though. But I was always under the impression that c1 (or c`) was the middle C. The Kostka and Payne book system is very confusing. Does anyone know if it is a common alternative?

When related to piano, I don't understand what is confusing about it ?  I suppose I could imagine that it would not be as clear for other instrumentalists and singers who have no concept of the piano keyboard.  but, I am not sure about that either as most instrumentalists and singers are "supposed" to have (or at least are required to take classes and proficiency exams)  a "proficient" understanding of the keyboard as well.

[leahcim]

As far as I know Tonal Harmony : Kostka and Payne is a respected book, I don't have it though. But I was always under the impression that c1 (or c`) was the middle C. The Kostka and Payne book system is very confusing. Does anyone know if it is a common alternative?

I think there's an ISO standard for A440 [ISO 16;1975] and according to some, for pitch naming, where middle C is in octave 4, i.e C4 but I don't have a reference to the number to confirm https://dactyl.som.ohio-state.edu/Humdrum/guide04.html

Not that other methods used / taught are any worse because of that imo.

[m1469]

While posting to this board, sometimes I need to explain where keys are.

Like, for example, a low G that is below the third leger line down.

Ditto for describing a note that is in the octaves above middle C.

I know it is possible to use key numbers, such as describing the lowest A as "Key #1."

Isn't there some easier way to describe individual notes?  Going back to my example, so my reader knows which G I am referring to? 

When referring back to alzado's original post and what I believe to be the intent of the questions, it seems he is asking for terminology to help explain where notes are specifically in relation to the piano.  So, the Kostka and Payne method seems very appropriate in response to the oriniginal questions.

Now, I will admit that, I don't really know too much about the frequencies and so on, nor do I know much about how to describe them.  And, I am suspecting that is solely what the other descriptions of which pitch is which is supposed to be describing.  But, in terms of teaching a student or describing keys on a piano as alzado is asking about, how is CC, C, c, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5... at all explanitory ?  That is confusing to me.

I have thought that the Kostka and Payne method had solely to do with location and order of occurence (as it relates to the piano) and not frequency.  Am I wrong ?  I truly don't know.


m1469

[Floristan]

C2 beats twice as fast as C1, C3 beats twices as fast as C2, C4 beats twice as fast as C3, etc.  There's no way to deduce this relationship from the key names.  The names are just a convention for referring to a keyboard.

[m1469]

C2 beats twice as fast as C1, C3 beats twices as fast as C2, C4 beats twice as fast as C3, etc.  There's no way to deduce this relationship from the key names.  The names are just a convention for referring to a keyboard.

Yes, okay.  But, the names that Kostka and Payne give, really have nothing to do with how fast they beat in comparison to each other, right ?

And in the other ways of explaining the note registers, like CC, C, c, c1, c2, c3, c4, c5 somehow does ?  If not, what is all this talk about with relation to this conversation ? :

I think there's an ISO standard for A440 [ISO 16;1975] and according to some, for pitch naming, where middle C is in octave 4, i.e C4 but I don't have a reference to the number to confirm https://dactyl.som.ohio-state.edu/Humdrum/guide04.html

Not that other methods used / taught are any worse because of that imo.

and

Certainly, but my point is that you can't call the "lowest C" on the piano as "c1" when it simply isn't.

I mean, why not ?  Is there some inherent meaning to "c1" with relation to frequencies ?


m1469

[Bob]

As far as I know Tonal Harmony : Kostka and Payne is a respected book, I don't have it though. But I was always under the impression that c1 (or c`) was the middle C. The Kostka and Payne book system is very confusing. Does anyone know if it is a common alternative?

I'm getting confused reading all this.  If it helps, I know there is the scientific version that starts with C1 as the lowest C on the piano, C4 is middle C, and that's somewhat new.  There is an older key naming system, something about organs and pedal notes, that uses the CC, C, c, c1, and all that.  Both might have c1, but it's a different key.  Two different systems.

If that helps any.

[Bob]

Yeah, that was my question too. I had learned it the way I explained in school (I think that's where I learned it). And tried to find a good website to also show what I explained above. I never found one that I loved so I did not post it. But, I did find some where they talked about the same thing but for midi and those notes below C1 are 0's. And then on the midi keyboards they went into negatives even. So the A on the bottom would be A0, I guess.


m1469

I have heard that too.  A0, Bb0, B0

[allthumbs]

I'm getting confused reading all this.  If it helps, I know there is the scientific version that starts with C1 as the lowest C on the piano, C4 is middle C, and that's somewhat new.  There is an older key naming system, something about organs and pedal notes, that uses the CC, C, c, c1, and all that.  Both might have c1, but it's a different key.  Two different systems.

If that helps any.

Me too! C -  that's the white key just to the left of the two black one's right?

[rimv2]

Just wondering what you call the A, A#, and B below the 1st C?

How bout the A, A# and B below the 1st C

[timothy42b]

There are at least four standard conventions for naming the octaves.

It is confusing and frustrating, but it is what it is. 

Other instruments have the same problem, and many of them have added their own terminology to make it more obvious what note we are talking about. 

For example, what note is "high C?"  "double high C?"  for trumpet?  or trombone? 

Trombone players refer to bass clef second line Bb as second partial Bb.  We all understand it but it would be meaningless to a piano or flute player.  Trumpet players refer to bass clef second line Bb as C.  Well, the few who can play that note!  <g> 

The only absolute system is frequency.  But aside from me and a few physics geeks, nobody knows which C 262 Hz would be, so it doesn't help.  (and the physicists persist in claiming C is 256 though they know it isn't.  Medical tuning forks come in C 256, it isn't even close.) 

[prometheus]

All this confusion. It is really simple. There is a system for naming notes and their octaves. Here c1 is the middle C. But the book on Harmony by Kostha and Payne, which is kind of authoritive because it is used in college and conservatories in english speaking countries uses this very different system. Where does this come from? My question was, is this some  aberration, or an obscure US system or is this system common?

In all my books on music it says: "c1 is middle C" The same system Sonatainfsharp uses, I though this system was univerally accepted.

[leahcim]

All this confusion. It is really simple. There is a system for naming notes and their octaves.

I think it's only simple in the sense that ascii is simple. It works for a subset of the problem,but if you want something that's complete, it's more complex.

Western music has used various methods - unarguably - "naming notes" almost removes part of the problem -  the notes are the names in a sense. do re me are other names used. What they are naming is pitches and frequencies, subdivisions of an octave but few people learn them.

So, it's partly simple because that aspect, deciding what notes are and giving them letters [or other names] within some octave, is largely taken for granted if 2 people are talking about a key on the piano, a note on the stave or whatever - at least in Western music. The only information these systems give, is which octave and how those octaves are named - as you say, that is simple.

Does it matter that you might have to explain your system because there is more than one? Evidently not - we've seen several described in a few lines of text, or a single page scanned from a book - all you generally have to explain to someone who already takes for granted note names is how you are numbering [or lettering / marking in some cases] the octaves.

But what is C1 or C4 or the others shown actually useful for? It has to be where written music is difficult, like this board for example or perhaps for speaking.

Or is it? How do you say CCC? or cc "Triple C" "2 lowercase cs" "3 uppercase Cs" or "see see see" or 3C or "c-squared" What about C', how is that pronounced? For that reason, I'd say the purely numerical methods are "better"

Text? The reason it's simple is because it's too simple. When you want to express music and have the facility to write, you'd probably use something else like a score.

If you want a method of expressing music in text and can't write a score [or want some language to write a score with] you need something like SMDL. It's an international standard, and it's an architecture for representing music information. But, it's 50 pages to describe, not one post - but it's more like what you'd want if you're using text, especially if you wanted something simple, like a computer, to do something with the information too [like present it in a way that people want to see the notes in, perhaps]

So I'd say what we've seen is simple, but only because it doesn't really solve any problem that couldn't be solved by any 2 people who want to talk about notes whether on pianos or trumpets, comminicating with language in  5 minutes.

That is why, without having a system described fully, someone was able to describe notes that he wanted to know the names in that system - and we had one humerous post pointing that out effectively saying "you can call that note, what you did when you asked what it was called" and it's probably one reason why there are so many methods given - people don't really need them and they are easy to invent if you do.

[perfect_pitch]

I think the way that I posted is probably the easiest to understand and it's so simple.

[gerry]

I'm bored today and finding old threads of interest. If one uses the C1,C2,C3..etc. method, then in the case of the Bosey Imperial would the lowest octave start with just plain C and progress up until it reached A which would be A1 according to Kostka,etc.