Re: A note on notes (John Croft )

Subject: Re: A note on notes
From:    John Croft  <mfmxhjcc(at)STUD.MAN.AC.UK>
Date:    Thu, 10 May 2001 22:53:14 +0100

on 11/5/01 0:21, Bruno Repp at repp(at)ALVIN.HASKINS.YALE.EDU wrote: > I would > like to suggest that, in scientific articles or exchanges on > music-related subjects, the word "note" not be used when referring to > sounds. Although this usage is common in everyday language (and > sometimes hard to avoid, I admit), the term "note" should refer only > to a printed symbol on paper. The audible consequence of playing a > note on an instrument is a tone. This is an Americanism -- possibly from deriving from the influence of the German "ton" -- hence the use of "12-tone music" in the US and "12-note music" in the UK. I agree that it would be helpful to distinguish the sound from the printed symbol, but in British English the term "tone" refers to an interval (equal to two semitones, American "whole-tone"), so this seems an undesirable way to draw this distinction for speakers of British English. John _______________________________________

This message came from the mail archive
maintained by:
DAn Ellis <>
Electrical Engineering Dept., Columbia University