If you’ve done any congregational singing, chances are you’ve run across something like this at some point:
Instead of customary note heads, every pitch has a unique shape. Ironically enough, a trained musician may find this system disconcerting because they may have never encountered this method of notation in any other setting. These note shapes are based on the seven basic scale degrees, and each shape represents one of those pitches.
seven shapes for seven basic pitches
A Little History
The seven shape system of notation is not very old and is usually credited to Jesse Aiken. In fact, many music manuals and notation software packages refer to these notes as Aiken Note Shapes. His 1846 book The Christian Minstrel brought shaped notes to spiritual music, and, while gaining little traction overseas, the seven-shape system became very popular in the United States – particularly in southern states. Four-shape notation can be traced a few years farther back but never gained the popularity of seven-shape notation.
In their original form, shaped notes were supposed to be self-sufficient. Aiken’s books would contain simple time signatures and no clefs or key signatures. Absolute pitch was considered unnecessary when singers could easily see the relative relationship between notes through Aiken’s system. (Remember that a capella singing was more prevalent in congregations of the 1800s than today.) Today, many hymnals use a hybrid system where absolute and relative notation is combined.
We Shall Overcome – traditional notation
We Shall Overcome – Aiken notation with clefs/key signature
Lowell Mason – a name that is probably familiar to many Christian musicians – would later seek to eliminate shaped notes from Christian hymnals, but they were too firmly entrenched. Some northern hymnal publishers have abandoned shaped notes in favor of traditional European notation, but Aiken notation is still popular among southern hymnals.
Shaped Notes’ Worth
I, for one, do not like shaped notation. I find it a distraction from what I already know about music. On the other hand, another member of the congregation I attend swears by them. He has only a small knowledge of music literacy, but he can sight-read almost any song with Aiken notation. So when are shaped notes appropriate to use and teach?
- If you’re teaching in a music curriculum, vocal or instrumental, I’d avoid shape notes altogether. Most choral music does not use them, and instrumentalists rely wholly on absolute pitch. The note shapes would provide no benefit.
- However, note shapes can be useful in teaching sight singing. In the 1950s, Gerorge H. Kyrne carried out a study that Aiken notation is more effective in teaching vocal sight-reading than traditional notation.
- If you’re writing music for professional musicians or any instrumentalists, don’t use shaped notes. They will only distract from what these musicians already know.
- If you’re writing music for congregational singing, shaped notes may be appropriate. Individual music publishers will often have the final call, but, if you are independently writing for a single congregation, check their hymnals and use the system to which they are accustomed.
Shaped notes are an interesting footnote in American music history. The Aiken notation system is one of the very few musical innovations unique to our hemisphere. While they remained limited to a specific musical culture, they enabled whole groups of people to experience and create music they might have otherwise been too daunted to try.
Though I’ve been blogging now for nearly five years (and steadfastly failing to run out of ways to put my foot in my mouth), I’m relatively new to the world of social networking. Here are the stats: I created an Epsilen ePortfolio for a graduate class in 2007 and have barely touched it since. I’ve been faithful to Twitter since I joined (also in 2007), but I’ve been very picky about who I follow. Finally, earlier this year, I joined Facebook – an event that will live in infamy with friends and relatives.
“What’s on my mind?” Do you really want to know?
I wasn’t around to experience previous versions of Facebook, so I have little point of reference; but I couldn’t help but notice striking superficial similarities between Facebook and Twitter. However, over time, I also found the focus of the two site were very different despite similar façades, and this simple difference influences how people use and react to the two sites. This is not a judgment of one site over the other – simply an assessment based on observations over the last several months.
Facebook: All About Me
Facebook takes a very me-centered approach to the site design. No one can friend me unless I approve them. I can spend all day distracting myself with games and quizzes on Facebook. I can choose to friend someone while hiding their updates, so I don’t have to be bothered by them. I set my profile to give you as much personal information as I feel comfortable. I can tell you what books, movies, TV shows, bands, etc. I like, and I look for people who are already somehow connected to me. Even the recent redesign of the Facebook News Feed reinforces this. Now, instead of being inundated by everything my friends do, I can see reduced highlights of the day.
Look at your friend count if you have a Facebook account. What percentage of them regularly comment on your statuses – even the really good videos and links you share? The impact of the me-centered approach to Facebook is that you and I can spend hours on the site without interacting with anyone else. It’s apparent that several users don’t even read others’ updates (and I’ve even gotten a few to admit that). As an anecdotal illustration, a few weeks after my wife and I finally announced our pregnancy, I had several people say something like: “When are you going to announce it on Facebook?” The kicker: we already had.
Twitter: All About You
Twitter is about as bare-bones as you can get. There is a box for your tweets, some trending topics in the sidebar, and a timeline of tweets by people you follow in the center. That’s it. You have to engage with the community to get anything at all out of Twitter. No Mafia Wars, no FarmVille, no Bejeweled Blitz, no polls – nothing exists but what other people share. You can’t even write that much. You get 140 characters (counting spaces and punctuation), so conciseness and clarity are paramount. Even your profile description is limited to 160 characters and one link.
The impact is one of community – you have to reach out to perfect strangers and take an interest in them if Twitter is to be any benefit at all. Conversation is the rule, and, chances are, a Twitter veteran will be following a large number of people he or she has never met in person. Instead of reinforcing old connections, they have used Twitter to forge new ones. This is the secret of getting the most out of Twitter – finding the perfect mix of individuals to follow, converse with, and learn from.
What Does This All Mean?
What does this mean to you when signing up for one or the other? Joining one from the other? It depends on what you are looking for, and I can’t predict how you will react to either. I have noticed some trends, though, between each community’s reaction to the other service.
- If you are coming from Facebook to Twitter, you may see Twitter as pointless and restrictive. The minimalist nature may be off-putting, and the lack of familiar faces may seem daunting. I suggest using tending topics to find individuals with similar interests when getting started. Most celebrities and business aren’t worth following.
- If you are coming from Twitter to Facebook, you may see Facebook as ultimately shallow and diversionary. You will get friend requests that make you scratch your head. (“Really? Didn’t you give me wedgies in middle school?”) You will find out things about your friends and family you’d rather they not share. It’s okay to reconnect and embrace the diversity you might not have known existed in your established social circles.
Do I prefer one over the other? Of course, but I can appreciate both for what they are. The key is understanding the differences between the sites’ designs and how those designs affect the community built within the provided space. At heart, I’m a Twitter user more than a Facebook user. I feel I can express myself more honestly on Twitter, and I benefit daily from the observations, links, advice, and quips from those I follow. I love to see my friends and family on Facebook, though, and I do try to read every update they write, visit some links, and look at their pictures. I have to admit to using Facebook a little like a second Twitter, but that doesn’t mean I can’t enjoy a “Which Beatle Are You?” quiz from time to time.
Despite being a music teacher by trade and having a great interest in general music and music theory, I don’t blog much about the topic. Perhaps I dwell on it too long throughout the day, and I use this site to escape into other avenues of interest. Perhaps I agree with the statement that “talking about music is like dancing about architecture.” Regardless of the reason, I’ve found myself looking at more than one musical topic and thinking they could make for good posts. One such topic is that of the odd creatures known as C-flat (C♭) and F-flat (F♭), E-sharp (E♯) and B-sharp (B♯).
Not misfit notes…just misunderstood.
A Little Background
To understand why C♭ is such an odd note, you have to understand a little about musical pitches, and the best way to describe this is with a keyboard. On a piano keyboard, there are black keys and white keys. The white keys are usually whole steps apart, and they get names like A, B, C, D, and so forth until you get to G. The black keys exist at half steps between those white keys; notes like G♯ and D♭ exist on the black keys.
Notice the space between E & F and B & C, however. There are no black keys between these notes – meaning they are already half steps apart. That means an F♭ is an E, and an E♯ is an F. C♭ is B and B♯ is C. (These are called enharmonic equivalents for those of you seeking to expand your vocabulary. They produce the same tone while written differently.) The question remains, however, that if these are essentially the same notes, then why bother?
Learning to Spell
One explanation for the use of enharmonic flats and sharps boils down to spelling the chord to which it belongs correctly. The basic triadic chord for A is spelled A-C-E. An A major chord is spelled A-C♯-E, and you lower the C♯ to C to make the chord A minor. Now, if your chord is an A♭ major chord, then you would lower everything by one-half step and spell it A♭-C-E♭. Lowering the third to create an A♭ minor chord would necessitate the use of a C♭ if the triadic spelling is to remain correct. This also applies to the rare usage of double-flats and double-sharps in specific keys.
In order: A major, A minor, A♭ major, A♭ minor.
If you were to substitute the C♭ with a B (its enharmonic equivalent), it would disrupt the triad spelling and create a very unusual-looking chord.
Now you might still ask, “What does it matter so long as both spelling sound the same?” Yes, they do sound the same. So do their and they’re, yet we wouldn’t advocate interchanging them in writing because of their phonetic similarities. Correct spelling in music matters as much as it does in prose.
Where Are You Going?
The other reason for using these unusual notes is a bit more subtle and a little psychological. It has to do with voice leading – the way notes move from one pitch to another. In any given key signature, when you raise a pitch by using an accidental, you are creating upward voice leading. That pitch should continue moving upward. The opposite is true if you lower a pitch using an accidental.
I’m going to stay in A♭ major for the next couple examples.
Pay attention to the notes in the box. By adding a natural sign to the B on the second beat of measure two, we create an upward leading phrase. The next pitch, however, is lower, disrupting the flow of the voice leading. It’s the musical equivalent of saying, “I am going to a movie yesterday.” I am going leads the reader to expect a given time-frame – later, tomorrow, next week etc. The word yesterday disrupts that expectation. Resolving a raised pitch downwards (or a lowered pitch upwards) creates the same level of cognitive dissonance.
Instead, the passage should have been written this way:
Now, using the C♭, the overall chord will be spelled correctly when put in context of the other parts, and the performer sees correct leading. The lowered C naturally will draw the performer in a descending pattern. Likewise, the upward leading of F♯ and C♯ become very important in some minor scales and a few modal scales.
Coda
It may seem a small thing, but notes like C♭ and E♯ (as well as those double-flats and double-sharps I didn’t include in this post) serve a purpose in writing music correctly. Both in voice leading and in chord spelling, it may be necessary to use a note whose enharmonic equivalent seems simpler at first blush. Despite their auditory sameness with those equivalents, these misunderstood notes are important composing with musical integrity.
President Obama’s recognition by the Norwegian Nobel Committee for a Nobel Peace Prize earlier today was somewhat surprising. I personally thought, among Americans, Bill Clinton had a shot with his success at bringing two captive journalists home from North Korea without resorting to violence. Even the president himself found the award surprising:
Well, this is not how I expected to wake up this morning. After I received the news, Malia walked in and said, “Daddy, you won the Nobel Peace Prize, and it is Bo’s birthday!”…I am both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the Nobel Committee. Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments…
Some observers like Republican Senator John McCain and Norwegian Conservative Party leader Erna Solberg feel that the prize was awarded more on expectations than actual accomplishments. I do think, however, that some of the steps Obama has already taken in his first year as president played a role in his recognition.
Progress Towards Peace
According to the will of Alfred Nobel the Peace Prize is to be awarded to: “the person who shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses.” So what has Obama done in this regard?
- He has put into motion the closing of Guantanamo Bay’s prison facility – a location that had become a worldwide symbol of humanitarian abuses. He has also moved to bar other CIA black sites.
- He is putting an end to the torture programs instituted under the cloud of 9/11.
- He is ending our involvement in a war based on vengeance, misinformation, and, quite frankly, greed.
- He has ended years of saber-rattling and has successfully engaged Iran in nuclear talks.
- He has changed the tone the United States government takes toward other nations in the international arena.
- Despite political risks, he has distanced himself from the U.S. government’s decades-long subservience to Israel.
- He has refrained from knee-jerk military responses to political unrest in other parts of the world (most notably Iran and Honduras).
- He has ended outdated and ineffective American visitation restrictions on Cuba.
Like it or not, our government has done much in recent years to undermine their own credibility and respectability. Obama is trying to turn that around. It’s no coincidence that, between 2008 and 2009, the United States has moved from seventh to first in the NBI survey of respected nations – including opinions from 20,000 people in 20 countries of diverse economic and political backgrounds.
Far to Go
There are still over three (probably seven) years to go in President Obama’s term, though, and much can change. If George W. Bush was judged solely on the mercy and support he demonstrated toward Africa, he would be remembered as a humanitarian president and a promoter of peace. President Obama could likewise undermine his own efforts in the coming months and years.
Afghanistan will be a large factor in his legacy. Will he be able to turn a military situation into a humanitarian effort? I see no evidence of this happening, especially with the recent civilian death-tolls in that conflict. Since our military presences in Afghanistan and Iraq began, some 41,000 enemy soldiers have been killed. Roughly 700,000 civilians have been killed. This works out to about 17 civilians wrongfully killed for every one enemy combatant. (This also works out to about 250 times the number of people killed in 9/11.) Our occupations have become humanitarian disasters.
Additionally, to truly deserve this award, I think Obama needs to suspend the practice of detaining non-U.S. citizens without rights or cause. (I’m looking at you Bagram.) He should dismantle abuse of civil liberties called the Patriot Act and increase transparency and accountability for potential war crimes our nation’s government has tacitly approved in the past.
It’s yet to be seen whether this award will be remembered like Yasser Arafat’s, which highlighted a moment of peaceful efforts amidst a lifetime of approving violence, or more like Mother Theresa’s, which typified a life of service and relief to the destitute and disenfranchised. Perhaps, President Obama’s international legacy will be somewhere in the middle. Only time will tell. I do hope, however, that this honor stirs our president to more good works – looking more for opportunities for peace and mercy than the warlike posturing for which our nation is infamous.
This must be the most adorable science experiment ever.
