Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Movable Do Piano Methods?

I agree that movable do works best as a complement to a different note-naming system (ABC, though could be anything - except do-re-mi ). I also agree that letter names are not as singable as do-re-mi, so to some extent they are inadequate for vocalising pitch. But if you are in a fixed-do world and want to vocalise scale degrees rather than absolute pitch you have a similar problem - that of finding a singable system of syllables. Numbers are ok I guess - except for se-ven.

Kodaly used movable do solfa in his approach to music education with young children in Hungary.

I suspect that his view was that scale degrees are included in solfège, which is indeed the case.




But it is in French! It's you who have to translate into English ...

... or into proper Ozzish:

It's Frere Jacque - is what I meant My point being that I can "see" the sounds that this scale degree pattern makes. But how do I give this knowledge well to a student? And would I with the awkwardness of singing "flatsix" on an eighth note?

This problem bothers me quite a lot. I have not resolved it within my teaching method. One is tempted to go out on a limb and develop a completely unique system just for me, but there are big drawbacks to this of course.

Well Elissa, I hope you will let us know how you find those new books you ordered.

I'd got it, Frère Jacques.

It would be, in key of do
do ré mi do
do ré mi do
mi fa sol .
mi fa sol .

In key of do sharp
do ré mi do
do ré mi do
mi fa sol .
mi fa sol .

In key of fa sharp
fa sol la fa
fa sol la fa
la si do .
la si do .

What interest is there to have a different name for scale degrees when singing, different from regular solfège practice?

I would suppose that if there is a use alongside of do-ré-mi solfège than it already exists. There may be something. I am not enough in the milieu of solfège pedagogy to know everything that goes on.

It seems to that movable do is more useful for learning relative pitch.

Whereas fixed do might be better for training absolute pitch.

In a situation, a country where the notes are named a-b-c ... OK.

But if you are starting from do-ré-mi ... , I don't see what advantage there might be to have a supplementary system that rests upon the degrees of scales.

We simply say, or sing :

"do ré mi fa sol la si do" for the scale of do major ( key of c major ), and the interval between mi and fa is a half-tone ...

and then

"ré mi fa sol la si do ré" for the scale of ré major ( d major ), where the interval mi-fa is a whole-tone. This is different from a modulation within the key of do, where you would also sing "ré mi fa sol la si do ré" but where the interval mi-fa remains a half-tone.

It's not even about relative pitch, it's about function.

keystring raises the interesting point that using the major scale as a default privileges the major modes above other pitch patterns, but I think in Western music (historically, in an art sense, in a folk sense) has this privilege inbuilt, and this [major modes as default] is therefore a natural fit for learning to play an instrument from the Western musical tradition.

I puzzled over this for a while:

Degrees are individual notes which are also the nth note of a scale. An individual note cannot be major or minor since that involves an interval between two notes, or a particular kind of three-note chord (again intervals). So I wondered.

Then I remembered the area that I am still weak in which is second nature to any advanced pianist: the quality of degree chords. The third degree chord (mediant) of a major scale is minor. The fourth degree chord is major, etc. This would be in your bones. I imagine that you cannot think of 3 (mi) without immediately hearing the minor quality of iii (chord). Am I on track?

Before I learned conventional things, I might hear and write down:
mi re do do re do ti do re mi re -- re ti so - so so - so mi re do. Translation:
3 2 1 1 2 1 7 1 2 3 2 -- 2 7 5 - 5 5 - 5 3 2 1
Song: Ein Vogelfaenger bin ich ja - Pappageno of Magic Flute.
The solfege, and translation to degree notes, are instant.

I would say that it was not so much taught, as it was internalized, when I was a child. The knowledge is there for you and you don't even know it.

3- would indicate the third scale degree lowered by 1/2 step. (minor 3rd)

If you are talking about chord charts, 3- would be a minor chord built on the root of the 3rd scale degree. eg. Eminor in the key of C.

Can I just say that as a singer/pianist, fixed Do makes no sense to me at ALL and I don't understand why anyone would use it as a substitution for movable Do/scale degrees and/or note names.

Then I suspect, not for the first time, that apples and oranges are being mixed. Those whose first language is notes, pitch names, etc., are translating movable do into something they understand. The third scale degree is not major, or minor, or anything, even if this is referring to a minor scale. C D Eb F G Ab B(nat - maybe - or flat) C. Eb is a minor third from C, true. It is not a minor third from D, or from F. The minor third idea stems from notes and notation, where we remember these kinds of things. It is important, because the sense of the particular aspect of music that m.d.solfege imparts won't be there. In that case why not just say 1,2,3 and be done with it? It does not even make sense that it is written out. It belongs to an oral tradition, and ear training.

What movable do gives is also a sense of function. So is not only the 5th degree or a P5 up from the tonic, it is also the dominant and has that dominant feeling to it.

For minor scales we called the tonic La. It is a rather modal mentality. If I have to call the tonic of a minor scale Do as in the modern system, then I also have to start thinking in pitches - it becomes artificial and difficult.

No one uses fixed-do as a substitution for movable-do and/or note names.

It is the other way around: movable-do solfège is used as a substitution for fixed-do solfège, in countries where the note names are a-b-c.



Of course you can say that, however I believe that your formulation is mistaken. It is not true that as a pianist or a singer that fixed-do makes no sense to you. It makes no sense to you because for you the notes are named a-b-c ... and not do-ré-mi ...

Major and natural minor in the way I learned it, actually. The tonic of natural minor was La and it was a decidedly modal way of thinking. And I was also thinking about function as you pointed out.

I was thinking, among others, of the fact that your music reflects what young people hear these days, namely music that is not in major or minor keys. If the music is pure modal then solfege fits 100%. Dorian is Re to Re, Phrygian is (Mi to Mi?). But others?

If it is ok to go off on a tangent, I have also thought about music theory when we get to the writing stage - ever since this idea of modern music using other scales came up. As follows:

I learned to write major and minor scales first, and we got blues, pentatonic, octatonic, whole tone afterward, as well as the church modes. For the first, you end up with no key signatures and you skip note names and do awkward things. Our staff system was designed at the time of common practice and that becomes clear.

I've been of two minds. First I felt that it was important for me to have the major and minor scales and how they work solid, since key signatures and such were actualy designed for them. Then it is possible to deal with the other scales. But they will always seem other and foreign. But second, what if this is just familiarity? When you begin with the other scales where you actually have to think about the notes and intervals, does that give a flexibility that would make us see major/minor scales differently when we get to them? And does this begin with ear?

I don't know if this makes sense or even if it is proper to post it in this thread.

Keystring, I agree my first sentence wasn't well thought out.

My second statement (which you didn't mention) however I stand by. It is from the Nashville numbering system in which Arabic numbers are used to indicate the root of the chord, and the minus sign qualifies the chord as minor.

I'm sure that that is how it's done, Joe. I don't know how unique my experience is. It dates back to around 1962 or 63 when I was about 8 years old. I did understand what you were referring to and have seen it since joining PW. I did not refer to the chord chart since I was not talking about chords. I've not heard about the Nashville numbering system,though the + - signs are things I've seen in the old RCM theory rudiments book and Horwood, and Arabic numerals are used for root names, instead of ^1, ^2 etc. (hat goes on the number). Perhaps it's the same?

No, it makes no sense to me because as a singer, I'm so entrenched in movable Do.

OK, folks, let's make this simple.

Movable do is about pitches in relationship to each other. It is primarily a function of the ear. In movable do, the pitches relate to each other in a consistent way, no matter where do starts.

Fixed do is more about reading. It fixes a pitch on the staff in a specific place.

I find that people who are strong aural learners prefer movable do, and people who are strong visual learners seem to prefer fixed do. I've also encountered a stronger fixed do preference among people that play single-line instruments.

If properly taught, they can both be used. However, if you are learning this skill as an adult, it is much harder to learn both. Children seem to find it simpler.