5

The solfege syllables (ut, re, mi, fa, sol, la, si) come from St. John's Hymn, in which the lyrics of the first verse go as:

Ut queant laxis

Resonare fibris

Mira gestorum

Famuli tuorum

Solve polluti

Labii reatum

Sancte Ioannes

The first six syllables - ut, re, mi, fa, sol, and la, are built on scale degrees 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 respectively. But the first note of the seventh line is scale degree 5.

enter image description here

In fact, the 7th note of the scale isn't found anywhere in the hymn.

1 Answers1

5

The tune itself is from the 11th century - if not before. It was probably plagiarised from a folk tune from much earlier. It was hexatonic, and as such had only the first six note names. It was used as a convenient way to teach music notes at the time.

Ut was changed to Do, as it was an easier sound to sing, and Si didn't get added until the 18th century. It was then changed to Ti, so each note could be represented by a different letter. So already existed, therefore Si became Ti.

Tim
  • 183,051
  • 16
  • 181
  • 444
  • If Si didn't get added till 18c, then why/how did the medieval church modes have the note Si in it? –  Aug 16 '20 at 14:41
  • 1
    Saint John was in the song, but no note name was dedicated to him - till later. – Tim Aug 16 '20 at 15:35
  • 2
    And there was no letter J in Latin, so Saint John was written Sanctus Ioannes. The initial letters - SI - were used for the seventh note. – Old Brixtonian Aug 16 '20 at 15:47
  • 1
    Side note regarding ***ut*** having evolved into ***do***: In the Greek scale, ***gamma*** was at the bottom, with ***ut*** at the top. That's why we refer to a whole collection as a ***gamut***. Also, the Guidonian Hand (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guidonian_hand) is the first known Western solfege, introduced by Guido of Arezzo, an Italian music theorist in the 11th century. – Howlium Aug 16 '20 at 19:08
  • 2
    By the way, the seventh syllable is Si when you use fixed Do; Ti for movable Do. Saint John's Hymn, above, has Ut on a G, so it's movable Do. They would have used Ti, if that syllable had existed then. Funny then, that they named Si after him. – Howlium Aug 16 '20 at 19:20
  • 2
    KotoriMinami the medieval church modes *didn't* have *si.* @Howlium the medieval system of solmization is quite distinct from movable do. It is a system of eight pitch classes with letter names juxtaposed against a system of overlapping hexachords with names *ut* through *la.* Ut, above, is on C (the clef is an F clef). Your account of the etymology of *gamut* is also incorrect. There was no *ut* in Greek music theory, for example, and ut was never at the top. Rather, the lowest note in Guido's system is both gamma (letter name) and ut (solmization of the first hexachord). – phoog Aug 16 '20 at 20:13
  • 1
    @Howlium the note above *gamma ut* is *A re,* but the notes an octave higher are *g sol re ut* and *a la mi re.* It's all in the Wikipedia article you linked to above. – phoog Aug 16 '20 at 20:21
  • So Tim, in this view, is my question like "why isn't there a zero digit in Roman numerals?" –  Aug 17 '20 at 03:18
  • 2
    What is going on with name changing? – Tim Aug 17 '20 at 06:10
  • @Tim what are yuu talking aboute? –  Aug 17 '20 at 07:13
  • @Tim and why do you have the highest rep on this community? –  Aug 17 '20 at 07:13
  • It was only going to be a matter of time... – Tim Aug 17 '20 at 07:18
  • @C-Dm-Em-F-G-Am-Bdim7overD you're asking questions as if the hymn was written to reflect music theory, or perhaps as if music theory was devised to match the hymn. The more likely reality, however, is that the hymn was chosen because of a coincidental usefulness to music theory. In that respect, the absence of *B* in the hymn isn't quite like the absence of zero in Roman numerals. The absence of *si* in music theory may be seen as somewhat analogous to the absence of zero in mathematical theory, but it does not explain the absence of *B* in the hymn. – phoog Aug 17 '20 at 16:51
  • @phoog - the OP has just come off a 1 yr suspension, and appears to have earned himself another similar, so maybe that's an end to it. – Tim Aug 17 '20 at 17:25
  • @Tim actually it appears that the account is a new account created by the same person to get around a 1-year suspension before it had run its course. The account is only a few days old. The former account (Maika Sakuranomiya) has been deleted (it is now user53472). – phoog Aug 17 '20 at 22:54