Why the note A is where it is on the piano keys?

[pashkuli]

Why the note A is where it is on the piano keys?


If you'd like to share your opinion or knowledge as answers to this question, please, do so!
(this is more or less related to the forum thread silph started 11 years ago here: silph's thread)

[keypeg]

.

[pashkuli]

•                            

[keypeg]

Pashkuli, as it stands your post doesn't make much sense to me.  What I mean is that you have revived a question in an old thread.  The original asker had a reason for asking the question, because they had some original underlying assumptions so we could try to help with the actual source of perplexity.  I wrote two responses myself back in 2011.  Do you have a particular angle that you want to ask about, and which is different from what has already been set out?  I started to answer yesterday but realized it didn't go anywhere without knowing where you were coming from.  That is why I deleted my answer and had to replace it with a dot.  I don't know why you posted a dot, though.

[keypeg]

duplicate

[pashkuli]

What I mean is that you have revived a question in an old thread. The original asker had a reason for asking the question, because they had some original underlying assumptions…

Keypeg, well apparently many could not understand silph's question. Including you as it seems from your attempts to answer. Also, his question is a bit confusing as he directly refers to already used (and abused as indoctrination) system more of a self‑referring question.

It is a short video with very simple questions. I have also responded to silph there in his thread because I completely understand what he was asking as I have been asking and questioning this status quo since I was a teenager.

This is not taking it for granted. It is plain and simple "Write it as I say." type of education.

[keypeg]

The point is that since you started a new thread - What is YOUR question?  Which type of angle are you asking about?  That makes it a new thread.

[keypeg]

Keypeg, well apparently many could not understand silph's question.

I never claimed to understand it (in 2011, btw)  I gave a bunch of varying ideas and factoids, because sometimes one thing out of a bunch will speak to a person, to help them clarify.  If we're still discussing silph's question, that should go in that thread.

The general idea I gathered rereading it was an assumption that the real or default scale is the major scale, that the all-white-keys (piano) version of that major scale was the default template, and for the "first note" of the "main scale" we ought to use the first note of the alphabet - so why was it A.  There also seemed to be an assumption that the piano keyboard was the place where these names were derived.

But that was Silph's question in that thread.  What is your question?  How can we help you?   In this new thread.

[perfect_pitch]

The point is that since you started a new thread - What is YOUR question?  Which type of angle are you asking about?  That makes it a new thread.

Easy... he's trying to get hits for his video. Have you seen the video... pretty cheesy, and it sounds like its narrated by AI.

One could claim that A is where it is... BECAUSE IT JUST IS.

Why is the 13th letter of the alphabet an M? Don't know - it just is.

[balabolka]

Oddly enough neither Google nor the Music books I have say why.
God did it, I guess.

[brogers70]

Boethius gave the alphabetical names to the notes of the scale around 500 CE. Yes, the same Boethius who wrote "The Consolation of Philosophy." Here is a link to an English translation of his treatise on music in which, among many other things, he assigned the letter names to the degrees of the scale.

https://classicalliberalarts.com/wp-content/uploads/BOETHIUS-Bower-1989-Fundamentals_of_Music.pdf

[keypeg]

Boethius gave the alphabetical names to the notes of the scale around 500 CE.

This brings us right back to the original thread which many of us answered back in 2011.

Easy... he's trying to get hits for his video. Have you seen the video... pretty cheesy, and it sounds like its narrated by AI.

I already figured as much.  By taking the kind of topic that gets discussed a lot (because it did, in 2011) it gives exposure to the video.  To preempt the same discussion happening again (that has already started) I asked the OP what HIS "question" is regarding this.  He may also be trying to promote the idea of "indoctrination" (stated somewhere and also in the video obliquely) - then that "indoctrination" would be the topic of discussion, rather than Silph's question from S's angle.

[keypeg]

In the original question, Silph seems to have assumed that the "default scale" is the major scale, with the "white key" C major scale as reference.  Why would the first note of the scale by represented by the third letter of the alphabet?  If the "default scale" was minor, then we would have a "first note / first letter" relationship.  It also ignores that half the world uses "fixed Do" solfege with no alphabet names.  This part belongs to the other thread.

We also seem to have the assumption that note names were derived from the keyboard.  Even the OP's video seems to be going from that idea.

So now to "indoctrination" of the video which was a mishmash.  If you stop at certain points, you'll see a page talking about 22 keys in an octave and various things.  I suppose this may involve different temperaments prior to equal temperament, requiring quarter tone nuances, or tone colour.

One needs standardization in any field. That's why we have centimeters or inches rather than individual thumb sizes.  It will always be imperfect. There are major movements out there trying to massively reform the spelling conventions of English which also has historical roots.  The notation system and the spelling system have their history and they sort of work.

The method book excerpts with things highlighted in yellow is not some dastardly indoctrination plot.  It is an attempt to help students navigate the system in place.  We invent systems in order to communicate, and in order to work together on a common thing.  We're also supposed to be able to think past those systems.  But everyone has learned that this shape "B" represents a particular sound.  Some of the shapes, "W" has one sound in English, while having a V sound in German.  It's what we've got.

[balabolka]

Boethius gave the alphabetical names to the notes.

This is interesting but upon a few glances, there was no piano keyboard there. Did they even exist in 500CE?
Also there were many ABCD and other intervals there. Actually, in one diagram A to B is a whole tone, B to C is also whole, C to D – also. In another diagram A to B is an octave (diapason?). In a third C to D is a semitone where B to C is a whole tone.
In bigger tables Boethius uses weird runic symbols for the notes not the alphabet letters he uses as and I quote "movable intervals".

[balabolka]

One needs standardization in any field.

Yes, but was not that the actual question of the thread (and video). Who made that standardization in a first place? Certainly, A could have been standard from anywhere. How is the Latin alphabet the standard too?

[balabolka]

If you stop at certain points, you'll see a page talking about 22 keys in an octave and various things.

This is a bit incorrect. Here is that Norrlanda organ or orgel (Google search, Pinterest photo), it has only two accidentals in an octave and a weird key in the middle. One can clearly see the notes have been named too, so it is not answering the original question. In fact, we can guess that those two in the middle are B and B♭. Rally interesting:

[keypeg]

Yes, but was not that the actual question of the thread (and video). Who made that standardization in a first place? Certainly, A could have been standard from anywhere. How is the Latin alphabet the standard too?

The actual question in the 2011 thread was what you said.   But not THIS thread despite the variant of the borrowed original title. The OP used that topic to start a new thread which should not be about the same thing.  Two new things come out in this new thread: the video, and the topic of "indoctrination". I addressed the topic of "indoctrination".  What the OP calls "indoctrination" is merely the standardization since we need some kind of common ground (as I explained).  It has nothing to do with the question in the title which is merely a borrowing from another thread with that title.

This is a bit incorrect.

I did not state that there were 22 notes.  In the page shown in the OP's video there is reference to 22 notes within an octave.

[balabolka]

Two new things come out in this new thread: the video, and the topic of "indoctrination". What the OP calls "indoctrination" is merely the standardization since we need.

Regardless, there is no indication who made that placement of the note A a "standard" on the keyboard. That is the question. And it is only remotely related to the other thread.

In the page shown in the OP's video there is reference to 22 notes within an octave.

Compass ≠ octave. Compass is the whole range (hence, encompassing), not just an octave. Please, look at the photo of Norrlanda organ it has 22 keys + 1 in the middle and up (possibly a bellow switcher, on\off)

Actually upon reading the whole thread OP has given the answer in the end of a long thread (this one): possible answer
Again, since no keyboard is shown we can only guess who did it. It is odd how we simply see it on a keyboard in Music theory books and have no idea but we memorize it as such. Isn't that the very definition of indoctrination? Also it came from church monks in the medieval times so it fits historically as well.

[keypeg]

Regardless, there is no indication who made that placement of the note A a "standard" on the keyboard. That is the question.

Imho, that is NOT the question.  The OP has borrowed a popular thread, changed the title slightly from C to A.  The actual purpose is to feature the video and possibly have people look at other videos from there; and the  idea of "indoctrination".

It's why I changed the subject line.

If there is the question of why the notes are named the way they are alphabet-wise, then I'd want to discuss that in the original thread. .... I just have.

  Please, look at the photo of Norrlanda organ it has 22 keys + 1 in the middle and up (possibly a bellow switcher, on\off) ...

It appears that there was a misunderstanding on my part yesterday.  When you quoted me and wrote "that is not correct" I thought you were saying that the picture in the video of a book did not contain reference to 22 keys.  I tried to indicate that this reference was in fact there.  You have to stop the video at that point, and before the picture gets blurry.  I get what you're saying.

[balabolka]

It's why I changed the subject line.

Ok, yet no answers were given. We can only assume what happened and what organ (no pianos back 1000 years ago) they have used. Certainly organs back then did not have 'accidental' keys. That Norrland orgel is from late 1300s to early 1400s. I have seen portable organs with one or two 'accidental' keys.
I do not know why A, B, C is like that and not shifted a bit to another key.
It seems related to what OP describes about the dialogues of Odo and Michael (some medieval monks) who divide the monochord deliberately so it has only 'diatonic' notes. This means they must have matched it to an already tuned instrument (maybe portable organ) although hey never mention an organ or other instrument.
Therefore, after they complete the division, they have:
(open string, A, B = wholetone (8:9), wholetone (8:9)

then they place C from 3:4 of the open string deliberately choosing that ratio as the 'semitone' was more cumbersome to calculate (like taking 243 of 256 divisions – they certainly could not do that on a string).

then they again do 8:9 from that new C and call it D, same for E
then again this time divide 3:4 from where C was to get to next F but when continuing again and crossing G (they do not see it as an octave of the open string) with two sets of 8:9, they end up with B♭. They do not see it as a problem as the simple division pattern is still the same. That is why they call it 'small b' (or rounded b) for they think the math is the same as with the first B. But it does not sound as an octave, so they call the actual octave of B "the other B" and suggest writing it as a 'square b' (which looks like h or ♮).

It is really embarrassing if you think about it.

Then later the Germans took that and that is why they write H (for B) and B (or b indeed it is ♭) because they saw it that way H from ♮. In fact writing B♭ is tautology looked from that medieval method.

Now, if they obviously had Music and music instruments, also organs, they then simply tuned the monochord until their division matched the sound. And then transferred the letters on the keys (no accidental keys).

It can be seen in the illustrations later where the B key is indeed marked with ♮ and B♭ is marked with b.
Again, I am not saying they did that because no keyboard has been illustrated in those texts unfortunately but that is the most logical scenario.

[keypeg]

It is odd how we simply see it on a keyboard in Music theory books and have no idea but we memorize it as such.

I'd say that teaching is an underrated skill and is often done poorly.  In fact that could have been the source of confusion in the other thread.  "Teaching" (and method books) often aim at quick first results: get a student to 'read' music as quickly as possible - shortcuts.  I didn't actually have a keyboard as reference when I learned theory (and my instrument as an adult learner was a violin).  But when I sat my RCM theory exams, were were provided with laminated paper rulers, and those rulers had a piano keyboard printed on one side as "reference".  I was perplexed about that keyboard picture.  I'd also not have been able to use it as any kind of reference.  (I passed with a grade of 99.95% btw so I did know my stuff despite this.)

The fact is that music is not quite neat and tidy though there are some underlying principles in general.  We do need to identify common patterns, give names to things, in order to communicate and work together.  Having some kind of system helps us do things.  But the system is not the thing, and if systems are taught and rushed through you have all kinds of consequences.  How does the thing get taught?  Are students given a broader picture, or do they get the impression that what is presented is how things are, have always been, there is nothing else, and this is perfect?  (That kind of fits "indoctrination".)

(off the cuff thoughts)

[keypeg]

Ok, yet no answers were given.

We cross posted.  I gave an answer there now.  I'd want to discuss that question in the appropriate thread, and not here.

Also, when a student asks a question, you need to find out where they're coming from, the source of their confusion, any assumptions.  Otherwise a whole bunch of info can just increase the confusion.  Written in that thread.

[balabolka]

I'd want to discuss that question in the appropriate thread, and not here.

The other thread is really filled up with its OP (silph) having to explain himself multiple times and hence a lot of misunderstanding. This thread here is straight on point as the alphabet (Latin and others too in Europe) start with A. So someone must have done it on the keyboard too.
Why did it and for what reason? And more over, why we take it for granted? And why it fits only the piano layout indeed?

Regarding music scores, it seems it is an abstraction, again derived from those old portable organs which initially did not have 'small black keys'. With such abstraction a student needs to learn many rules without asking questions. Indeed a type of indoctrination.

[keypeg]

.... derived from those old portable organs which initially did not have 'small black keys'. ...

I have not read or heard that our notation system was derived from any musical instrument including the organ.  I thought that instrument followed the system. (?)

[balabolka]

I have not read or heard that our notation system was derived from any musical instrument including the organ.  I thought that instrument followed the system. (?)

Actually, it was from singing scribbles (squiggly lines) which represented a mere arbitrary flow of pitch up or down. Then it became neume notation (more discrete) then when notes were given names (another sort of indoctrination) those letters became clefs on 4 (initially) then 5 lines.
So, the score (staff) is indeed also bound to the organ keys. It is obvious actually.

[keypeg]

You're saying the same thing I tried to say. The notation system was not derived from  (did not originate from) keyboards. 

[balabolka]

You're saying the same thing I tried to say. The notation system was not derived from  (did not originate from) keyboards.

Not by intention but it was fit to it. Why G clef, why not a C clef as originally it was C? But after all isn't it more intuitive to get an A clef as the first letter form the same alphabet?
We just say "Ah, OK." and proceed memorizing without asking questions. Sort of indoctrination indeed.

[lelle]

I personally think western notation is a conspiracy by the government to make us all slaves in the capitalist machine.

[balabolka]

I personally think western notation is a conspiracy by the government to make us all slaves in the capitalist machine.

↑ (was bad attempt at trolling)
________________________

No, it is actually from the Dark ages (medieval times) where having knowledge was frowned upon.
The question now is:
When you started learning piano and the teacher or the book said to you this key is A, this key is B and so on, did you ask why? How come and who said so?
Or did you simply said "OK" and had to memorize it. Because that is sort of indoctrination.