Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum How is 'fixed do' solfege taught outside the U.S.?

pianobuff,

What is the first Suzuki book?

I think for that I still go mostly m.d.solfege. How about you? I experimented with a Clementi to see if it was possible, and it was easy to decide to start in a different key. But I don't know how that work for someone else. I look at the music, I'm reading it, but I'm also hearing it "within the framework of the scale" (like m.d.solfege) I managed to do that with prima vista pieces, but for two handed they had to be simple.

I would play the scale through once and the I chord - then transpose what I'm seeing.

I can transpose a couple of memorized pieces that have Alberti bass - that's m.d. solfege ... or it's audiation, I think.

It's harder with a wind instrument because they have such weird fingering. Is it the same for yours? Like, in piano or violin, if it's a semitone higher, you just move up a semitone. On recorder you might have to cross your fingers and wrinkle your nose to find the fingering to match the pitch you're after.

Then there is Louise Guhl and her "Piano Proficiency". She teaches the finger patterns kinetically. Then you are given a two handed piece and told to play it in three or four different keys prima vista. You use intervals. I learned to transpose that way - it's like "flying blindfolded" - but it worked for me. Maybe this way is better for instruments? Here you'd be working with pitch. A G# would always be a G#. That might be easier to remember.

Is it Suzuki Piano School, Volume 1 by Dr. Shinichi Suzuki, published by Alfred?

Edit: Is the 'reading book' that you also referred to in your post the same book?

Yes, the first Suzuki Book is how I refered to Suzuki Piano School, Volume 1.

The reading book that I use is titled, Methode Rose, a compilation edited by Van de Velde.

Well, I haven't practiced using the fixed do system very much, so I can't make a fair decision about whether it would be useful for transposition or not.

When singing, I find that moveable do solfege helps me transpose if I am not familiar with the tune. If I am familiar with the tune, then I don't give any thought to transposition at all, and may not even be aware that I am transposing if the interval of transposition is small enough. For example, my choir director once gave us starting pitches that were a whole step up (on purpose), and most of us didn't notice.

If I'm playing piano, it depends on whether I'm reading or playing by ear. If I'm reading, I don't tend to use solfege at all. If I'm playing by ear, and if I'm disciplined enough not to use my childhood method of "just try stuff and remember what works", I use moveable do solfege as needed to help me be accurate with the starting note, large intervals, etc.
Sorry, it's been ages since I played saxophone and I no longer have the instrument. I don't remember ever working on transposition when I did play. To answer an earlier question of yours, all the written parts we used were already transposed so that the concert pitch would come out right. We were never given parts written at concert pitch and expected to do the transposition ourselves.
Well, on the piano there's the issue of white keys vs. black keys, which can change the feel of a piece (in the tactile sense) dramatically from one key to another.

On a string instrument... I've never played one, but if transposition were so easy, why would anyone use devices like a capo ?
This is pretty much how I already sight-read at the piano. I may be able to 'sound out' parts when I'm not playing, but when I am playing, I don't have the extra mental capacity to hear every note in my head just before I play it. Most of the time, the best I can do is to listen after I play each note to see if it sounds reasonable or not.

Back again after the weekend parenthesis.

Saturday went to the music shops to see what fDo solfege books (in English) were available. Result: none.
I found, however, some books you may find interesting. One of them is a translation from the original French version, which won't be difficult to find via web.

1- Método graduado de Solfeo [Solfege graded method], by Laz, in 5 volumes. Edited by Boileau, Barcelona.
2- Método de enseñanza de la música por la educación metódica del oído [Music teaching method by the methodically education of the ear], by Gedaige (Professor in the National Conservatory of Paris). Edited by Boileau, Barcelona.
3- Teoría completa de la música [Complete music theory], by Davalillo. Edited also by Boileau.
4- Pentagrama. Música. Ciclo inicial. [Staff. Music. Early stages.]. By Amat.
5- El solfeo no es feo. Oyes lo que lees. De 6 a 106 años. [Solfege is not ugly. You hear what you read. [For people] from 6 to 106 years old]. By Munt, Néstor.


I asked a friend of mine (sound engineering teacher and guitar player) about other method books he may be aware of, an he lended me the four volumes of the Harmony Method edited by the Berklee College of Music (in English). They're not about solfege (only harmony), but at the beginning of volume 1 when the concepts of clefs and staff are introduced, the author uses the G-cleff, F-cleff (G line, F line) aproximation. The idea of *clefs as note indicators on lines* aren't an exclusive feature of the fixed do system then... I have the 4 volumes in pdf format too (about 8,35 MB). Graphic quality is far from explendid, it's an old edition. If anybody wants to take a look at the pdf, just tell me.

Boira, I'd be interested in taking a look.

Help yourself

Boira,

Do any of the books have a detailed discussion of how to study fixed do, as opposed to page after page of staff notation with very little discussion?

Done! Muchas gracias!

No, sorry
None of them included detailed explanations. Maybe because none on them were intended for self-study. As explanations should come from the teacher and the student must take notes in a separate notebook, few discussion is included on the textbooks.

Well... there's no need either for detailed explanations on how to study fixed do because it's the most logical system and with one little comment from our teacher we have enough

[EDIT to add]:
More seriously, maybe the first contact the student makes with solfege (mDo or fDo) is accepted as the most logical.
I'm still trying to find the benefits of a tonic allways called Do no matter the pitch... as I suppouse you'd think is weird to have a tonic which name changes constantly :rolleyes:

It's because in the movable system "do" is the word for "tonic".

Actually, I'd be quite content without any solfa syllables, if need be. I'd just use letter names for fixed pitch (ABC) and numbers for scale degrees (123).

Perhaps a teacher's manual then? Eventually, I plan to teach ear training, sight-singing, and dictation, and I am determined to find out how the rest of the world is doing it.

Edit: I really will have to learn French to get to the bottom of this, won't I?
Don't forget the altered syllables. They are very important. Each syllable identifies one and only one pitch relative to the tonic.

You wouldn't miss having different syllables for altered scale degrees?

I'd prefer movable do. But "one. two, three, four" are singable too, I suppose (six and seven are a bit more cumbersome). I just think it's very unfortunate that we have two systems using the same terminology to mean two different things, and I can see that realistically we aren't going to change the way some countries refer to the names of specific notes.

*sigh*

Just read your question again and realised you were talking about altered scale degrees, yes? Well yes, that's a loss. "one, two, thraw"??
What do the American colleges which use fixed do and numbered scale degrees do for chromatic alterations?

What is meant by altered scale degrees? Is that like modes, octatonic or similar?

Modes, perhaps, but also just any chromatic alteration of a note which happens in a piece for whatever reason. Say for example a tune in C major which incorporates a few chromatic notes - as passing notes perhaps, or melodic decoration (without indicating a modulation, I mean).

That's if I'm talking about the same thing as Late Bloomer. I am, aren't I?

I'm pretty sure currawong and I are talking about the same thing, but since I noticed a vocabulary difference earlier in the thread, I feel the need to explain further.

Scale degree is the preferred term in English for what Boira called a 'grade'. Scale degrees are simply the notes of a scale numbered in ascending order of pitch, starting with the tonic as 1.

Let's consider only major scales here to simplify the conversation. Suppose a passage of music is in the key of B major and has the key signature of B major (five sharps). Then the only notes than can be written without accidentals are the notes of the B major scale. Any note that is not in the scale must be written by applying an accidental to a note that is in the scale (for example, applying a sharp to the scale note E). The pitch of the scale note is altered (raised or lowered) by the accidental. The resulting note is an altered scale degree.

Some alterations are considered so drastic that they always(?) imply that a modulation has occurred. For example, if you see a B-double-flat, you are definitely not in the key of B anymore. Other alterations may have nothing to do with modulation, depending on how they are used. For example, the note E-sharp, used as a lower chromatic neighbor to F-sharp in the key of B, would not imply any modulation.

Moveable do provides unique syllables for all of the altered scale degrees that could reasonably be used without implying a modulation (including the lowered fifth degree, which usually does imply a modulation). The initial consonant is always the same as the unaltered note, but the vowel changes. Students must be aware of when altered scale degrees are used in order to choose the right syllable, just as they have to be aware of modulations in order to choose the right 'do'. If they see a note for which they think they have no syllable to use---such as the B-double-flat mentioned above---then it is a clue that they missed a modulation.

For the teacher, simply observing students' choice of syllables as they sing provides constant feedback about whether or not they understand these ideas. Choosing fixed do syllables, on the other hand, does not require analysis. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it means that the teacher learns comparatively little by observing the syllables chosen. A fixed do student, for example, could in theory sing all the way through a Schubert song with the correct pitches and syllables and have no idea that any modulations had occurred. That is why I need more information on how the system is taught.

This thread is very interesting.

It seems to me there is definately a preference between moveable do and fixed do systems, when imo, both are very good tools and should both be used when the situation arises to use one or the other.

It really should not be confusing.

LB, I'm afraid we're not understanding each other. Of course we're aware of the modulations. If a mDo student should sing a song using solfege syllabes, wouldn't s/he use these same syllabes even if the key changes? We change the syllabes when we change the key. How can we have no idea if the key has changed?

I've been thinking about this. Beeing honest, I'm thinking about this too much! I'm falling behind schedule of my summer practice.... September is approaching and my pieces aren't ready. :p

Imagine you don't have syllabes at all. Just letter names. That's how we do it, just with the pitches names. To keep your example of "Happy Birthday", transposing the phrase G G A G C B (C major) would be D D E D G F in G maj. One must be able to do that fluently.
Another detail still puzzles me: (your words) moveable do makes transposing easier because you sing the same syllables no matter what key you are singing a song in. Not exactly, it could be only if you always sing solfege syllabes and only that. If you're singing Im Frühling, you wouldn't have any trouble in changing the key because you're singing the same actual lyrics and not syllabes. No matter what kind of solfege you were taught.

I don't know, I still have the feeling that I'm missing something. Something important.
Suppouse you're given a score. In the key of C maj. And you have to transpose on the fly to G maj. You mentally have to 'move' your G's to D's in order to play, regardless of the lyrics (syllabes or whatever). You must know that G becomes D, read the intervals.

How many written and spoken exercices in transposing do you do with your teacher during lessons or as homework? We do a lot, is part of the weekly routine. Could it be that your/our lessons are structured differently and each method focus on a determined skill?