<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<font face="Calibri">The situation in 18th-century France was
slightly more complex because the solmisation then had seven
syllables (including *si*). <br>
<br>
The French had tricks to decide where to place the syllables.
There were basically two, the rule of the *si* – that the "last
sharp" (in the signature) and any accidental sharp was to be sung
*si* –; and the rule of the *fa* – that the "last flat" and any
accidental one was to be sung *fa*. Oddly enough, these rules
apply both in major and in minor: they place *ut* as the tonic in
major and *la* (or *re* if a flat is missing in the signature) as
the tonic in minor. The singer could begin singing straight away,
but did not know whether he sang in major or in minor, i.e.
whether *ut* or *la* (or *re*) was the tonic. Also, there was no
need to look at the clef, which singers disdained as a device for
instrumentalists.<br>
<br>
French theories of the time (e.g. Rameau's *Traité*) must be read
keeping this in mind. When Rameau says that it is difficult to
know the key of a piece, he means precisely that: one readily
knows its solmisation, but one does not know which syllable is the
tonic. He therefore suggests notating the key before the clef. And
the treatises about "transposition" usually are mere treatises of
solmisation, stating the rules of the *si* and of the *fa*, which
allow to sing "au naturel" independently of the key (i.e. the
"transposition") in which the piece is written. François Campion
describes the two forms of the minor as "layen" (tonic *la*) and
"réyen" (tonic *re*).<br>
<br>
The problem with this system, of which the consequences are still
dearly felt in our classes today, is that, as Campion explains,
any "diéze extraordinaire" (accidental sharp) brings about a
modulation – indeed, it displaces the *si*. Our students today
still tend to view modulations everywhere. And Schenker wrote (I
don't remember where) that the French are like the blinds: they
follow the wall with their hand and feel any asperity.<br>
<br>
I don't know when one changed from *ut* to *do*. It must have been
at some point in the second half of the 19th century. At any rate,
nobody would say *ut* today.<br>
<br>
</font>Nicolas Meeùs<br>
Université Paris-Sorbonne<br>
<font face="Calibri"><br>
<br>
</font>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 14/07/2012 03:46, Robert O
Gjerdingen a écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:17977BE0-DCC3-4CC9-851B-1FA96A646B0C@northwestern.edu"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=ISO-8859-1">
<br>
<div>
<div>On Jul 12, 2012, at 12:23 PM, Nicolas Meeùs wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><font face="Calibri">The
solmisation syllables have long been used, in the French
tradition, as ...solmisation syllables. The conversion to
fixed-do solfège, in France, was not performed before the
middle or the second half of the 18th century. Movable-do
remained in (diminishing) usage at least until the
creation of the Paris Conservatoire around 1798.<br>
<br>
</font></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Nicolas is correct about the situation in France, but for
American readers there may be some confusion in his particular
use of the term "moveable do." In Anglo-American contexts, this
usually means the systems developed in Victorian England, where
"do" equals "tonic." Various earlier, continental systems going
back to Guido himself moved "Do" (or Ut), and note-names
reflected that fluidity until the middle of the nineteenth
century in many places within the "Romance tradition." But in
those systems "Do" did not equal "tonic." "Mi," for instance,
was not "3"; it meant a tone with a half-step above it and a
whole-step below it. So almost every sharped tone was a "Mi"
regardless of scale degree.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I assume that several subsequent messages will be triggered
by the lure of talking about solfège systems. It may be worth
mentioning that the flavor of a solfège system may matter less
than the age of the student to whom it is applied. College-age
students are "adult learners," which is why they may have
considerable difficulty learning any type of second language.
Adult learners of solfège (of any system) become about as
proficient in solfège as adult learners of beginning violin
become as violinists (which is to say, not very proficient). On
the other hand, almost any system taught to receptive children
over a period of many years will produce truly impressive
results.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Best wishes,</div>
<div>Bob Gjerdingen</div>
<div>Northwestern Univ.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
Smt-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org">http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>