本帖最后由 人人能唱 于 2016-9-26 07:23 编辑
mayasun 发表于 2016-9-24 18:15 ![]()
何又謂之什麼"字母譜"呢?
"字母谱"是流动唱名法麼?
首調與固定調是一體的兩面
沒有人不是兩者皆會的
西洋的和聲學就必採首調
為什麼要发明了流动唱名法，
才能设计出《字母谱》呢?
是什麼"人"?
何時?
發明首調
發明"字母譜"的呢?
上等老饭桶孙新财，你认得吗？你音乐大师啊！看完了给我说，是什么资料？
Many Western-trained musicians are familiar with the historical development of staff notation. However, as Scholes (1963, p.696) points out, “our present universal notation has ‘grown up’ rather than been designed, and that, moreover, its main features were fixed at a period when music was merely melodic and in other respects enormously simpler than at present. Musicians generally are so accustomed to it that they do note stop to reflect upon its defects…”. It is the serendipitous nature of its evolution that has created many problems for the teaching and learning of staff notation. The spatial representation of the two principle dimensions of music—rhythm and pitch—requires a complex system of symbols firstly to represent rhythm on the horizontal plane and secondly use of the same symbols on the vertical plane to indicate absolute pitch. In addition, there are other aspects of notation—dynamics, tempo, accentuation, etc.—that result in a highly complex visual representation of music which, particularly for the young learner, makes the acquiring of music literacy a long and often arduous process. Moreover, there is a need to have an understanding of the theory of music—scale construction, key signatures, time signatures, etc.—in order to decipher the meaning of many additional symbols that relate to the tonal and rhythmic characteristics of a musical work. Scholes (1963, p.696) points out that there have been many “bold attempts…made to reform the staff notation but they have invariably failed and probably always will do so until a change in the whole musical system brings about an unavoidable corresponding change in the methods of representing music on paper”. Nevertheless he concludes with the comment that “The only reformed notations that up to the present have ever established themselves have been certain notations for choral music. The chief of these [is]…Tonic Sol-fa.” (p.697). From a contemporary perspective, Curwen notation has several inherent advantages over staff notation for choral singing. Firstly, both the pitch and the rhythmic dimensions of melody are contained within a “single cell” as opposed to staff notation where two dimensions—vertical and horizontal—are required for the representation of melody. Although it may be argued that the vertical representation of pitch is a useful way of visualising its relate pitch position, its addition to the left to right horizontal progression of rhythm (which is common to both staff and Tonic Sol-fa)—particularly with leger lines—often makes the notational “spread” too wide for immediate visual perception. Another advantage, particularly in certain developing countries, is alluded to by Jorgensen (1994)—in countries where the written language is based on the Roman alphabet (which is also the means for representing pitch in the Curwen method), people are already familiar with alphabetical letters. This also represents a distinct advantage over the two-dimensional system of staff lines and spaces for pitch and of note and rest shapes for rhythm. Moreover, Curwen notation does not require any significant knowledge of music theory—once an understanding of pitch and rhythmic notation is achieved, no other “interpretive” information (such as a knowledge of time or key signatures) is required for realising the notation. | 
[复制链接]
楼主
发表于 2016-9-24 09:58:00
