Lately, I don't want to name things anymore

[m1469]

Lately, I don't want to name things anymore  .  As I realize more of how I saw the keys as a child, how I organized sound, and what reading means/meant to me, they are losing their names that I formally learned and they are wanting to be what they once were, and I want to go that direction.  I will always know where a C is, but I want to make it go away as a "C" and I want it to be something else.

But, I wonder, is this actually just a natural step that everybody goes through at some point?  Where the names go away and it becomes something else?

[m1469]

Must reiterate:  I *DESPISE* DE.SPISE.  letter names.  If I can give names to the lines and spaces that are conventional, it is fixed DO, which I have never ever, not for one moment, been formally taught nor have I ever been in an environment that uses it.  But, it is somehow a kind of home to me and I can't seem to shake it, and I don't really understand why that would be, except from another life  :-.  There is more to it, though, too.  Feeling more at home with fixed Do just scratches the surface, and I'm going ahead and scratching it.

BYE  

[gustaaavo]

This is really interesting. I have always thought that the best way of thinking about notes would be in terms of sound. So, instead of thinking "C4" (e.g.) or about its position in the keyboard or whatever, just hearing it in one's head. I suppose that's an advantage of absolute hearing (not that I have it). How great would it be to think of harmony in that way instead of innumerable combinations and rules!

Needless to say, I haven't been able of realizing that lifelong dream and am stuck with the "traditional" ways. Nevertheless, I do work on the basis that the most important way in which I have to memorize music is being able to play it in my head, so to speak. And of that, to my great satisfaction, I have been succesful (of course, digital or mechanical memory does come to the rescue occasionally).

Can you describe in some way how you're thinking about notes (that "something else")?. I find this topic really intriguing.

P.S. I find it interesting that in some old sources (e.g. Fux), the Do, Re,... system is not used as today: namely, whatever the tonic is, that is Do (C is Do in C major or minor or mixolydian or whatever, but A is Do and B is Re in A major, etc.)

[dcstudio]

...yes I believe it is a natural step.  You may be reaching that point where the ear to finger "app" in your brain has become so strong that note names are really not necessary and are in fact quite cumbersome. It is not the same as "playing by ear" either.  Melodies and harmonies take on "shapes" that you can easily hear and play without much, if any forethought. I find that I analyze the chords with my eyes as I play them and use that information to remember the piece.  It's kind of amazing really--at least I thought it was when it happened for me.  It kind of flew in the face of everything I had ever been taught ...  gave me food for thought as a teacher too.

for a time I actually questioned the necessity of all that formality until of course the "brain app" failed and I was rescued by-- an ability to recall sheet music and a whole lot of technical training.

[nyiregyhazi]

Lately, I don't want to name things anymore  .  As I realize more of how I saw the keys as a child, how I organized sound, and what reading means/meant to me, they are losing their names that I formally learned and they are wanting to be what they once were, and I want to go that direction.  I will always know where a C is, but I want to make it go away as a "C" and I want it to be something else.

But, I wonder, is this actually just a natural step that everybody goes through at some point?  Where the names go away and it becomes something else?

This only just started happening???

[m1469]

Can you describe in some way how you're thinking about notes (that "something else")?

I think that as I am able to explain it, it will end up being an organized system that I will consolidate into book(s) form - which I have already started since a couple of years in journals.  I had, at one time, shared a little piece of it with both of my teachers, and had hoped that I was coming upon a time of being able to dedicate more time to all of my musical life's work in general, and to possibly collaborate with at least one other trusted person, during which time I could have this particular portion of it come more to light.  As it turns out, that is not at all how my life proceeded.  If not this life, I guess there is always the next life to aim for 

I have also come to realize there are other, more traditional ideas that need to come out first, before I can reach the system behind it that has been making itself known to me in spurts.  

I do believe that classification of notes and sounds are important, and those in how they relate to each other, too.  And, I have not divorced myself from traditional names, either, and I don't know that I will (I am realizing more since I wrote my initial post).  It is something different/more than how each note is called, which is probably one of the main points, but I see that it doesn't mean that names do not apply.

P.S. I find it interesting that in some old sources (e.g. Fux), the Do, Re,... system is not used as today: namely, whatever the tonic is, that is Do (C is Do in C major or minor or mixolydian or whatever, but A is Do and B is Re in A major, etc.)

Well, yes, since writing my initial post, I have also realized (again) that Solfege systems -including fixed Do- still just aren't 'it' for me, either.  But, I realize more of what is the appeal or benefit of certain systems for me, and perhaps that is an area I will spend some time on, when I get the chance!