Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum How much rote-teaching do you do?

Saying "cultures ..." and then " ... where public singing just isn't done " is a contradiction, isn't it?

Anyways, all these kids of pioneers, born on wagon trains and raised by coyotes, fighting off the injuns, they may be kind of stiff at their piano lesson but then they sure do like doing air guitar and screetching electronic effects.

Which country do you think I live in?

Aren't all foreign countries the same? Australian coyote minus air guitar. Similar to the Canadian variety (ours yodels in bilingual solfege). Is especially responsive to rote training. (just too cute to resist)

I think that's a good example of where solfege does not work very well. Just yesterday I was looking through the Debussy preludes.

La terrasse des audiences du clair de lune, no. 7 from the second book, the first run there uses this set of notes, mostly descending:

D C# C B, Ab G Gb F, etc. I don't have score, and that spelling may be wrong. The key signature is 6 sharps, but because the pattern winds around, I remember that spelling being unusual. Regardless, such a pattern seems really easy to hear if we are not listening for something diatonic, but again I have no idea how solfege would get us there.

But why would you use solfege for something like Debussy? Of course it wouldn't work. But it can work very well for simple beginner pieces in C, F or G, etc. Not for anything complicated.

The only reason I know solfege (and only fixed) is because I never learned the abc method as a kid. I only knew C as Do, and Bb as Si bemol, unil I was about 14.

You're right that you don't really "need" solfege, but it's not evil.. and it can be useful if you know how to use it. It doesn't REALLY matter that much how the kids are singing, as long as they do it at some point.

I basically agree with you, Angelina. Neither fixed nor movable solfa is a complete thing in itself. We all do some relative pitch training and some absolute pitch training, and as long as we don't try to simultaneously use the same syllables for two different purposes there should be no problem. In places where there is a tradition of movable do (like England and Australia), it just doesn't make sense to try to superimpose fixed do onto it. Similarly, it doesn't make sense to superimpose movable onto the French/etc system of fixed. We have to use different names for the different purposes.
In my opinion, anyway.

I don't follow. What does that mean, that solfège "works" or "doesn't work".

What do you mean to say. That it doesn't matter if one sings "Sol si re sol" (fixed do) or "G B D G" or "Do mi sol do" (movable do) ?

I agree, if that is your point.

Is that your point?

Landorrano, how would you 'say' in solfege C Dflat E Fsharp G A Bflat C as a scale?

I still fail to see what problem you are trying to adresse. There may be something obvious to you that I simply am missing, like the pretty lady hidden in the optical illusion.

"Say in solfège"? You mean in the do-ré-mi nomenclature? If that is the question then the answer is evident, so I think that there is something else you are trying to answer.

The evident answer obviously eludes some of us, and I am the chief amongst those eluded by that answer.

I don't have a problem that I am trying to address at all - it's just that I (maybe entirely mistakenly) have believed that solfege is *MORE* than simply an alternative nomenclature. Even if it is *ONLY* an alternative nomenclature I have no idea (not being even remotely expert in this field) how you would 'say' C Dflat E Fsharp G A Bflat C in solfege.

Maybe the problem I am trying to address is a chronic lack of exposure to fixed-do solfege.

Elissa, it would be do, ra, mi, fi, so, la, te, do.

The local music school that I get lots of transfers from ONLY teaches the note names as do re mi etc. So when they come to me and I refer to the note names as abcdefg they have no idea what I'm talking about. That really, really irks me. I think solfege should only be used in an aural/singing context. Also none of them can go "fa" and point to f, they have to count up from do, which is mighty annoying if I say a piece starts on ti. I try and get them to change asap over to abcdefg but it tends to take quite a while, and impacts not only playing but sightreading. Grrr....solfege...grumble grumble grumble...

So..... (no pun intended).... re is D, ra is D flat... ri would be D sharp, I take it?

What's the logic then? B = ti but Bflat = te - does this mean B double flat would be ta? And that Eflat would be me?

I *so* should have caught up on this, like, 20 years ago.....

And - back to my original question - this means that fixed do is simply an alternate nomenclature, rather than expressing any relational/functional values, yes?

And how annoying it must be for those raised with fixed do to listen to Do Re Mi in The Sound of Music, which is actually in B flat major......

In some parts of the world, fixed do is used, and when so, it is an alternative nomenclature. This is what Landorrano has learned, since the Latin-language countries use it. In bilingual Canada you hear both on the radio, and the RCM material is all bilingual, "Mozart A la Turca - A minor - La mineur".

Landorrano - how do you guys handle double flats?

MittsOff - what you are observing makes no sense. It sounds more as though these transfers were all taught in the same flawed manner. There are also people who count up from C to find F for the same reason. I know there are some "schools" (Yamaha?) that teach teachers to use solfege in some way. Could there be some common source for that confusion?

For "Fa" when the piece "starts on Ti", what are you asking? Are you asking for the note (fixed do) Fa? In that case, it shouldn't matter what it starts on. Fixed Do Fa is Fa is Fa. However, there is no Fa in Ti major: It's Fi since Ti major (B major) has an F#. Otoh, if it "starts on Ti" you haven't told me what kind of scale it is: major or minor.

If it "starts on Ti" (fixed) but you want movable do Fa, then you want the 4th degree note = Mi. Takes a second.

Movable Do assumes the traditional scales and their functions. Fixed Do doesn't.

Otoh, for alphabet names, what do you call a microtone that is a quarter tone between C and C# (Db)? There's a symbol for it, but what do you call it?

I LOVE the way that is presented in the Sound of Music! It came out when I was a teen. Granted, it's traditional scales. But it even teaches some harmony theory. At some refrain, the kids start singing "do mi mi - mi so so (V) - re fa fa - la ti ti (a seventh starting on vii? or Ti as a passing note?) while Mary sings more slowly so that you get:

do mi mi So - mi so so Do
re fa fa La - la ti ti Fa
do mi mi So - mi so so Do
re fa fa La - la ti ti Ti
ends in Do Re Do With kids extending the Ti..., and a quick Ti Do! illustrating the leading note.

The words go "When you know the notes to sing / You can sing most anything!"
I absorbed that at about 10 years old. It's fantastic (in tradtional terms). I could go to the piano and play the harmony and melody from memory. Moreover, I could do it in any key without having learned a single note name.

Here it is, around 4:22 - though I dare say these days it does seem to drag on some.

see around 4:22

Hey wait a minute! That's your Queen's ursatz solfège, grafted on to her A-B-C nomenclature.

The notes of Elissa's scale are do, re bémol, mi, fa dièse, sol, la, si bémol, do. The scale would be sung "do ré mi fa sol la si do".

It seems to me that you are confounding two things. One thing is called solfège,the other is not.

One is the system of nomenclature. This is not solfège.

The other is the pedagogical exercise of reading out loud from a score the notes, using the voice to simultaneously pronounce the name of each note and produce the tone. This is solfège.

The first, one could say is simply an alternative nomenclature. Although that formulation ... an alternative nomenclature ... I find rather weak. There is certainly a sense in which they are simply two different nomenclatures for the same thing. But the nomenclature also shapes the way one conceives that which one is naming.

For me first of the seven notes is DO. In your system, which is the first note: is it C or is it A? The scale of C for you is C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C. For me it is DO-RÈ-MI-FA-SOL-LA-SI-DO. The circle of fifths begins with DO. The armature with its bémols and dièses (sharps and flats) is established from this starting point, and finishes there as well.

I think by now I have learned about 3 ways of doing this, including singingA,B,C while being aware of the degrees/functions. That would go in the direction of what you have learned, Landorrano. I'm also beginning to see weaknesses in the movable do system, even though I have derived a lot of benefits from it.



This is to elucidate an earlier question:

There is a problem if the system is too different, which was alluded to earlier. Elissa's scale still has seven notes. What if there is a different number of notes? For example, the Pentatonic scale has 5 notes. My mind simply wants to call them So La Do Re Mi and I sense it as a traditional scale with some notes left out. This still works.

But the octatonic scale has 8 notes and sometimes it is used in a way that avoids having any kind of Tonic. There is no Do, no "starting note". What shall we call the 8th note. Meanwhile the whole tone scale has only 6 notes, and it can also be used in atonal music (no Tonic). This is is Debussy's music, alluded to the other day. What do we call those 6 notes? If there is no Tonic, which is Do? Is there a circle of fifths in that music? For one thing, there is no perfect fifth.

Yes.