• TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
    Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
    Join freeLog in
    Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.

Solfege - What's the Point?

all i know, is that i took Piano lessons for 10 years, NEVER using the letters method, only solfege.

Pros: My band directors and fellow musicians say i have by far the best ear they've ever seen (herd?)

Cons: it took me about a year to transition from solfege to letters.


in my experience, solfege is also EXTREMELY good training to improvise. (with your Soul, not mind.)
 
so! most simply, solfege works for systems of music where there are a small number of pitches (7), and where the value of those pitches can change. the use of accidentals, picardy thirds, and eventually the chromatic scale in western music rendered the solfege system useless (because each note has its own name, rather than being a scale step to be shifted over a range).

There is such thing, you know, as chromatic solfege. Every note in the gamut has a solfege syllable associated with it.

There are further advantages for Fixed Do, involving transposition at sight of written instrumental parts (score reading anyone?), use of movable clefs, and genuine development of a much increased sensitivity to key area as a means for understanding form. I have found Moveable Do, in a certain sense, turns the world into a single octave of C Major/A minor. Not a good thing, IMHO.

You see, you are proselytizing fixed do here for a lot of reasons which are entirely valid, but I don't really understand how on Earth fixed do could help with transposition versus moveable do. Recognizing patterns between keys is important to ear training, and having 12 (really, 15) ways of singing the same thing for any given pattern doesn't seem very conducive to understanding that at fundamental level they are all the same thing. If you don't know precisely what pitch a dictation starts on with fixed do, is it even possible to sing back the dictation? Moveable do teaches the relationships between notes, fixed do simply teaches the notes. The latter expedites sight-reading, I'll definitely agree with you there, but in terms of giving you the inner workings of training your ear to an equal-tempered system, I doubt it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: design
There is such thing, you know, as chromatic solfege. Every note in the gamut has a solfege syllable associated with it.

thats true, but the point i was making was that solfege, western or otherwise, evolves from modal systems of music. the chromatic solfege, although technically in existence, meant nothing until western music moved away from its modal tradition

bigthemat - perfect example, gamelan music is a system where a solfege natural developed, due to the fact that scales consist of either 5 or 7 notes.

jim carr - haVIC5 raises a good point. although it would be possible to apply a fixed 'do' to any chromatic music, it would not be practical. solfege is about the relation to the root, and if the music modulates and there's a new root every 2, 3, or 4 beats...well it gets complicated.
 
I have my own theories but let's see what others have to say

I have no doubt that it's useful for singing but how does it help one's bass playing?

go

Didn't read this whole thread, but...

Key-neutral, and faster than saying "Flat third," etc. Makes it easier to communicate with other musicians, and also trains your ear. Hope this helps.
 
  • Like
Reactions: design
...You see, you are proselytizing fixed do here for a lot of reasons which are entirely valid, but I don't really understand how on Earth fixed do could help with transposition versus moveable do.

Well actually, no, I'm not proselytizing. Just stating what I observed and learned during ~15 years of university teaching. I am neither pro or con Movable or Fixed Do, or no Do for that matter. :D



About transposing written parts at sight, there are dozens of approaches, but here is one method widely used by classical orchestral conductors, french horn players, accompanists, composers, etc. who have studied Fixed Do:

Keep in mind that it is built into Fixed Do pedagogy that all students will learn solfege by studying music and exercises in all the clefs, which is facilitated by the parlando solfege mentioned in earlier posts. At that point you can read any clef in any key, keeping the note names separate from scale degree, i.e., keeping Do fixed for a given clef but moving the tonic (scale degree one) to the appropriate note for a given key. Then, by mentally changing both a clef and key signature, you can easily transpose written music at sight. I hope a few simple examples (without explaining movable C clefs) will suffice.



Given a part in treble clef part written in C that you want to read in Bb, apply tenor clef and add 2 flats (lowering B and E) and read away, playing in the correct octave.

Given a part in treble clef written in C that you want to transpose to
D major, mentally change the clef to alto clef, add two sharps (raising F and C) and read away in the correct register.

Given a part in treble clef written in C major that you wish to transpose to F major, mentally change the clef to mezzo clef (2nd line), and add one flat, (lowering B).

With 7 clefs (!), this basic principle will allow transposition of written parts at sight by changing to the correct clef, remembering to either add or subtract flats or sharps as required, and correct the register as needed. Key changes occur with the clef held the same. The obvious downside to this system is that you need to be fluent in all the clefs.

However, to be useful in score reading, there are really only a few (3 or 4) transpositions you usually need. It is left as an exercise for the reader to work them out. Hint: soprano clef is good. Extra Credit Question: If Do is "fixed" in Fixed Do, what purpose does it serve to learn a lot of clefs that move Do, when you could just use Movable Do? :D :D :D


...Moveable do teaches the relationships between notes, fixed do simply teaches the notes. The latter expedites sight-reading, I'll definitely agree with you there, but in terms of giving you the inner workings of training your ear to an equal-tempered system, I doubt it.

Fixed Do is never taught without also learning to sing scale degrees, too. Moveable Do is really just a singable naming system for scale degrees. However, one needs less practice on singing scale degrees (numbers) than you might think, but a dead-sure thorough knowledge of scales is required.

There is more, but IMHO, those trained in any system can achieve good results. As I stated in a post above, IMHO each has its strengths and weaknesses. :cool:
 
...HaVIC5 raises a good point. although it would be possible to apply a fixed 'do' to any chromatic music, it would not be practical. solfege is about the relation to the root, and if the music modulates and there's a new root every 2, 3, or 4 beats...well it gets complicated.

Actually, the reverse it true, IME. Moveable Do, with it's 12 pitch names is less useful for music that modulates a lot. Moving Do becomes an analytical judgement. Is Do going to move from C to F, or are we just going to lower the leading tone and change it's name for a while? It is a problem. Then just try singing modulations in movable clefs with moveable Do. Move Do once for the key, once for the clef, and then modulate? Yipes.

When fixed Do modulates, all that changes is the inflection of the scale due to key (which changes in both systems) and thereby the tonic. No analytical decision has to be made, though I can assure you that students using fixed Do are quite conscious of tonicized scale degrees, modulations, key areas, etc.

Concerning the "relation to the root" (I think you meant "relation to the tonic"), both systems seem the same to me, in that the sensation of intervals within the scale is equally stable, and the sensation of intervals foreign to the key seem equally unstable. I don't find moveable Do easier in this regard, though I see it might seem to be. In Fixed Do, scale degree is not represented by note name, as it is in movable Do, but the sensation of scale degree is certainly just as present in the mind of the singer/student.

Furthermore, in moveable Do, chromatic music is mentally cumbersome at anything approaching a fast tempo. In similar conditions, Fixed Do requires that modifications be made to the sound of a pitch without changing it's name, which is more abstract, but more streamlined. However, don't forget the ACTUAL goal is not really to sing the right syllable, it is to make the right pitch, usually from notation, using your eyes, brain, ears, and voice.

Which is better? Neither. They both stink in different ways for highly chromatic or non-tonal music. But we have to remember what this is all for, and at some point, the study of the tool has to be dropped in favor of really building the house. :cool:
 
Fixed Do is never taught without also learning to sing scale degrees, too. Moveable Do is really just a singable naming system for scale degrees. However, one needs less practice on singing scale degrees (numbers) than you might think, but a dead-sure thorough knowledge of scales is required.

Here's the problem with your critique of moveable do, in my opinion. You say that moveable do is "nothing more" than singing scale degrees (a valid assessment), but then go on to say that Fixed Do somehow gives a better understand of the keys that one sings in because of the literal note-naming involved in singing them. Literally singing the notes gives no insight into their specific tendencies (fa-mi, ti-do, le-sol, etc) , nor their relationship to the tonic, nor relationship to one another. It's like giving an excerpt in D major to a beginning piano player to read, and expecting them just because they were able to read the literal notes to have fully mastered the relationships between the notes in the passage and their specific tendencies. Training that person in moveable do would be akin to them being able to read that passage in D major, and then instantly transpose it to any key, because the relationships between the notes are the same, and the solfege will stay the same as well.

Moving Do becomes an analytical judgement.

Yes. Therein lies its strength. For ear training, you want to analyze the sounds that you're hearing and put them into a context. Analyzing a passage for possible tonicizations or modulations (is it a tonicization of G major or a modulation?) is part of this process, and the moveable solfege syllables will result, giving insight into exactly what happened and when.

Now, I've been trained in contemporary music, so application of moveable clefs and sight-reading scores for me is next to nil, whereas hearing an angular line's relationship to a key and the tendencies of tensions to resolve are far more important. Fixed do I can see has it's uses for pure reading, but that's not what moveable do is about.

When fixed Do modulates, all that changes is the inflection of the scale due to key (which changes in both systems) and thereby the tonic. No analytical decision has to be made, though I can assure you that students using fixed Do are quite conscious of tonicized scale degrees, modulations, key areas, etc.

So the pitches in fixed-do aren't even fixed? With moveable do, si always sounds like si, ra is always ra, fa is always fa, etc. The hearable relationship are the same. There is only one way to sing re-sol for a given tonic. If you're doing fixed-do, that would mean there are 9 different ways to sing re-sol!
 
I am quite familiar with Moveable Do, having learned it in 1973, have taught it since, and am teaching it now. I am not saying Fixed Do is better, just that is does different things. If those things seem better to you, then it is better, I guess. The main advantage of Moveable is that it is easier = faster to teach. There are disadvantages, but I'll try to respond to your previous post without quotation.

I suspect you may never have learned Fixed Do (which is no sin). Since tendencies of pitches in context are due to their sound, they can be heard and articulated on any (or no) syllable. You are complaining that because Fixed Do doesn't encode scale degree that students are somehow left ignorant of function. That simply is not the case, at least in any course I have taught or taken in Fixed Do. I can understand that it might seem that way.

The bit about a beginning pianist and D major is, in my opinion a faulty comparison. Remember, Fixed Do is not simply naming notes in a vacuum. The students are totally aware of scale degree and interval. They can not sing the correct pitch without that, unless they have AP, and students with AP can also sing Moveable DO without any conscious effort to internalize the sensation of function, regardless of the syllable. I have seen that a few times, and it actually is often a real struggle to get students with AP to even make an effort at Moveable Do, but that is again a whole 'nother topic.

I understand that you feel a strength of Moveable Do is that it encodes tendencies and requires one to make an informed analytical judgement by moving Do. That's fine. I submit that hearing tendency and tonicization is actually independent of syllable naming, and Fixed Do students hear it and understand it just as well. They are not unconsciously just naming notes.

Further, when one is sight-reading singing on syllables (a favorite "torture" of mine), Moveable Do implies pre-cognition of how a given tonic will be used to articulate form in order to "correctly" move Do (if there really is always such a thing) in a larger context. Reading ahead is of course essential, but most of us don't read ahead several measures looking for a cadence, do we? Fixed Do leaves aside that dilemma while retaining structural understanding based on change of tonic sensation as well as notation--singing on numbers plays its part in both systems.

In fact, as I am sure you are aware, reasonable people can differ about when to identify a modulation vs. a tonicization, and for pedagogical purposes, that creates issues. I'll spare everyone a long discussion of that topic. Suffice it to say, students usually have way more issues understanding what they hear or play than they do understanding how to identifying "key changes" in notation.

If I may digress for a bit here--curriculum fights often do occur about how ET is to be connected to written theory. These are driven by the paradoxical needs of most students, regardless of syllable system. Students need a knowledge of harmony beyond what any ET class can embody in order to actually understand music encountered in ear training (again heard and notated). Now mix in a departmental fight over moving or fixing Do, and you have a tiny glimpse into the joy of music in higher education. :p

Yet most students learn written theory much faster than their aural skills improve. Aural skills just take longer to learn, and everyone is different. Students can get through a typical harmony course without being able to transcribe or sing music as simple as they are writing on the page, or worse, they can't look at music and hear it. Because those skills take longer to learn for most of us, there is often a desire by teachers to detach ET from written theory in terms of when each is taken. Yet, how can a student really understand a harmonic function they are writing without internally hearing it? It is just "eye music." On the other hand, a student who goes quickly through ET may soon reach a point where their theoretical understanding is not adequate.

IMHO, there is no good ET solution except to provide a lot of support for those who are struggling, no matter in which area. ET course finals can become a barrier that filters good players out of music programs if they cannot be allowed to learn aural skills at the pace they need. Again, this is independent of syllable systems, though Fixed Do curriculums I have been involved with couple ET less to written skills than the Moveable Do curriculums I have taught. There are many reasons for this, but I have digressed too much as is.

I have observed that when many students trained in Moveable Do listen to a modulation, they will be able to hear that something is happening, but often can't name which scale degree was tonicized. I think it may be because by the time a new tonic sensation is strong, they have renamed (and "reheard") it as "Do" and lost some or all connection with the "Do" of the previous area. One thus, in effect, modulates from Do to Do. Again, I am not attacking, just saying what I have observed and experienced.

The "analytical decision" in Moveable implies (in terms of structure) retaining memory of what the previous Do's scale degree now is. That is on the surface not so hard, but I have noticed most students just don't learn it well. Fixed Do doesn't have that problem so much--though it does exist. Yet I have observed that students are usually more sensitive to the affect and effect of modulation if they have learned Fixed Do. I have my theories about why, but I won't bore everyone here.

BTW, You may have no use for score reading now, but that may change.

I'm afraid we are misunderstanding each other on the last point of your post. I was simply saying what I have said before, that the awareness of toncization, modulation, etc., in Fixed Do is not lessened by not having the note names change. It is the pitch (sung) that matters and its scale degree. One must know scale degree BEFORE singing in order to sing the right pitch in any system. How many times have you heard someone sing a correct pitch using the "wrong" name? A lot, I bet, just as you will also hear students sing the wrong pitch but the right name. Getting both wrong is the carrots option. :D

We agree that Fixed and Moveable Do are just aids for understanding music and improving musicianship. As I have said, all such systems have their problems, love them or hate them, I don't care. I use either system or none, depending on what I need. Teaching 2nd graders, grad. students, score reading, whatever. All very much in my humble opinion. :D
 
I took 4 years of chorus plus 2 years of madrigals in high school and our music teacher made us learn movable solfege. By the time I picked up an instrument at age 18 I could sight read singing parts and could easily pick out intervals and identify chords. I assume the solfege training was very much responsible for that.
 
To answer an earlier post: In fixed Do, C is always Do.
I have to say, as a student who has studied all this stuff that is being discussed here, that I completely agree with Dr. Jim Carr, especially on what he says about modulations in sight singing. We are going over that right now in my ear training class and we always have to discuss ahead of time in which measure we are going to move the Do and what our new Do will be. Never had such an issue with Fixed Do as the alterations themselves tell you what key you are in. After that, the tendencies of scale degrees become apparent, but this is not critical to know right on the spot as the notes are written out (you don't necessarily need to know what the tendency for sightreading since the notes are already resolved).
I have to add though, most of my classmates and teachers affirm that I have AP, or PP, however you want to call that. I don't know if I can say that my pitch is absolute, but I can recognize pitches upon first hearing them without any reference. If anything, the movable Do system at first seemed to impair this ability.
 
[solfege]..I have no doubt that it's useful for singing but how does it help one's bass playing?...

Just to come full circle--I think that solfege, if taught well and studied diligently is a good way to improve your understanding of what you hear, read, and play. In addition, it can help you more accurately play what is in your head, and be more able to solve the wide range of musical problems one encounters in a band. IMHO.
 
Very interesting thread. I grew up in Mexico and I was completely unaware of a debate of any sort about this.
We use fixed Do(Ut) and if you want to learn music you have to solfège, period. We also know that Germans do the C-Cis/Des-D method and some teachers use this (as an alternative) but not very many. In any case you use either the Latin name or the German name but you have to solfège; there is no way around it (trust me, I tried since I used to hate it :cool:)
 
The book below is used at Juilliard and in a number of other programs in the US and abroad. It is all dedicated to reciting (saying, not singing) fixed do solfege syllables to a metronome in a variety of clefs and even across multiple staves at faster and faster tempi. To be clear, this is saying each note's name (no sharps or flats!) as they are encountered on the staff (Parlando means Speaking in Italian). It is not singing. By itself, this book is good for learning new clefs and training your eye to more quickly read ones you already know, but it doesn't deal with rhythm. Yes, no rhythm. Some reference points are in different rhythmic values, but they are just markers ("pointe de repere"). All exercises are essentially even streams of quarters, eighths or sixteenths. It is not music. It is really eye/brain training. It is used systematically with a metronome. You really get so you have a sort of "perfect tick," after a while in that you can name or produce certain tempi exactly. BTW-when I heard that last bit, I thought it was bull until I did it. It is not. Many a Juilliard student hates this book.

http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/pages...sic/detail/HL.50562759.html&t=&k=&r=wwws-err5

This one (below) is used at Mannes College of Music in New York, and probably in dozens of Italian conservatories (Conservatorio di musica Giuseppe Verdi, etc.). It does pitch, clefs (user imagined) and rhythm. There are tons of shorter more specialized books to be had from French publishers.

http://www.amazon.com/Complete-Method-Rhythmical-Articulation-Pasquale/dp/0825803748

Trivia: Essentially about 100 years ago, many European music conservatoire professors wrote their own exercise books (France, Italy Spain, etc.). These are still used. This is because they are contrived for a wide variety of levels, and are actually very effective at what they set out to do, if applied strictly. French views of education were very Cartesian at the time. Problems were dismantled into many sub-problems.


All of the above is pretty useless for self-study unless you have some idea of how to proceed. It is basically NOT explained in print anywhere I know of.

Trivia: There used to be a book (in the old card catalogue of a Library I used in New York) on ET pedagogy by Marie Powers, formerly of Mannes School, but I have never seen a copy (it had been stolen), though I used to look for it. Both Marie Powers and Renee Longy were influenced by Nadia Boulanger and a variety of other teachers/methods.

But forget that and try my two quick and dirty subway platform/bank line methods:

Method 1--to learn/practice an unfamiliar clef or speed up note recognition in a familiar one, assuming you can puzzle out what each pitch is from a known reference (any note you can accurately name and locate, and that you are able to apply to correctly identify, however slowly, all the other notes, on, above, and below a staff with the chosen clef).

1. Take ANY notated music. Decide what clef you want to imagine, let's say Bass (ha ha).
2. Imagine there are no rhythms, just note heads. Ignore all rhythm and rests!
3. Imagine the key signature is C major.
4. Imagine a slow steady pulse.
5. Read each note, one on each pulse (just say the letter names, skip all the fancy Do Re Me). Important: look ahead more as you go faster. Most important--NEVER ever stop for a mistake. Just make the mistake in tempo and continue. You must learn how to move your eyes, and keep your eyes from getting "stuck." Time must be treated as inviolable, i.e., not to be violated--it is always moving on. You can not stop, go back, drag, none of it. One note per "tick," period--even if the metronome is imaginary.
6. If it is too easy, do it faster, then faster, then--you get the idea.
7. If it is too hard, or certain notes always trip you, after you get to the end, just write the pitch name in pencil under the note, and start at the begining, slower if need be. Next time with this clef you won't need to do that.
8. Repeat this every day, faster and/or with different music, but practicing the same clef(s). You can also use the same music with different imaginary clefs.
9. You can do this anywhere you are waiting in line.
10. Challenge yourself with music that has lots of ledger lines and big leaps.


Method 2--Parlando solfege with Rhythm--harder, but reading rhythm is usually the real barrier to reading well, so this can really help you read better. Probably impossible to figure out from my explanation.

1. To add rhythm is more complex, but almost all the above applies except the part about ignoring rhythmic values.

2. Set a (real or imaginary) metronome on a very moderate eighth-note pulse (1/8 =76 is good). Conduct the meter of the exercise you are going to read/recite, preferably snapping your conducting hand fingers on the weak half of each beat, e.g., 1 snap 2 snap 3 snap 4 snap while conducting 4/4. Adapt for any other meter or changing meter. N.B., this is the Mannes method, probably from Marie Powers. I don't know where she got it.

3. Say the note names, but in rhythm. Go slow enough so that it is rigorously correct, right down to holding out all durations, long or short. Remember, the metronome is "measuring" eighth notes, so your quarter note tempo is actually half the metronome speed (or a third if you are in 6/8, or 9/8 or 12/8 and the beat is the dotted quarter).

4. Again, never stop for mistakes, redo, pause, or slow down. Mistakes are fine, just keep going. To do an entire exercise that is all mistakes but the flow of time is never stopped until the last beat is better than even stopping once.

5. Go slow enough so that you can do it all. It is OK to work out sections, but never ever stop for mistakes. Keep eyes moving and looking ahead. Always conducting, always snapping. Always.

6. Go faster, get harder music, and change clefs.

7. optional: Start transposing (beyond the scope of what I care to explain).

Hope this gives a picture of it. It is not ear training at all, really, it is eye/brain training.
 
As an Amazon Associate, TalkBass may receive commissions from qualifying purchases made via links on this site.
Dr Jim, this is all fascinating stuff. Thanks for taking the time to commit it to post.

For interest, I'll share what I have picked up from the Players School of Music. Heavy emphasis was given to the Ear Training, and it was commonly said by the teachers it would be the class which we hated the most, but would be the most valuable.

The PSOM solfege method, comparing to the methods described above, seems to be a kind of mix of a few kinds of solfege. It's the method I practice daily, and I have found it beneficial. I'll describe it for the benefit of others:

1. Moveable do system.

2. Lessons are given to you in a preprinted manual, the difficulty depending on how far along you are. I'm on the third ear training manual of six.

3. Each 'lesson' has six 8-bar exercises, of which three are sight-sung (and are written with clef, time signature, and note/rhythm variations) and three simply for rhythm reading (which are written with no clef, all notes on one bar line, but with different time signatures and varying note/rest rhythms).

4. For the sight-sung exercises, you conduct the meter with your right hand and sing the correct solfege syllable, at the correct pitch. I have tended to do this slowly, correct mistakes, and then speed it up once I have it correct. I do not move on to the next lesson [block of exercises] until I feel that I can sing it correctly at a decent tempo.

5. For the rhythm exercises, you conduct rhythm with your right hand, and sing 'da' for the correct duration of the note. Again, I may slow down to get it perfect, then speed it up to a decent tempo, before moving on.

6. Each week, I move on to a new 'lesson' in the book, assuming that I can correctly perform both the 'sight singing' and 'rhythm' exercises correctly.

7. When I move on to a new lesson, I do not put aside the earlier exercises. I simply sing through all the previous lessons as well, then do the new lesson too e.g. if I am moving on to lesson 4 in the book, then I sing through lessons 1-3 as well before I even look at lesson 4. In this way, as the weeks go on, my ear training practice sessions lengthen in duration.

I generally do 15-30 minutes a day of this, depending on time and how far along in the book I am.

Over the last year of doing this, I have found a definite improvement in my ability to follow music, sight read, and improvise. I also notice I hear more complicated chords more easily, and interestingly can tolerate more dissonance in the music that I listen to.

Each day I recognise how far there is still to go, and the exercises are still relatively simple. I presume the next few books will become more complicated, and will include formal transcription (it seems like the logical outcome here). My transcription abilities are still pretty limited.

Nonetheless, committing to a steady routine has made brought huge benefits, and I am now starting to understand that time spent on solfege/ear training is probably one of the most important things you can do as a musician - after all, if you can't hear it inside, you can't play it!

Pete
 
Quick question for all.

Anyone run into Bruce Arnold's method of ear training - he seems to explicitly say that he is against solfege and interval training! Still, for those who persist, they report good results, although it can take months or years to 'get' an exercise...

Apparently you listen to what a note sounds like against a given key. Still sounds like hearing an interval to me...

The books are at
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

There are reviews of both on Amazon too. Interesting comments for both.

Pete
 
I just read through some of the reviews & some of the "look inside" stuff on Amazon.

What he seems to be saying is that knowing someone sang a minor third isn't that important. Knowing if they sang re-fa, mi-so or la-do is important, so it's all about context. What notes were they singing relative to the key they're in, not what's the interval between two given notes.

Makes a lot of sense to me. There's only so far you can break music down into its component pieces before you start teaching stuff that is no longer musical.
 
Quick question for all.

Anyone run into Bruce Arnold's method of ear training - he seems to explicitly say that he is against solfege and interval training! Still, for those who persist, they report good results, although it can take months or years to 'get' an exercise...

Apparently you listen to what a note sounds like against a given key. Still sounds like hearing an interval to me...

The books are at
Invalid Link Removed
Invalid Link Removed

There are reviews of both on Amazon too. Interesting comments for both.

Pete

Well, at a pretty fundamental level that's what tonal solfege does - teach the relationships of all notes to "do", which is the exactly same thing as saying "learning how each of the 12 pitches relate to a key". No difference there.