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, 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.

[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.

[lelle]

↑ (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.

Yes I was trolling because "indoctrination" implies conspiracy to me.

It's easier to talk about the sounds you are making if they have names. The names could have been Yub, Nub, Gub, Flub but they happen to be A B C D E F G mirroring the alphabet.

When starting out it's easier to learn "this is how it works, if you know this you can learn not only piano but multiple instruments" rather than going on a deep dive challenging the indoctrination of things having names.

As someone who has performed and composed on a relatively high level and worked with other musicians, I find that the western system is perfectly adequate and very elegant for universally notating music in a way nearly all instruments can use. So that if I write music for an orchestra, I can write all the parts even if I don't know all the technical details of playing each instrument.

To breifly comment on your earlier thing about clefs.

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?

There are multiple clefs, C clef, G clef and F clef. Earlier, these clefs could all be placed on different lines depending on what was most convenient for notating and printing. Look on some Bach autographs and you'll be pretty confused before you realise the G clef is placed on a different line than it is today. For piano, it has become standardized to place the G and F clefs on the respective lines that we all learn, and it has been found to be adequate for all the piano repertoire so pianists typically don't train to read other clefs because there is no need. The C clef still retains the ability to be placed on different lines, becoming an Alto or Tenor clef.

I think this video is well worth your time if you are curious about why the system looks like it does and why no alternative has yet replaced it:

[balabolka]

Yes I was trolling because "indoctrination" implies conspiracy to me.
It's easier to talk about the sounds you are making if they have names. The names could have been Yub, Nub, Gub, Flub but they happen to be A B C D E F G mirroring the alphabet.

When starting out it's easier to learn "this is how it works, if you know this you can learn not only piano but multiple instruments" rather than going on a deep dive challenging the indoctrination of things having names.

Indoctrination has a negative connotation to it because the meaning from its definition is rather embarrassing to get yourself seen as such.
It wasn't always like that. If you read works from those times and earlier works of Boethius. The indoctrination comes from the fact they all (those who wrote and left written evidence about this subject) were related to the Church. Quite all of them. They simply dismissed the learning part of the old and previous work and rewrote it for their specific needs: a certain diatonic scale and as Latin alphabet order of the found notes.
In fact, Guido (d'Arezzo) presents this and such proposal for direct approval by… the Pope in Rome! And we had to follow.

If you open the book (part of which has been quoted with a screenshot photo) of Sebastian Virdung (year 1511) he mentions that it all came like that and he simply rewrites it as established without explanation.

We just shrug and say that it has to be like that, pretending that Latin alphabet order is the way to go as somehow universally the best suited for music notation. And the abstraction of the staff notation, which has so many disambiguation and you can only guess what note to play if only having many other symbols around it such as lines, key signature and accidental alterations. For some instruments it is a real pain in the rear. It fits mostly piano with quite a lot of exceptions. Because originally it was an abstraction for general vocal movement (Neume system).

[lelle]

Indoctrination has a negative connotation to it because the meaning from its definition is rather embarrassing to get yourself seen as such.
It wasn't always like that. If you read works from those times and earlier works of Boethius. The indoctrination comes from the fact they all (those who wrote and left written evidence about this subject) were related to the Church. Quite all of them. They simply dismissed the learning part of the old and previous work and rewrote it for their specific needs: a certain diatonic scale and as Latin alphabet order of the found notes.
In fact, Guido (d'Arezzo) presents this and such proposal for direct approval by… the Pope in Rome! And we had to follow.

If you open the book (part of which has been quoted with a screenshot photo) of Sebastian Virdung (year 1511) he mentions that it all came like that and he simply rewrites it as established without explanation.

We just shrug and say that it has to be like that, pretending that Latin alphabet order is the way to go as somehow universally the best suited for music notation. And the abstraction of the staff notation, which has so many disambiguation and you can only guess what note to play if only having many other symbols around it such as lines, key signature and accidental alterations. For some instruments it is a real pain in the rear. It fits mostly piano with quite a lot of exceptions. Because originally it was an abstraction for general vocal movement (Neume system).

Okay, what is your point? Do you propose a different notation system?

You also seem to forget that the current system not only shows what note to play, but the relationship between all the notes and chords (assuming competent notation which all professional composers have), giving you a whole slew of information regarding the grammar of the musical discourse, and how the composer constructed the piece, which is essential for interpreting it at a high standard.

A barebones superficial clarification of what I mean is that with the key signature for the key of your piece included on your staff, you will always have a linear series of black dots with no additional markings ascending/descending when writing out the scale you built your piece on, and the same kind of triads stacks for all the basic chords derived from that scale - which in turn the harmonies of the piece are derived from. And this system works for every melodic instrument - only the physical technique for generating those sounds is different depending on what instrument you play.

[balabolka]

With the key signature for the key of your piece included on your staff, you will always have a linear series of black dots with no additional markings ascending/descending when writing out the scale

But it has to be carried out and accounted to in the back of your mind. You cut a screenshot of a portion and the meaning is lost. It becomes a guessing game.
My point is that we had to learn it because the older (teachers) told us to do. Just do as they say. Because they also were taught in the same way, mind you. And it is what now — has been almost quite exactly 1000 years. people would even say it has always been like that.

But you did not answer my question. Did you ask when given the first 7 letters of the Latin alphabet on the piano, why it got to be like that, from that key?
Because I know I did not ask.

[thorn]

pashkuli/balabolka, since you're the same person, I really don't understand your point, despite 20+ posts between these two threads.

1. When we all learned piano/music theory for the first time, did any of us ask why the notes followed the alphabet, why the keyboard is shaped the way it is, or why the note C isn't A.

No, I doubt anyone here did because most of us were probably children/teens.

2. Do we know that if you scratch beneath the surface the entire Western music system originates from medieval Christian bastardisations of earlier texts to suit their own forms of music?

As the various responses indicate, some of us have more knowledge of the fine details of this than others.

So given all of the above- so what? We tear it all up and let AI design an optimum system? We go back and study the field of music archaeology to get deeper than what surviving texts can tell us? We keep going back and forth to bump the thread up and up so people see your video?

[balabolka]

So given all of the above- so what? We keep going back and forth to bump the thread up and up so people see your video?

This is about knowledge. Knowledge should be asking questions and searching for and finding answers.
The whole point is that such system served its purpose till about the mid to late 1500s. After that it has been only stagnating and hence indoctrinated in education. Once temperament was equalized, other instruments developed including ones not capable of transposing for orchestra.
It was a special case for a certain application in time of the simple church chants. That's it.

Earlier systems were more inclusive where chromatic genera was included as described 2000+ years earlier by Pythagoras, Aristoxenus, then Alypius even up till Hucbald (although he was rather inclined towards church chants obviously).

This medieval special case is cumbersome for students today. And it has been since Bach's time (I would assume) and today.
Questions should be asked. Reforms are necessary especially in the current state of the art in tech.

[thorn]

This is about knowledge. Knowledge should be asking questions and searching for and finding answers.

I agree with this. And the thing that changed my own view of music the most was studying ethnomusicology because it taught me that music is culture. Classical music is one such culture. All music is of its culture, that culture's worldviews, the instruments it employed to interact with (the) god(s), the natural world, neighbouring cultures as well as to structure relations between elites/masses, master/subject, male/female etc etc. It's impossible to divorce any kind of music from its culture- even when a culture is dead its music gives us an insight into how they perceived the world.

So despite the flaws in the classical system, it's the system that Bach, Beethoven, Chopin etc. used to create their music. To reimagine the system is to reimagine the compositions of all those who composed with that system. I'm fascinated by contemporary graphic notation but the composers who employ it are creating new music, not renotating Chopin. As an ethnomus student I experimented with various notations to transcribe the non-Western stuff I was studying, and in many cases alternative notations were more suited to those specific genres. But the majority of classical composers created music through the system we're discussing in this thread, and the thought of reimagining that music through a different system is a total waste of time.

[balabolka]

But the majority of classical composers created music through the system we're discussing in this thread, and the thought of reimagining that music through a different system is a total waste of time.

Ethno‑music is really something else. It has not been bound to institutions (e.g. church) and has been passed down and developed through centuries, millennia. Mostly based on pentatonics but also to various variants of chromatic genera. The problem comes when someone chooses to make their own favorite scale or mode "the natural" one or specific tuning to be thought of as the primary, around which all other tones should be referred.

It should not matter how you write down your music (on paper that is) as long as it is simple and non‑ambiguous.
• current system has been derived from chant pseudo‑pitch notation

• it certainly is bound to Latin alphabet letters and a specific starting tetrachord A, B, C, D, which does not make any sense to be as such

• then, since keyboard organ was adopted in the western church (no such instrument or accompaniment was admitted to the Eastern Church) as the main sound for its pipes and power to summon people (a siren if you will) this notation system was fit to that keyboard in parallel to its extension and layout

• so we had A, B, C, D, E, F, G, a, ♭ | ♮, c, d, e, f, g
• then A, B (♭), ♮ (H? due to ambiguity of script ♮ looks like h), C, D, E… but mostly B stayed as ♮ and ♭ was B♭ (a tautology if you really understand)
The staff, although coming from visually displaying movement of pitch now had to accommodate for this instrument used in the same church those chants were sung (makes perfect sense)
• hence this notation is now developing with the development of that keyboard instrument and reflects its layout only:
when you write ♭ you know it will be that small key next to the 'a' and 'h' (♮)
One of the lines was G, not A (weird, but I had it explained), one was C and F. Short explanation:
• the monks in the 900s divided the monochord in tetrachords using the tone ratios Г(8:9), then (8:9) of those Г(8:9) but then Г(3:4), because finding the semitone division (15:16) was a bit off but 3:4 was spot on (from Pythagoras).

Finishing that, they repeated that pattern, and then when crossed the g (which was ˝ of the whole string or diapason) they reached the third iteration, suddenly that pattern gave them a note they had to call b, as it was expected. But it did not sound as a diapason of B. And they were confused because the algorithm was good, albeit a special case.
They literally call the diapasone of B, "the other B" and mark it with ♮

Et dum voces per medium diviseris,
dissimiles easdem litteras facere debes.
Verbi gratia, dum a Г per medium dividis,
et pro Г scribe G, et pro A mediata pone
similiter a, similiter quoque et pro B aliam ♮.

And when you divide in half, write the same,
but not exactly the same, letters. For example,
when you divide the string in half from Г, instead of Г, write G;
dividing A in half, write a, and similarly,
instead of B, write the other ♮ (b quadratum, blocky b).

They used Г out of complete ignorance, as they thought it was only the initial reference for the divisions (and I quote "because no one uses that greek\cyrillic letter and many do not know it"). At the end it did not matter as G is the phonetic (in some cases) equivalent to Г. But they do not mention it at all. They never mention tetrachords either.

Therefore A, B, C, D because of this sort of happened to be the "starting" by means of Latin alphabet structure tetrachord following the interval structure: • tone • st • tone

Surely, they must have had a portative church organ in their church being monks in a church and it was already tuned to accompany chants there. So, all they had to do is stretch the Г‑string (pun intended!) till their division matched as much as possible the tuning of the pipes of the organ.
Then they simply transfered their letters they just assigned on the monochord.

Now, because there were no audio recordings we do not know how their tuning could refer to A=440Hz but it does not matter, because later this structure remained as a reference for the key ♭ (the first accidental) which of course was sometimes considered a part of the diatonic structure as we can see in the Norland organ.

[balabolka]

The best way is to ask.

Isn't the whole thread one or actually two such simple questions. Trolling only shows weakness or plain attention seeking. If the trolling was backed up with opinion (although AI generated vomits of text are not the best option) then such trolling might be taken lightly with a grain of salt. If not, then it is borderline insulting as passive aggression.

[brogers70]

It is seriously a relief to come in here and see people arguing about the history of music notation. I'm not kidding or being sarcastic. Seriously.

[balabolka]

It is seriously a relief to come in here and see people arguing about the history of music notation. I'm not kidding or being sarcastic. Seriously.

I hope many people get some educational interest in such topic. I personally believe that the only really great leap forward in recording music which is bound to electric devices today is MIDI roll. Its grandfather the Pianola roll though is the actual leap forward, despite its physical limitations.
The actual music notation is taught as granted. As absolute truth and if you dare to question it, then you are "against tradition", "against common practices".
The point is, it is really old and it served special case scenarios back then 600, 800 years ago. Music has long gone become more complex from Bach's time till modern times let's say Rahmaninov.

Imagine the time Bach could save for composing instead of drawing staves and ink blobs. Well, probably he had an assistant before some printing press sheets were available (just about his historical time).

Regardless, it seems this status quo was already established and I could not find any documents on its analysis and reasoning.
Honestly, what was the reason for an alphabetical order initially?

We certainly know that Guido introduced another special case names for 6 notes from the syllables of his favorite chant: ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la
Only several centuries later ut to be replaced with do. So letters such as D, R, M, F, S, L respectively would have made more sense, wouldn't they?
Again, this also would be a result of personal predilection and we know Guido raised the matter to the Pope in Rome himself due to rivalry with his peer music teachers on the matter (or personal feuds).

But Music expanded, incorporating so much more instrument in orchestras alone whilst also folk music developed but being rather ignored by official education (the latter typically bound to the Church)!

Those are things we still witness today. Such greater reform should have started with Bach and his time with the introduction of ET (equal temperament) where the diatonic is merely a subset of now equalized chromatic genera 12‑TET (and the enharmonic genera to be completely irrelevant unless we use 24‑TET).
2000 years ago the clever people of  that time did it. It got forgotten, then selectively picked for church chant melodies with a simplified templates for a specific tuning, therefore such structure got named "natural", whilst it is not the only "natural" one. Ionian major (two ionian tetrachords) or Aeolian minor (dorian + phrygian tetrachords) to be called "natural" is only a choice.

And do not say they are "natural" because that was the all 'white' notes on organs\cembalos hence only (♮), because starting from other 'white' notes you have 5 more "natural" candidates.

You can easily see how all this has been bound to the origin of clueless (or selective) division of a monochord, where the pattern chosen gave ♮ and ♭ and for matching a tuning those letters from the pattern got matched to organ keys.

And that was it. Just learn it that way and do not ask.
Imagine the idea that there are other instruments which have nothing in common to the layout of that organ or later cembalos\pianos.
If you think about it, they are only 12 notes. 12 letters. And you can write them by hand with a pencil on plain paper, no need for score lines at all, because those were abstraction for singers to have visual orientation (originally, then they reflected more and more the white‑black layout of "natural" keyboard, despite the fact there were other chromatic keyboards too). And they will make sense to any musician on any instrument of choice (including drums for with 12 letters you can cover a whole rock drum set + a cowbell and maybe also triangle and a gong).

[keypeg]

It is seriously a relief to come in here and see people arguing about the history of music notation. I'm not kidding or being sarcastic. Seriously.

I totally 100% get what you're saying and agree totally.  Seriously.

[brogers70]

I totally 100% get what you're saying and agree totally.  Seriously.

Thanks, I figured somebody would know what I meant.

[balabolka]

Here you can see how the German keyboards (earliest to adopt chromatic keys) looked like:
• can you spot the h (♮) and the b (♭) keys?
Arguably, such keyboard (manuals) were from year 1361 although this illustration is in a book from year 1619.
Please, note that the manual's and pedals' compass in this organ start from… h as the lowest note (key from the left side).

• The full compass of chromatic modern keyboard is illustrated in the work of Henri Zwolle in year 1430. They all followed this A, B, C mapping and no one explains why and how is this right.

The interesting thing with Henri's design is that his range starts from what is known as h (key) and his index of the notes starts from that h (not A, not C).

Mind you that later some clavichords were typically starting from C as the lowest note and some from H with a few from F, not A.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clavichord

Another interesting fact is that his proportions started with equal widths and he encountered the usual problem still present in todays pianos and such keyboards → they are not proportionally correct (see the broken lines and the shifting front of white keys to the left). That is another issue inherited till our modern times but it is off‑topic so let's leave it.

[keypeg]

Thanks, I figured somebody would know what I meant.

One only has to turn on the news, esp. in certain quarters. 

However the current spewings of verbosity back and forth does a huge disservice for members here, especially learners, and is harmful in its own right.  The flooding of endless "stuff" in either area is harmful even if less.  Any student at the beginning, for example, needs clarity - not the opposite, and also positivity.

[balabolka]

However the current spewing of verbosity back and forth does a huge disservice for members here, especially learners.
Any student at the beginning, for example, needs clarity - not the opposite, and also positivity.

I completely agree. AI nonsense should be restricted.

[newbie2]

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)

I understand your question:  Why is the note A located where it is on the piano?  Or as Mr. A puts it: 'What am I doing here?"  I also agree that this is more or less related to the forum thread silph started 11 years ago.

At the end of the video posted, you say something like: "In the next video I will share some of the best answers on the subject."  You also say (as quoted above) "If you'd like to share your opinion or knowledge as answers to this question, please, do so!"

Are you looking for answers from others so you can put them in your video?  Or have you already researched this and you have answers given by experts? 

Why don't you post part 2 now?  Would it be better to wait for part 2 to come out before debating this further?

[balabolka]

Conventions ≠ dogma.
They are agreements for coordination, like:
Time signatures
Key signatures
Tuning standards
You are free to question them—but they exist because they work, not because people stopped thinking.

Indeed, I completely agree conventions are good when they can be shown, expressed and understood. Of course, vibrations (cycles) per second depend on the definition of what is a second (of time as a time unit). You get my point, how all these modern (fairly) conventions can be traced back and although not quite comprehended (such as electricity is not as well) we can accept it.

But here is a convention (rather dumb indeed) which I will not be able to accept: the naming and pseudo‑order of the months of the year. I am sure you know what I am talking about, especially since we have 12 months (does it ring a bell how it can be relevant to Music notes) and December is the end of the year (therefore it is the 12 month) but… its name means the 10th month. So, you know from Latin Sept = 7, Oct = 8, Nov = 9, Dec = 10. We can agree something is off here. And it is off by 2.

This is not the same as the arbitrary "convention" the note A as assigned to that particular key on a piano but is analogue to it. It was just one example we just accepted because some emperors wanted certain months of the year to be named after them. It reminds me of many such personal choices and predilection. 

Oh, but who cares, right? Just names from Latin based sequences.
July to be September, December to be Duecember.
No, I say name them after zodiac or animal creatures. Oh, wait… they were!
Why is always those "Latin" ignorant but """important""" individuals who had to mismatch everything and tell us to take it for granted?!

[newbie2]

Why is always those "Latin" ignorant but """important""" individuals who had to mismatch everything and tell us to take for granted?!

Rachael Ray (American cookbook author) was upset that red cabbage is called red cabbage since it is actually purple in color.  So she started calling it purple cabbage.  Instead of calling it October, maybe we should all start calling it December?

Mr. A might say "What am I doing here?"
But let's think about what Mr. T might say in this situation.  "I pity the fool!" 

[balabolka]

Mr. A might say "What am I doing here?"
But let's think about what Mr. T might say in this situation.  "I pity the fool!" 

Yeah, and in Japan they call the green traffic light... blue light.

We are the fools. They were the dummy ones but with authority. To be honest even in our times it is quite similar.

[balabolka]

Disclaimer:
This is my personal speculative view. I do not have a 'Time machine' so I could not possibly know whether it happened like this or that.
Also no AI bot has been used or abused to write this below.
_______________________________________________

We are in 9th, 10th century. The Roman empire is long gone. It actually turned or split into those Church\Churches we call today Western Catholic and Eastern Orthodox but let's not get political here.
A few monks are standing there in one such western (catholic) church in Italy wondering how to recognize those uniformly looking keys on portable organs – the musical instrument their Church adopted as sort of official for chants during mass gatherings. They knew from earlier work of Boethius, probably have heard about Hucbald and other church clerks in the centuries before, how they tried to set methodology of memorization of tunes\melodies to get matched to tuning of instruments.

No sound recordings existed, no A=440Hz, nothing like that. The only fairly stable sound "recording" was a length of a pipe or a bell. Strings of lyres\harps were not so reliable. Or maybe having a person gifted with a "perfect" relative pitch at hand (probably once in a lifetime). Yet, strings were more suitable (physically) to change tunings on the go – various lyres could be tuned on the go by hand to various tetrachords.

We are wondering how to set a more visual, therefore recording of tunings, so they can be recognized at a glance. Lines and squiggles work for specially trained into it singers with good memory and two widths of rows those lines make are ok for recognizing smaller or wider interval when singing, works for a few notes but extending it to 14, 16 notes and it quickly gets cumbersome (and "paper" exhausting), and more over our organ player might not sing whilst playing, so has to memorize (map on the go) those vocal scribbles and lines.

Expanding the range of organs makes a necessity for more tuning specific designation of notes. One quite simple solution could have been to match the width of the organ's keys to the widths of the stripes between those vocal lines (neumes). Great "on paper" (no paper as we know it that time though) but the widths of keys can not represent intervals for they (the levers\buttons) represent specific pitches (tones).

Knowing about already used tunings those monks apparently had some knowledge of Boethius maybe Alypius too or maybe Aristoxenes because they need "fast division of the monochord" (an instrument, wrongly assumed to have had only one string, whilst in fact it had several strings tuned to the same note). And those monks most likely used a one stringed monochord evident from their written dialogues. They clearly speak of various methods (ratios) to divide the monochord but what they called fast is actually the most convenient to form a tetrachord (although they never mention the term tetrachord probably because they had no correlation for it on a monochord), and a very specific tetrachord which has that special narrow pitch shift (or diatonic semi‑tone). For example, the Lydian tetrachord does not have it.

Now, here is the ignorance part. They think 8:9 as a ratio is faster. That is not true. Try to divide a string into 9 equal parts. You have to use the straight edge parallel method (or Thales intercept projection with a straight edge). The division into 3 (from the ratio 2:3) is much faster, because you do not need Thales for to divide in 3. But even with Thales it is faster. The main difference is that at the end you have to double the next second division (iteration of 2:3) to get 8:9 of the whole string. They for some ignorant reason thought 8:9 is faster. It is faster on paper as pre‑calculated from (2:3) × (2:3) × 2 = 8:9 but constructing it over (next to) a string takes much more time and costs accuracy.

Their idea was to get the semi‑tone "for free". That semi‑tone formed rather subtracted between:
[(8:9) of a previous (8:9)] and with subtracted (3:4) where () mean the original length of the whole string they called Г out of the blue that also was G, subsequently used as the G‑clef too (much later) and it probably looked like the pin (inverted L) they attached the end of the string (or tuning peg, like todays Allan wrenches).

They, though, ignorantly call the first (8:9) division A (the starting letter of Latin), because they thought that is where this division starts.
They, cluelessly, built the Ionian tetrachord (from Г or G) which indeed gives the semi‑tone for free, only if you apply (3:4) for the last fourth note (they had to name C which was the third for their division method and their alphabet).

Starting with a different tetrachord obviously is more involved into using higher ratios at the very start. Let's say you start with (8:9) but then have to use (15:16) of those (8:9). Dividing a string by 16 is a cumbersome task and was also the simple Justified tuning of Ptolemy which was not so accurate and using 15:16 early results in a shift of intervals down the line. Pythagorean 243:256 was the best choice they had and the worst to construct for obvious reasons. Did they have those tried? I do not know.

The only thing obvious is that they applied the method
(8:9), [(8:9) × (8:9)], (3:4)
without stop, clearly showing they had no idea how tetrachords were supposed to work → get overlapped (stacked) in pairs. They stacked only that formula four times. That is why unintentionally stepped into the chromatic realm (genera) and their confusion with regards to ♭ and ♮. Which led to further more confusion in Germany.

Now, let's imagine how they could have done it:
• divide the string for naming the notes (not intervals), ok
• chose your alphabet order is ignorance, actually it is arrogance (but most arrogance comes from ignorance anyway)
• ok, let it be "your" alphabet → name the string first with first letter then, why use someone else's alphabet (Greek, Cyrillic)?
• start with simple ratios 2:3 and call it B, oh but it is too far (high), it is not matching the order of notes in between of the tuned organ (lyre) at hand; apparently following your alphabet structure is important… but ignorance started it with G (Г), mind you .

This is where we are at. This has always been bothering me and although I learned it that way, I never agreed with it.
Music needs its own alphabet for all notes, not just a special tetrachord tuning. We can have all 2 of them. There is no need to invent another abstraction from old, ancient methods of recording voice movements with lines and squiggles (blobs on lines).

Ancients did it. If we adopt it, we can adapt it for today.
Oh, but my "education time", but my "teaching practice"?! I get it. It makes you look smart exercising all those ♮, ♭, ♯ doubles, talking about how it is not F♯, it is G♭.
Right… No one needs that.