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

That's a good habit, to question and to look for improvements. Nothing wrong with that.
Thanks and good luck!

I grew up in Spain with the traditional fixed do system (2 years of solfege when I was 6-8 years old, one more year now as an adult). In fact, I never knew there was a movable do untill I read this post.
It's really interesting knowing about other perspectives, and apart from all your comments I've also searched the web for information about the movable do system and the pros/cons in both systems.

Maybe it's just that what you learn in your early childhood is what you find the most logic as an adult, but I find the movable system a bit confusing... as confusing as naming the music notes with letters C, D, E... ouch my first months in Pianoworld were crazy! everybody talking about letters instead of do-re-mi-fa... and still I need some pause to translate into solfege when somebody says "C sharp" (ah, yes, he means Do sostenido!)

That makes sense, Boira. "Movable do" is a system for identifying the degrees of a scale and getting a sense of those degrees. For instruments where pitch is created and can be adjusted, such as voice and non-fretted string instruments, there is also a colour to each note in that scale. The fourth degree of the major scale is less than a semitone away from the third degree, and it has a colour or character of wanting to move toward that note or resolve toward it. Movable do solfege attempts to capture all of that, and is not concerned with pitch at all. The system was invented in one place in England as a way of teaching the existing repertoire of religious songs by rote to choristers before written music existed.

Letter names and fixed do syllabic names both identify pitches, not intervals. Btw, a few years ago in choir I sat beside a bewildered soprano from France who couldn't make head or tails of the choirmaster's instructions. In the intermission I scribbled a translation of letter to f.d.solfege for her which she went home and memorized. Canada being a bilingual French & English country this can get interesting.

In my multilingual music dictionary, all countries using syllables will call the basic notes do, re, mi, fa, so ... But flats and sharps have different names: (hopefully I'll remember to scan and insert the page from the multilingual dictionary when I replace this half-broken computer later today. I'm on safe mode and can't scan. )

A musician I know of Russian heritage would sing the basic syllables, but would *think* the quality of sharps or flats. It is not practical when singing pitch names, whether letters or syllables, to sing a fast passage and stumble over "C-doublesharp, D-doublesharp, E", just like you could not rapidly sing "do doble sostenido, re doble sostenido, mi...." I think you would be frothing at the mouth and untangling your tongue from your teeth. :p That must be why the system Late Bloomer mentioned leaves out the qualification of sharps or flats. What we don't know (LB?) is whether they are left out verbally but considered in thought.

I'm back invading again the teacher's lounge (for what I apologize in advance).

I finally had time to read all of the notes and archives about movable/fixed solfège I've been downloading and more or less I'm ready to declare that movable solfege is a... total nightmare!
Or maybe there's something that I'm getting wrong or not getting it at all.
Let's see:
In fixed do system, any written C is always sung as "Do" (for me "C" doesn't even exists, it's always "Do")
On the contrary, with movable do system, if a piece is in C major, then C is sung "Do", D is "Re", etc.. If, however, the piece then modulated to G, then G is sung “Do”, an A will be “Re”, etc., and C would now be sung “Fa".
Is that right?

BTW, some of the archives I've found on the subject are really interesting, but unfortunately others are highly inaccurate. I understand that different people may like one system best over the other (even with a passion), but saying that those taught with the fixed do system are tone-deaf very poor sight-readers and that we (textually) proceed to sing by a sort of inchoate mish-mash of interval target-practice and harmonic second-guessing is a bit on the exaggeration side.

Again, I have no idea how good or bad would a musician be if taught with de movable do instead with the fixed do, I just discovered the movable do system with this thread. In fact, apart from some strange people from far away who change the notes' names into alphabet letters , I had no other reference regarding a system different from the fixed do.

Now I'm waiting for the studio to open again on September to ask my teachers what they think about the subject and about their experience with it all.

In the meantime, can anybody recommend a book comparing the two methods?

Boira,

Thanks so much for posting.

It's understandable that moveable do would be confusing for someone who grew up with fixed do. It's confusing for both sides to try to use the same words in a totally different way for the first time. That's probably why discussions about solfege on the Internet can get so heated.

For you, do is C, so the idea of moveable do may come across as if someone said to me, "We have a system for singing that works like this: when the music is in the key of G, then we call a G a C, and an A a D, and so on." And I would think, "But if it's a G why don't you just call it a G, always? Why pretend that it's a C?" For someone who is used to moveable do, do is the tonic (in major keys, and possibly in minor keys as well, depending on the variety of moveable do that was studied), so the idea of fixed do may come across as "pretending that everything is in the key of C and never modulates."

Something that might serve as a bridge between the two systems for you is singing using scale degree numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. In this system, '1' is the tonic of the current key, so if you were singing a piece in G major, you'd start off singing '1' for G, '2' for A, and so on, and if the piece modulated to D major, then you'd sing '1' for D, '2' for E, and so on. As with traditional fixed do, there are only seven words in this system, so if you were singing in C major and saw an F-sharp (and if the key were still C major), you would sing '4'. If you use the English names for the numbers and pronounce '7' as 'sev' instead of 'seven', then every number is only one syllable. This system is used alongside fixed do at Eastman School of Music, one of the major U.S. conservatories.

Since you studied in Spain, I'm curious whether you used Eslava's Método de Solfeo. It's one of the few books that teaches fixed do that is easily available in the United States (published by G. Schirmer). Unfortunately, I know very little Spanish, so I can't read the text very well.

I am not aware of any books that discuss fixed do vs. moveable do in depth. (If I were, I might not have posted this thread at all!) Most sight-singing books published in the U.S. are deliberately 'agnostic' about what system to use, and if there is any discussion at all it is a single paragraph in the preface. I recently ordered a book that was described as discussing both systems, but I haven't received it yet, so I can't recommend it.

This is only partly accurate. The beginnings of both solfege and staff notation were developed about a thousand years ago by a monk in Italy named Guido of Arezzo. Originally there were only six solfege syllables: ut (not do), re, mi, fa, sol, and la. The syllables were used in a complex way that was not based on the interval of the octave (since there weren't enough syllables to span an octave) and was different from both of our modern systems, fixed do and moveable do. I would rather not get into it here because this thread is confusing enough already!

Anyway, later the syllable 'ut' was changed to 'do'---the French still retain 'ut' for written and spoken note names---and the seventh syllable 'si' was added.

I have a paper somewhere with more details of the history, but I can't find it.

Modern fixed do became a standard about two hundred years ago when the Conservatoire de Paris was founded.

Modern moveable do, complete with hand signs, 'ti' instead of 'si', altered syllables and so on, was developed in England in the 19th century, and was originally intended as a way of teaching music without using staff notation.

You are right, d'Arezzi developed the syllabic names while Odo, his contemporary, used the monochord for a teaching system. The Frankish lands developed various systems and they were the first with mensural notation. D'Arezzi's system isn't really that complicated - it's based on tetrachords and involves the church modes. But it is unfamiliar to modern ears and minds.

The solfege that I was taught did not involved hand signals. There was a vertical board listing the eight syllables and a teacher pointed as we sang what she pointed at. I like this much better than hand signals, because the ups and downs of the notes match the ups and downs of the pitch these notes represent. Which were you taught?

Kodály-style moveable do with Curwen hand signs. We were taught to make the hand signs at different heights to indicate pitch changes.

I should add that I learned this system as an adult. I was not taught solfege of any kind as a child.

Ah, perhaps it changed. I was taught around 1963. The teacher pointed to a chart that looked like this:
Solfege chart and we learned to sing all kinds of common musical patterns. It must have been only for a few months. This was my only reference for decades.

Isn't la the tonic of minor keys with moveable do?

Moveable do makes perfect sense if you understand that there are 12 major keys and that the tonic of a key has gravity. Certain scale degrees are active tones and demand resolution 2-1, 4-3, 6-5, 7-1. (Suspensions) You can feel the pull back to the stable tones 1,3,5.
It is feeling that "pull" that really opened up the point of the moveable do for me.
If your intent is to dictate a piece or modulate to new key the moveable system is absolutely a thing of beauty. You don't need to know what key the piece is in, the functions of the notes remain the same in any key.
The fixed do system makes no sense at all to my brain.

It can be done either way, and each has its supporters.

There are two major varieties of moveable do. One uses la as the tonic of minor keys, and one uses do as the tonic of minor keys. Both use do as the tonic of major keys.

The 'la-minor' system is the one that was used in 19th-century England and later adopted by Kodály. Of the two movable do systems, it is the one more commonly used to teach children in the United States. The 'do-tonic' system, on the other hand, is popular in university theory departments in the U.S. because it emphasizes the sharing of chords and functions between parallel major and minor keys.

If the implication is that someone who is confused by moveable do must not understand scale degree functions, then I disagree. The issue is not that scale degree functions are confusing, but that using the same syllables to name both fixed pitches and scale degrees is confusing. Imagine having to use the letters A-G to identify scale degrees when you are already used to using them to identify fixed pitches. That is what it is like for someone who grew up with fixed do who encounters moveable do as an adult.

Eastman's approach, singing both with fixed do solfege and with scale degree numbers, is a way of working around this problem (since many of their students come from a fixed do background).

Whereas for those who haven't come from a fixed do background, the use of letter names for fixed pitches and moveable do for scale degrees would seem to make sense.

Right. There is a certain symmetry to the problem. The solfege syllables are so much more singable than the alternatives that they are begging to be used for something, and once a certain way of using them is internalized, we don't want to mess with it.

On the other hand, pianobuff said she teaches her students both fixed do and moveable do, in that order. Maybe it isn't as big a deal as it seems to be to learn both.

Anyway, speaking of symmetry: To put more clearly a point I made earlier, both sides, upon initial exposure, could see the other as "pretending that everything is in C", but in different senses. A fixed do user might look at moveable do and think of it as "pretending that the tonic is C". A moveable do user might look at fixed do and think of it as "pretending that C is the tonic". Both perspectives start with the familiar sense of 'do' and try to interpret the other system in those terms.

Nicely put .

I am pretty firmly in the moveable camp, feeling that fixed is just duplicating letter names, but I understand that there is a longish history of do-re-mi for actual pitches in eg France. I think it's unfortunate in some ways, but we can't change history. I learnt moveable do in my early schooldays with a chart something like keystring's, I guess (Tonic solfa "modulator" I believe it was called), and later taught Kodaly-based moveable do with small children, using hand signs. But I've also used scale degree numbers with some success in sight singing and ear training with adults. Probably as long as you're not using fixed and moveable at the same time there needn't be too much confusion.

I think of fixed Do as the same as learning letter names to notes, really no different.

I think of moveable Do as the same as transposition. Or it can be used for interval ear-training.

Two different systems. Really not that confusing.

The thing that bothers me about learning moveable Do first (as a child) is that you really cannot hear and internalize the actual pitches of the notes.

Boira,

If you are still keeping track of this thread, I have a few more questions for you (besides the one about the Eslava book):

• Were you introduced to solfege and staff notation at the same time?
• When you were asked to sing solfege, were you usually reading from sheet music (as opposed to repeating after your teacher, singing something you had memorized, etc.)?
• When you were introduced to a new musical concept, such as the 'black key' notes, the melodic minor scale, or diminished seventh chords, were you introduced to the written notation for these things before you were asked to sing the solfege? Or was it the other way around?
• When you had to sing different pitches with the same names---for example, a D major triad and a D minor triad---did you find it confusing at first? If so, did you have exercises or drills to help make you more comfortable?
• Do you have absolute pitch (often called 'perfect pitch')? That is, can you hear a tone and instantly know what musical pitch it is, without using any external references?
• If you don't have absolute pitch: Do you ever get the urge to practice solfege when you don't have a pitch reference nearby? For example, you're walking down the street, you have a popular song stuck in your head, and you'd like to figure out the notes---but you're not sure what key you're hearing it in. What do you do in a situation like that?
• Do you play any transposing instruments? If so, did you have to solfege your instrumental music? Were the solfege syllables based on the written pitch or the concert pitch?