Hi friends, Yes this should now be labelled OT! I don't subscribe to the OT list so I want to speak here (and will come back to the actual software of Logic eventually!) Re the solfa, solfege, solfeggio system, fixed doh, movable doh. "Bart Rademakers" <bartr@...> said <in use with advantages of both syllable AND letters; i.e., syllables BASED <on the <letters. Thus, you have Cis instead of C-sharp, Bes instead of B-flat. <Especially in [fast] solfege/singing this works great! I like this very much. Real letter names with accidentals, singable as one syllable! Unfortunately, completely foreign to the English speaking world. I'm very tempted to try to introduce it to my students though. Here in Australia educators usually either wrestle with unsingable note names (the second phrase of Ornithology becomes d g a bb c d e f etc with bb throwing the rhythm out completely) or with numbers which also have rhythmic problems (seven, not to mention chord extensions) and enforce a tonal centre which may not always last or be there at all. (How would a student sing Joyspring by Clifford Brown?) Bart's system (I know it's not his really) allows for absolute pitch irrespective of major key. "Sascha Franck" <saschafranck@...> said <So, let's assume you want to <sing C-C#-D (or, in scale steps, 1-#1-2), what would this be like? <"Do - Do dièze - Re" surely wouldn't be too easy, plus, again following <Barts explanation, those "indices" (the "dièze") aren't included in the <classical solfege system but just in the modern, absolute variation of it. Well no they are not but in the Italian form, and I think the French that "Earl Kent" <efk3@...> alluded to the syllables are di ri fi si li sharp do re mi fa so la ti do natural ra ma sa lo ta flat It is even possible to cater for Fb and B# etc, although I don't know how double sharps and double flats could be sung. Of course these are only a consequence of tonal systems which I am trying to sidestep if I can. "Sascha Franck" <saschafranck@...> also raises a fair objection to any fixed or absolute pitch system. <Would make a melody, sung in C, sounding pretty much <different <then the same melody in the key of Db. and <Anyways, if you ask me, it's a real pitty that there is no fully chromatical <but relative system of singing notes/scalesteps ("1-5-b3" surely makes no <vocal sense). Fair enough, but this is exactly how and why the movable doh system (with the chromatic variations above) is used. "Earl Kent" <efk3@...> said <>Also this system is not used as a relative system anymore but as an <absolute <>system. > <snipped quote from Sascha (I think) < <It's actually still used both ways. "Absolute Do" more in europe; "Relative <Do", more in the US. < << It's beyond my knowledge what they use for flats and sharps though. <> <>Sascha < <All the flat and sharp positions also have syllable names. For instance b3, <b6 and b7 are represented by Me, Le and Te. <As a middle school, high school choral director, I like to use both numbers <and letters. I use numbers when teaching theory, and syllables when <practicing sight singing, (they role better off the tongue). < <EIII Earl is hinting at the system I have outlined above. I teach in higher education, but as I say there is no Australian tradition of fixed doh solfa and very little of movable doh so I also use numbers for tonal music, and letters for any music. I really want my students to be familiar with sounds they can sing, which is all I would really use solfa for. I don't want to write music in it or use it all the time, but really just teach scales, intervals, chords, tunes, etc. The history of all this is quite interesting going back to Guido d'Arezzo In the 11th century who devised several mnemonic systems for monks to learn chants. The Hymn to St John gives us the basic syllables. Each line begins a note higher in the scale and the lines begin with the syllables ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la respectively. Sarah Glover and John Curwen promoted the movable doh system in Britain (which is probably why it is so favoured in Oz). Kodaly took it up in Hungary and spread it through Europe. Carl Orff also adopted it but favoured the fixed doh system. In Australia there are Orff-Kodaly institutes which have hybridised the solfa system but have have favoured movable doh. What has this to do with Logic and music software? Emagic already sell Hearmaster which can analyse chords, but Logic doesn't. Why not? Band-in-a Box can pint chords using what it calls the Nashville system, which is essentially a relative numeric system. Why couldn't Logic? Logic can already move between the German system of notation and the English (or whatever it is). How much harder could a solfa translation be. I stress again that I don't want this for most music, but our European (and I gather from my students, South American) friends may well find this invaluable. How about it Emagic? Thanks for your patience in an absurdly long OT post, Peter --------------------------------------------------------- Cyberdog ---A Product of Apple Computer, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------- Peter Nixon pnixon@... home +61 8 8235 9570 peter.nixon@... work +61 8 8207 9874 www.adelaide.net.au/~pnixon