# is there a way to pronounce flat and sharp notes with a single syllable?



## norman bates

Maybe it's a weird request, but I think it would be useful to have instead of c flat/c sharp, d flat/d sharp, e flat/e sharp etc single syllables to pronounce those notes, especially to memorize scales/chords/arpeggios and solfège in general.


----------



## Nate Miller

try looking further into solfege. the "do-re-mi-fa" stuff is developed just for that. there are syllables like "Ti" and Te" for the accidentals and all that.

I learned a different system in music school, but I've worked with players that learned solfege and I think that would suit you down to the ground

the alternative, which is how I learned, is to use the number of the scale degree and sing the pitch sharp or flat to suit the scale.

I think solfege syllables will work better for you


----------



## mbhaub

Indeed there is. Use German. Here's a handy chart. You'll see that English, French, Italian and Spanish all have multiple syllables for some notes. German, true to their legendary efficiency, have one.

The names of keys in French, German, Italian, and Spanish | Yale University Library


----------



## Kreisler jr

I was about so suggest the German names although I think it is a historical accident that has little to do with the efficiency that, I also fear, has become "legendary" in the literal sense by now.


----------



## norman bates

Nate Miller said:


> try looking further into solfege. the "do-re-mi-fa" stuff is developed just for that. there are syllables like "Ti" and Te" for the accidentals and all that.
> 
> I learned a different system in music school, but I've worked with players that learned solfege and I think that would suit you down to the ground
> 
> the alternative, which is how I learned, is to use the number of the scale degree and sing the pitch sharp or flat to suit the scale.
> 
> I think solfege syllables will work better for you


the italian do-re-mi-fa has exactly the same problem of the english counterpart, actually it's even worse because "diesis" and "bemolle" are even longer to pronounce than sharp or flat.


----------



## norman bates

mbhaub said:


> Indeed there is. Use German. Here's a handy chart. You'll see that English, French, Italian and Spanish all have multiple syllables for some notes. German, true to their legendary efficiency, have one.
> 
> The names of keys in French, German, Italian, and Spanish | Yale University Library


thank you, german seems to be the only one that could work. I knew they had H instead of b but I didn't know all the notes were that short. 
Well, that probably explains the superiority of german music


----------



## EdwardBast

There is a system in which do-flat is da, do-sharp is di, re-flat is ra, re-sharp is ri, and so on.


----------



## norman bates

EdwardBast said:


> There is a system in which do-flat is da, do-sharp is di, re-flat is ra, re-sharp is ri, and so on.


Interesting, actually even better for me because I'm italian. The strange thing is that when I was studying solfege I never heard of it. And I'm struggling to find something about it even on google.
And it would be helpful to know the names for the other notes too onestly

c flat: da
c: do
c sharp: di
d flat: ra
d: re
d sharp: ri
e flat:? 
e: mi
e sharp: ?
f flat: ?
f: fa
f sharp: fi?
g flat: ?
g: sol
g sharp: ?
a flat: ?
a: la
a sharp: ?
b flat: ?
b: si
b sharp: ?


----------



## Nate Miller

EdwardBast said:


> There is a system in which do-flat is da, do-sharp is di, re-flat is ra, re-sharp is ri, and so on.



that's the system I was trying to suggest. I just dont know what its called if not "solfege". I didn't learn that system, but I have a pianist friend that learned that way and that's how he does it. He accompanies a lot of singers, and I've been around when he's working with vocalists and been thinking "man, I wish they would have taught us that way when I was in school"


----------



## Bwv 1080

Solfège uses e then a for flat and i for sharp after e- so do ra re ri(me) mi fa fi(se) sol etc

as a bonus these are all legit scrabble words


----------



## EdwardBast

norman bates said:


> Interesting, actually even better for me because I'm italian. The strange thing is that when I was studying solfege I never heard of it. And I'm struggling to find something about it even on google.
> And it would be helpful to know the names for the other notes too onestly
> 
> c flat: da
> c: do
> c sharp: di
> d flat: ra
> d: re
> d sharp: ri
> e flat: *ma?*
> e: mi
> e sharp: ?
> f flat: ?
> f: fa
> f sharp: fi? Yes
> g flat: ? sa
> g: sol
> g sharp: si
> a flat: le
> a: la
> a sharp: li
> b flat: ta
> b: si
> b sharp: ?


What I learned — I'm not sure where, maybe in an ear training/sight singing unit? — was, I believe, an expanded form of a movable do system. I've put in what I remember on your chart in red. If the standard syllable ended in "a", the flat form would use e. So la-flat was le. Ti flat was ta but I never heard ti#, or mi# being used.


----------



## norman bates

EdwardBast said:


> What I learned — I'm not sure where, maybe in an ear training/sight singing unit? — was, I believe, an expanded form of a movable do system. I've put in what I remember on your chart in red. If the standard syllable ended in "a", the flat form would use e. So la-flat was le. Ti flat was ta but I never heard ti#, or mi# being used.


thank you, altough... are you sure about g sharp being si? I mean, b is already si.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

EdwardBast said:


> There is a system in which do-flat is da, do-sharp is di, re-flat is ra, re-sharp is ri, and so on.


Why do you need separate syllables for c-sharp and D-flat which are enharmonically equivalent? I mean, wouldn't it make sense, from a purely tonal or phonetic standpoint, to have one syllable for what is essentially one sound. It is only in the context of written music (notation) that diatonic spelling matters.


----------



## pianozach

norman bates said:


> Interesting, actually even better for me because I'm italian. The strange thing is that when I was studying solfege I never heard of it. And I'm struggling to find something about it even on google.
> And it would be helpful to know the names for the other notes too onestly
> 
> c flat: da
> c: do
> c sharp: di
> d flat: ra
> d: re
> d sharp: ri
> e flat:?
> e: mi
> e sharp: ?
> f flat: ?
> f: fa
> f sharp: fi?
> g flat: ?
> g: sol
> g sharp: ?
> a flat: ?
> a: la
> a sharp: ?
> b flat: ?
> b: si
> b sharp: ?


Right on. Chromatic *Solfege* clearly has single syllables for all white notes and black notes.

Since I've now transitioned to accompanying choirs I've had to learn *Solfege*. We use *Moveable Do*, and *Moveable Do* for relative Minor keys as well. (BUT "Fixed" Do and "La"-based Minor is "a thing" for some music educators and musicians, but as near as I can figure, THOSE systems are no longer as popular as they used to be.)

So, yes, *Do-Re-Mi-Fa-So-La-Ti-Do* (I think that the _Ti_ may be an American thing, in other countries it may still be a more traditional "_Si_").

The Chromatic scale is different for the _Ascending_ Chromatic Scale (where you use _sharped_ notes) than it is for the _Descending_ Chromatic Scale (where you use _flat_ notes).

So, the *Ascending Chromatic Solfege* is *Do-Di-Re-Ri, Mi, Fa-Fi-So-Si-La-Li, Ti, Do*,

While the *Descending Chromatic Solfege* is *Do, Ti-Te-La-Le-So-Se, Fa, Mi-Me-Re-Ra, Do*.










The top row is *sharp Solfege*, while the bottom row is *flat solfege*.

AND, there are *hand signs* for every single one of these.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Denerah Bathory said:


> Why do you need separate syllables for c-sharp and D-flat which are enharmonically equivalent? I mean, wouldn't it make sense, from a purely tonal or phonetic standpoint, to have one syllable for what is essentially one sound. It is only in the context of written music (notation) that diatonic spelling matters.


C sharp and Db are different entities in tonal music. You would never refer to a chromatically altered leading tone with a flat or a lowered 7th with a sharp, for example


----------



## pianozach

Bwv 1080 said:


> C sharp and Db are different entities in tonal music. You would never refer to a chromatically altered leading tone with a flat or a lowered 7th with a sharp, for example


*Quite right*.

In my previous comment I failed to mention that the *solfege* designation for flat or sharp is also dependent on the tonal functionality of the moment in the music.


----------



## norman bates

Denerah Bathory said:


> Why do you need separate syllables for c-sharp and D-flat which are enharmonically equivalent? I mean, wouldn't it make sense, from a purely tonal or phonetic standpoint, to have one syllable for what is essentially one sound. It is only in the context of written music (notation) that diatonic spelling matters.


that's true for enharmonic instruments but in general flats and sharps are different (I think that if you take two notes, you could divide that interval in nine commas, and a flat should be four commas below a note and and a sharp five commas above a note? But onestly I'm not sure I remember it correctly). Then of course in the equal temperament system I don't know how it matters, but I think that in certain context a voice or a violin could show the difference between a flat note, a sharp note and something that it's just a frequency that it's just perfectly in between a note and another.


----------



## hammeredklavier

Denerah Bathory said:


> Why do you need separate syllables for c-sharp and D-flat which are enharmonically equivalent? I mean, wouldn't it make sense, from a purely tonal or phonetic standpoint, to have one syllable for what is essentially one sound. It is only in the context of written music (notation) that diatonic spelling matters.


They have the exact same pitch on the keyboard in equal temperament, but slightly different pitches on, say, (unfretted) string instruments in just intonation.


----------



## Denerah Bathory

hammeredklavier said:


> They have the exact same pitch on the keyboard in equal temperament, but slightly different pitches on, say, string instruments in just intonation.


How can there be different pitches for the same note? I don't get the logic in that


----------



## Denerah Bathory

Bwv 1080 said:


> C sharp and Db are different entities in tonal music. You would never refer to a chromatically altered leading tone with a flat or a lowered 7th with a sharp, for example


That only applies to written music as I've said before! In terms of actual sound there is no difference. If I had my back turned and someone played those "two notes" on a piano, I would say C sharp and D flat are the same tone. It's only when you write tonal music that it matters, when you're discussing intervals, which is not what the OP had in mind, they just wanted to enunciate the tones.


----------



## Bwv 1080

Denerah Bathory said:


> That only applies to written music as I've said before! In terms of actual sound there is no difference. If I had my back turned and someone played those "two notes" on a piano, I would say C sharp and D flat are the same tone. It's only when you write tonal music that it matters, when you're discussing intervals, which is not what the OP had in mind, they just wanted to enunciate the tones.


They would be completely different given a particular tonal / harmonic context. If I play an A minor chord then a G# vs a Bb chord then an Ab, any educated listener would name the notes properly


----------



## hammeredklavier

Denerah Bathory said:


> How can there be different pitches for the same note? I don't get the logic in that


----------



## pianozach

Denerah Bathory said:


> That only applies to written music as I've said before! In terms of actual sound there is no difference. If I had my back turned and someone played those "two notes" on a piano, I would say C sharp and D flat are the same tone. It's only when you write tonal music that it matters, when you're discussing intervals, which is not what the OP had in mind, they just wanted to enunciate the tones.





Denerah Bathory said:


> How can there be different pitches for the same note? I don't get the logic in that


C# and Db are only the same pitch on a piano and other instruments that have fixed pitches.

For a cappella choral work, the Even-Tempered scale isn't necessarily used, because it is inherently out-of-pitch, or so I'm told. You see, I grew up playing piano, so that Even-Tempered scale is IN MY HEAD as being "in tune". But, evidently, the equal temperament scale MOST of us are familiar with, is actually a compromise to allow for the convenience of being able to play every tune in any key.

Scales: Just vs Equal Temperament 

*



*


----------



## EdwardBast

Denerah Bathory said:


> Why do you need separate syllables for c-sharp and D-flat which are enharmonically equivalent? I mean, wouldn't it make sense, from a purely tonal or phonetic standpoint, to have one syllable for what is essentially one sound. It is only in the context of written music (notation) that diatonic spelling matters.


In a movable do system the syllables mean more than just the pitch. They are applied according to function within (or out of) the key.


----------



## bagpipers

The more profound question is does it really matter?


----------

