Advertise on ChoralNet
Solfege- how widely is it usedDate: September 6, 2010
Hello Choral Directors!
My family recently moved from Massachusetts to Texas. I was one of three directors for a decently-sized, non-auditioned choir and in that capacity was exposed to basic solfege (basic scale and intervals). One of my children sang with one of the better know choirs in Boston, where I understand they did not use solfege.
Once we moved to TX, we discovered that in the school systems down here solfege is taught starting in 4th grade- it is part of the state's requirements for chorus. (Up north, my impression was that some teachers used it in elementary school but most did not.) Consequently by middle school, children are fluent in it and my daughter was very much behind. Additionally, while I directed a chorus up north without working knowledge of it, that won't happen down here. Of course, I will work to learn it as will my children.
So this made me wonder- how universal is this? Do most states require that solfege is taught starting in elementary school? For state, national, or international competitions, how often is solfege used in teaching music or correcting pitch problems? Do colleges now require expert knowlege in this?
By the way, I am not doubting the value of it- I'm just surprised that it has caught on so completely down here.
Rachael Barlow
(former director of All Together Now Family Chorus, Littleton, MA)
Replies (35): Threaded | Chronological
Mike Ellingsen on September 6, 2010 1:59pm
Rachael -
Solfege seems to be the default sight singing system - at least in the midwest. I grew up using a number system, and for the first 20 yerars of my career used that with great success with my choir students. But - they came back from college and told me that solfege was being used there. So about 15 years ago our school switched - starting with the seventh grade and moving up through the system a year at a time. I remained convinced that it is not so much WHICH system you use, but more that you use SOME system. Your kids will be up to speed in it very quickly.
Best wishes,
Mike
Lindsey Rhodes on September 7, 2010 3:08pm
Mike/Rachel--
I too grew up using the number system. All through elementary, middle, and high school. Then I went to college and they were using solfege. At first I never thought I would get the hang of it, but after a little practice with it, I got the hang of it. Kids are like sponges and they can learn whatever you put in front of them. As long as you are using some system you students will do fine. I was good at sight-singing using the number system, and have done just as well with solfege.
Good luck,
Lindsey
on September 6, 2010 2:56pm
Rachel,
I am a graduate of Friends University (Do the Singing Quakers ring a bell?), a university in Kansas with an education degree; I also grew up in Kansas. Here solfege is occasionally used at the public school level and is used at the collegiate level during the first full year of theory and ear training; however, the choirs at the university didn't often use solfege. Recently, I have just moved to Tuscaloosa, Alabama as a secondary choral education Master's Student. Here they teach solfege for at every level. I teach the basic music skills class for non-music education majors and I use solfege. Even the choirs use it extensively; example, right now the auditioned ensemble is learning Eric Whitacre's Leonardo Dreams of His Flying Machine all on solfege. I want to video tape it once we get done with the whole thing and use it as a testimony to the power of teaching by solfege because it changes key so much so we change where "do" goes for certain sections (meaning, yes we use the fixed "do" system) and that keeps track of our intervals but we haven't had to go to a piano but one or two times so far. I also teach solfege with the Curwin hand signs to my basic skills class as well and was taught solfege and hand signs starting in high school. Hope this helps you out a bit.
Best wishes,
Kyle D. Wheatley
Teaching Assistant in Secondary Choral Education
University of Alabama
kdwheatley(a)crimson.ua.edu
on September 6, 2010 7:41pm
Hi, Rachael, and thanks for mentioning the All Together Now Family Chorus to remind me (us!) of what you're coming from.
In my experience, the decision whether to use one of the forms of solfege or one of the other systems (numbers, for example) has always been up to the individual teacher. In fact any system should not be used by a teacher who has not been well trained in that system.
Kodály, of course, settled on moveable-do solfege as the best suited for educational purposes, so all Kodály-trained teachers know it and understand it. But each system has its strong points and its weak points, and can be used effectively IF the teacher is fluent in it.
Texas, of course, is not exactly the most advanced educational state in the union, and may very well have state-mandated teaching of certain things, similar to the European tradition of national syllabi that have every teacher in the country teaching the same thing on the same day, but that has not been the typical situation in the U.S. Don't forget that it was Texas that forbade a talented male countertenor (or sopranist if you prefer) from singing in the state honor choir because "boys don't sing soprano."!!! And no, those of us who understand the countertenor voice will never let them live that one down!
I have seen solfege in use (my late wife had Kodály training), and I've had students who were well trained in its use, and it is a VERY valuable system indeed. I don't happen to have that training myself, so I do not use it. My wife, in fact, while she used moveable-do, understood fixed-do and its terminology well enough to translate when she ran into students from other countries who had been trained in that system, and were bewildered by the use of moveable-do.
But it is certainly not mandated in Virginia, and unless things have changed, our own music education students are made aware of it, but are NOT trained in it to the point that they would be considered qualified to teach it. Which is a shame.
All the best,
John
on September 6, 2010 9:24pm
.....Texas, of course, is not exactly the most advanced educational state in the union,....
Pretty bold statement. I'm curious though John - 1) Which state is? 2) Is Texas in the top 50?
;-)
Sorry but I had to call you on that one....
on September 6, 2010 10:33pm
Terrence,
I would have to agree with you. The level of music education in Texas is amazing! Their all-state choirs perform at a very high level. There have been guest conductors who claim that their all-state choral ensembles are the best! You don't find many all-state honor groups that perform a 50 minute to an hour long performance (12+ pieces of music) with orchestra in 3 days! It is quite impressive what they can do. I know many friends of mine who teach there are Kodaly trained and do use solfege and I use it with my groups in VA. Solfege is quite fun I must admit!! I also know that Texas kids do have to go through many rounds of rehearsals and auditions to be selected for their top notch choirs though at the state level.
Cheers,
Chris
on September 7, 2010 9:29am
OK, Terrence, you're right. Mea culpa. I have to confess that it's more a matter of perception than of actually knowing the facts, and I've gotten an earful of facts since I dissed Texas that point out how wrong my generalization was. I apologize, Texas!
But I think in part that my PERCEPTION (there's that word again!) is partially driven by the recent news articles about some State Board of Education in Texas that's heavily loaded with religious conservatives who are pushing to get their religious beliefs incorporated either into the Texas schools or into the "approved" textbooks, and THAT is a perception that all the fantastic teachers and wonderful programs in the world cannot erase.
I'm all for anyone who believes anything teaching it as they wish to in their church schools or Sunday schools. But I am firmly against that knd of mixing of church and state and the state-mandated inclusion of specific sectarian beliefs in educational requirements in the public schools. Not meaning to set off a huge debate here, since this is clearly not the proper forum for it, nor to debate specific beliefs or belief systems. Just concerned with undue influences over education, which we on this forum MUST take into account because of the unending questions of sacred music in the schools and community standards and perceptions.
All the best,
John
on September 7, 2010 1:03pm
I'm intrigued by the statement that John Howells makes when he speaks of the " European tradition of national syllabi that have every teacher in the country teaching the same thing on the same day". I worked in Primary education in England (a member country of the European Union) for over thirty years before my retirement without being aware of such a tradition - perhaps Mr. Howells has knowledge that I don't have - and there is certainly no such thing as a Europe-wide National Curriculum, although we have had one in England for almost twenty years which lays down requirements for areas of study but which definitely doesn't require every teacher to teach the same things on the same day! When our National Curriculum was introduced it was criticised in some quarters as being too restrictive; one of our County Advisers said to me that he believed that "the soul had gone out of education", but over the years teachers have gradually begun to be allowed rather more freedom. I served on a County working-party whose remit was to advise the Government on our county's recommendations for the music content of the N.C. I'm not sure how much notice was taken of our recommendations, but since the introduction of the N.C. it's been my perception that there has been a great deal of development in school music, certainly at the Primary stage, and I know that my fourteen-year-old grandson is greatly looking forward to starting the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE) Music course work in his High School in this new school year - he's already a very competent musician and is excited by what he's already discovered about the content of the course, especially about the aspects of composition and performance.
David
on September 7, 2010 4:54pm
Hi, David. (And it's Howell; luckily there's only one of me!)
Things may well have changed in Europe since my experience of it, but going back into the early '60s my parents hosted a visiting music teacher from Turkey who came to the U.S. to observe teaching methods here. He's the one who told them that in Turkey they really did have a national syllabus, and that every teacher really was teaching the same lesson every day. And he was dismayed to find that in the U.S. the syllabi were left up to individual teachers!!
Now Turkey is not all of Europe, and things may have changed since the early '60s, but his visit has stuck with me for all these years. And of course various attempts at "national standards," in some cases simply by mandating outcomes testing, have been and still are being made here in the U.S. And of course not all teachers agree that those attempts are pedagogically sound, although that's rather a different discussion.
All the best,
John
on September 7, 2010 2:54am
I've found that solfege is counter productive for me as a singer, as I've had no formal training to get where I am now, as a confident sight singer. I only came across it last year, and just couldn't get my head around it. I guess it works better if you've had no experience with music, but it just started confusing me, and wasn't of any help, so I dropped it.
on September 7, 2010 10:21am
yeah, solfege is a great tool - I tend to look at it as an excellent crutch - but if your leg isn't broken you probably don't need a crutch and it sure can hinder you trying to use a crutch when you don't need one. The main thing obviously is to get the notes right. I teach aural practice on a university level and I mainly leave it open for the kids if they use solfege or not. (that is, if they manage to get the notes right...)
on September 7, 2010 10:22am
Solfege is a method for LEARNING sight-singing. If you already know how to sight sing, it just adds another layer of complexity.
I didn't encounter solfege until grad school (in Texas), when I had to teach it to myself overnight to teach ear-training. I can sing the right syllables in moveable do, fixed do, and numbers, but I don't really USE any of those systems to sight read.
on September 7, 2010 4:49am
As a northerner, I agree that solfege use is very spotty in this area of the country. However, I think that has more to do with the fact that teaching music literacy is not considered an essential part of teaching music - which is terribly unfortunate. Most choruses that I have experienced have essentially been taught by rote, with perhaps one or two people in each section of the choir who can read and who carry the rest of their section while reading. I frankly am not terribly surprised that music classes in this part of the country are often the first thing on the chopping block - because the amount of "educational" value is often non-existent. Choir classes are essentially an experience rather than a real education. I'm not doubting the value of the experience, since that is what drove me to be teaching music today. But in what other subject is it considered ok for students to spend valuable educational time, but then leave the class at the end of the year and still be completely dependent on the teacher in order to "learn"?
I vowed a few years ago that I would not play or sing parts to my high school students and that's what I have done - my high school students learn nearly all of their music using solfege. My kids learn music faster now, their intonation is better, and most important of all - they can do it without me! I am immensely indebted to Carol Krueger for all of her work. Her book "Progressive Sight Singing" is published by Oxford University Press. There are a lot of FREE resources for teachers on the OUP website:
I also have a lot of free materials on my own website for teaching music literacy:
I didn't become fluent in solfege until about 6 or 7 years ago. One of the exciting things for me is that teaching solfege has improved my own musicianship immensely. Learning it is definitely worth the effort, in my opinion - for both student AND teacher!
Mike Driscoll
Brookline (MA) High School
on September 7, 2010 5:09am
Funny Terrence, I picked up on that one too. And John- so great to "hear" your voice again!
While Texas may have done something ridiculous with that counter-tenor, there are way more educational opportunities for my children here. (I also appreciate that being from VT as I think you are, John, you may disagree politically with the educational decisions in TX.) In MA, for children who needed special services, the schools seemed well-equipped. But in MA auditioned groups are the exception- here they are the rule.
My daughter in 8th grade had 5 bands to play in and auditioned for placement. She had 7 choruses (again auditioned). There are pre-AP courses for her in 4 subjects and she could have taken a math class that was 2years ahead. Music is given the same respect that English is. Her band teacher requires 3 hours of practice per week in addition to the 6.5 hours of playing time during school. Really- 1.5 hours per day 3 days a week for band and a half hour on alternate days. In addition, parents must (or their kids grades sufffer) bring kids in early once weekly for sectional practice.
We chose to move ourselves here for the education. And if I were qualified to teach music in the schools here, I would be beside myself to teach here where the parents must sign weekly practice cards and homework is expected.
Rachael
on September 7, 2010 6:07am
Rachel,
Interesting topic! You've already had some informed and thought-provoking replies about current use. I have two thoughts as well as some historical perspective:
Anthony Maiello, an orchestral conductor, once said in a clinic that part of his preparation of a score is to sing all the parts using solfeg. He does this until he can sing them all from memory (at least he did in the early 90's, when he gave this particular clinic.).
For Kyle: please announce on Choralnet the video of Whitacre's Leonardo when it comes out. Having conducted it multiple times 2 years ago, that would be a challenge - but more important, a wonderful example to folks who use solfeg!
The excerpts below are from an article I wrote (found by clicking here) in the March, 2006 Choral Journal on the history of solmization. The article is admittedly not about present use - but does give an interesting historical backdrop to the use of the tonic sol-fa system, in which the use of solfeg syllables were an integral part.
I started researching the subject because I was interested in the hand signs which I thought Kodaly or Orff created. It led me, of course, to Glover and Curwen. Where it relates to your post is in its worldwide use.
Again, Curwen's system included rhythm (indicated by punctuation) as well as solfeg. His system was originally devised as a precursor to traditional note reading. Later, Curwen came to view it as a replacement for learning traditional notation - a view which ultimately led to the decline of its popularity.
Your question is a broad one, and would be a great thesis or dissertation. I also said as much in my final words 4 years ago:
How about it, someone?
Gary Weidenaar
weidenag(a)cwu.edu
on September 7, 2010 8:55am
Gary: Thanks so much for making your article on solfege known, and for the excerpts you included.
Of course any study has to be limited, and as something of a specialist in early music I have to point out that you might have gone rather further back in history than Sarah Glover in 1810. In fact you would have found the origins of ALL modern syllable systems in the work of the monk Guido d'Arezzo in the early 11th century. Like Glover and like Kodaly in later centuries, Guido developed his system of notation specifically as teaching methods, and not some abstract, high-falutin' theory. And it was his work that gave us (a) our modern system of staff notation; (b) the beginnings of our modern system of pitch notation; (c) the awareness of halfstep placement that is the key to understanding how to sightread accurately; (d) the use of single tone-syllables that were easy to sing (as opposed to numbers, which are often multisyllabic and are different in every language); and perhaps most important (d) the linking of those solmization syllables to letter names for the notes (which had been in use for millenia and turn up in the oldest examples of musical notation presently known).
So neither sol-fa in its original form nor the initial idea for the use of letter names can be attributed to Sarah in any way, shape or form.
Now WHY did Guido do what he did? Simple. He is revered as a music theorist. (What else can you call someone who almost single-handedly invented musical notation?!!!) But in fact he was a music educator. One of his monkish assignments was to train the choirboys in choirboy school, which meant teaching them all the chants of the Office and the Mass that they would need to know, which they had to learn by ear and memorize becasuse THERE WAS NO NOTATION IN EXISTENCE! There were certianly early attempts, including neumatic notation and some other systems that were pretty bizarre, but at best those systems were mnemonics to remind a singer of the shape of a melody he had already memorized. Guido's was an absolute system that could be read off the page by anyone who understood the system, EVEN IF THEY HAD NEVER HEARD THE CHANT BEFORE, and he told us in his writings that it reduced the training time for his choirboys from 10 years to only two! But he was also a good politician, and the reason he gave the Pope (after a very effective demonstration in which the Pope himself sigh read a chant after a short instruction period) was that his system would allow the true and proper chants of the Church to be distributed uniformly throughout Christiandom.
And Guido's system was SO effective in music education, that it was still in use 600 years later and turns up almost without modification in Thomas Morley's "A Playne and Easy Introduction to Practiall Musik." And it was from Guido's solmization system, with its three overlapping hexachords, its letter names for notes, and its consistent syllables for the notes within each hexachord that ALL modern solfege developed, including movable-do, fixed-do, and probably Tonic sol-fa as well. (Guido's system, by the way, was a movable-do--or rather a movable "ut"--system, and by the 16th century had been expanded to take into consideration the transposition of modes that was by then commonplace. Fixed-do is simply a perversion of his system, substituting syllables for letter names, whereas Guido used both.)
Full disclosure: I have never been able to wrap my mind around tonic sol-fa, or to understand how it works with so few tone syllables, although I understand Guido's hexachordal system just fine and use it on a regular basis for analyzing and editing medieval and renaissance music for performance. But that's my problem, not yours. And am I correct that the Sacred Harp system as used in the U.S. is actually a later and perhaps simplified version of tonic sol-fa? But my guess is that whatever else it does, the power of the system is in idenfifying where the half steps fall in the scale, which after a thousand years is STILL the key to reading music off the page.
All the best,
John
P.S. Peter, it was Oscar Hammerstein, not Maria von Trapp, who came up with the dumb syllables used in "The Sound of Music," which in fact work only in English. Maria would never have sung anything remotely similar. I actually met her (Maria von Trapp, not Julie Andrews) back stage at a taping of the Johnny Carson Show, and she was every inch the gracious and proper European artistocratic lady, and a very impressive woman indeed. That much, Rodgers and Hammerstein got right!
on September 7, 2010 10:29am
John - Maria probably wouldn't have sung in English for the Von Trapp kids, no :D
on September 7, 2010 3:05pm
John Howell wrote:
I did - here are the first words of the article that opens when you folllow the "click here" link in that post:
on September 7, 2010 7:38am
I had never encountered solfege, apart from the iconic introduction many of us had from Maria Von Trapp in The Sound of Music, until I was working with the Phoenix Boys Choir in my early 20s. I grew up singing in several very strong musicianship programs, both school and community based. I was a very good sight-reader of vocal music. (PIano, not so much.)
However, when I began teaching a remedial sight-reading course for boychoir members who were vocally ready for advancement but still needed to strengthen their sight-reading skills, I was required to learn solfege because it was the system used by PBC. Coming from a numbers and interval training, I was skeptical. But not for long.
It changed my approach to teaching musicianship completely. I'm not Kodaly certified, although I have used a variety of Kodaly materials. What I found so helpful was that solfege not only works to make sight-reading much more successful for an ensemble, but actually helps build a beautiful tone. Its origins from Guido de Arezzo's six note scale using Latin syllables (later ammended to become the major scale version we now use) means that in the sight-singing process, the ensemble is singing pure, uniform vowels.
It also enhanced my own sight-reading. I believe it was Dr. Jim LItton, former director of the American Boychoir who told a group in workshop his own experience of coming to solfege as a well-trained, successful musician and being surprised by how it enhanced his own skills and improved the success of his teaching.
I agree with the posts above that one should not teach something they are not familiar and comfortable with themselves AND that any system is better than no system. I would add that giving solfege a try is well worth the effort. Just go with it and see where it takes you!
on September 7, 2010 8:24am
The Kodaly system of solfege really works. I used it when teaching elementary school music, grades 1-8. Beginning with sol, mi, and starting with only two lines of the staff teaches the kids the concept of different sounds and intervals. Then add la and you can sing "Rain, rain go away", "Ring Around the Rosie", "Johnnie Has a Girlfriend", etc.
I could begin class with hand signals of solfege, and the kids could
sing a new song. And they could recognize old songs, just by the solfege hand signals. Kids who were monotones in 1st grade were
singing on pitch in just a couple years.
Moveable do is what I have always used. Kodaly solfege and Kodaly
rhythm syllables are the way to go!
Ruth Bergstrom Jones, Lancaster, CA
on September 7, 2010 8:44am
Solfeggio can be a powerful means to help singers in lessons,
classes and choirs learn music literacy and a great deal more.
Solfeggio with handsigns, if taught consistently and well, opens up
multiple learning avenues for singers of all ages by means of
visual, kinesthetic, aural and cognitive connections between
director/teacher and singer. Much is accomplished via non-verbal
communication, which enhances pace, focus and rehearsal discipline.
"More than music literacy" means teachers can use handsigning to take advantage of those beautiful solfeggio vowels to shape tone, improve intonation, and obtain proper phrasing, breathing, and posture WHILE the singers are singing. Conductors will establish a palette of gestures, facial expressions and a body language that serves well throughout rehearsals and concerts. Much has been developed far beyond the groundwork set up from Guido d'Arezzo to Curwen and Kodaly. Serious solfeggers today teach singing with these techniques along with music reading. TONE is paramount. Problems with handsigns and solfeggio that i have seen after more than thirty years working with choral directors and vocal music teachers: The director/teacher relies on the piano/pianist to carry the rehearsal The director/teacher does not master sufficient skill to become fluent with this "language" before introducing it to students - there are workshops and courses available for those who wish to develop proficiency with this craft The director/teacher introduces a few solfeggio patterns as warm-ups, then drops the approach when reading music - the skills acquired are not put to consistent and direct use The director/teacher has singers read a few exercises with solfeggio, but then reverts to rote learning with choral literature - often the literature is beyond the current reading level of the majority of the singers The director/teacher attempts to move too far/too fast, losing a majority of the class/choir when they fail to sing or read well - preparation and planning are crucial, and PACE is key! Many of us think of singers as being separate from instrumentalists - thus we expect less from ourselves and our students, and take the immediate over the long term . . . we think concert to concert, instead of fall to spring, or kindergarten through college I invite collegues who have an interest in handsign/solfeggio to write me at SamBub575(a)aol.com - i have an article with much more detail on this, entitled "Beyond Survival: Why Settle for Half a Singer?", which was published in "Melisma" and "Music Association Journal". I will send it as a PDF file to you! - John Armstrong
on September 7, 2010 9:43am
If all you are talking about is basic (beginner) sight reading skills, the system doesn't matter as much. I prefer solfege (movable "do") because as the singer gets more advanced, my opinion is that solfege has a better system for handling accidentals.
on September 7, 2010 3:08pm
I have recently researched solfege for a graduate paper in preparation for a thesis. My belief was that solfege was superior to the number system for sight reading. Through my research, however, I located several studies which proved conclusively inconclusive. The research has borne out that it matters not what the system is, as long as it is used consistently. The latest research does show that movable "DO" solfege is becoming the system of choice nationwide, however.
I believe also that solfege is not only an educational tool, but has great use as one learns music.
I teach a high school chorus and use solfege exclusively because I believe the intonation, especially with the accidentals, is more accurate. Also, most colleges in this area use solfege so I wish to prepare my students for life after high school.
Currently, I am preparing a research project utilizing solfege and will seek input from all of you...what would you like to know about movable "DO" solfege versus any other system?
Karl K.
on September 7, 2010 3:09pm
I started using the numbers system in high school but quickly advanced into solfege after getting into an auditioned choir where you had to sight-read music on solfege only. This introduction helped me in my later years at college to learn on all types of scales(major, minor, harmonic, and melodic) and to use in a classroom setting when I will achieve my degree for teaching Music Education for elementary music. I strongly believe that the younger you begin teaching students solfege, the quicker you will learn to use it in adulthood.
on September 8, 2010 5:04pm
Rachael,
I am a Texas choral director and use it every day in my 6th-8th grade classes. I have found nothing in 22 years that teaches students to read as well and as quickly as movable Do solfege (and I've also taught fixed Do and numbers). The state curriculum in Texas does include a requirement for reading music in both choir and band classes. However the method (movable Do vs. fixed Do vs. numbers) is not specified by the state. In most school district choral curriculums, it is specified and a large majority of those districts use movable Do in Texas. For someone who already reads music, solfege is not a useful tool. However, in teaching children to read, I have found nothing better. It is not for those who already read, but it is the quickest and easiest way to teach someone to read. Out of state students often come without solfege knowledge, but quickly catch up. I think you'll be surprised at how quickly your children catch on (since they are already talented singers with good ears) and how much better they will read as they master it. Happy solfeging! :-)
Mary Jane
on September 9, 2010 7:16am
Mary Jane Phillips wrote:
BRAVO! Would that all 50 states had that requirement!
Choranet readers - does your state have that requirement or something like it?
on September 9, 2010 10:16am
Hi, Mary Jane--
Glad to hear the distinction between moveable doh and fixed doh. I have used both--however, in my experience it is the moveable doh that allows musicians to hear the relationship between intervals quickly and instinctively. My grade three teacher was taught to use solfege at Normal School (Teacher's College), where it was considered an essential skill for classroom teachers. She passed it on to a very large baby-boomer class of basic singers--it has helped me immeasureably.
My own primary through secondary school students have been known to quickly jot the syllables on their music, aiding in efficient sight reading, and one alternative to singing lyrics in rehearsal.
Anne Marie
on September 9, 2010 7:34pm
I find the comment, "...it is the moveable doh [sic] that allows musicians to hear the relationship between intervals quickly and instinctively" quite interesting. Working in a highly multi-national environment, with singers of all levels of experience, and ages from high school through retirement, I've found that those trained exclusively with moveable do, though able to sight-sing adequately when an example is tonal (major/minor), are as a rule helpless with music that is either modal or functionally non-tonal. The two groups that tend to be strongest in sight-singing *anything* come from either the British cathedral tradition (where I believe solfege is not normally used, though I may be wrong about that), or, with even greater competence, Francophone countries, where the traditional conservatory system is based on fixed do.
Jerome Hoberman
Music Director/Conductor, The Hong Kong Bach Choir & Orchestra
Principal Conductor, Baguio Cathedral International Music Festival (Philippines)
on September 10, 2010 6:20am
I also have used both fixed and movable do, learning fixed do first, but ever since I learnt movable do I have been firmly in that camp.
The inevitable argument about fixed do being better for atonal music is the point where I usually enter this recurring debate, but this time it's the assertion about modality that has me leaping to my keyboard. Modality is the easiest thing in the world in movable do:
Dorian - start on re; alternatively start on la, with fi instead of fa
Phrygian - start on mi
Lydian - start on fa; alternatively start on do, with fi instead of fa
Mixolydian - start on so; alternatively start on do, with ta (or te) instead of ti
Aeolian - start on la
Locrian - start on ti (not that I've ever come across any vocal repertoire in Locrian mode)
semitones still appear between mi-fa and ti-do in every case, and other intervals also consistent
I won't pretend I find alonal music easy to sight-sing, but it's the intervallic knowledge I have developed though movable do solfa that most helps me sing this music. (Of course, it means taking the 'movable' part very seriously indeed.)
A question to all fixed do proponents: what syllables do you use for accidentals? In particular C flat, E sharp, F flat, B sharp, and all double sharps and flats?
I might be more inclined to the fixed do argument if I'd ever had a satisfactory answer to that question.
Simon
on September 10, 2010 7:45am
Hi, Jerome. As I've said before, I don't have sofege training myself, but my late wife had top-level Koday certification, including the advanced solfege classes, and I can assure you that they solfeged the most difficult of music. I just can't tell you how it's done, since I haven't had that training.
Most things about music--or language, or anything else that can get very complex and subtle--are not obvious to beginners, and not obvious to those who have not had that advanced training, either. But as I've said before, each system has its own advantages and disadvantages, and that should surprise no one.
Simon is exactly right about modal scales. In fact I can't see what the problem is!! Unless it might be a mind set that "do" always has to be the tonic (or the finalis of a mode). That is most certainly NOT the case with movable do, and it was never the case in Guido's solmization, either.
John
on September 10, 2010 8:24am
I had nine years experience living, conducting and teaching in Europe in multinational enviroments. I would agree with Jerome.
The truth is - the debate over numbers/fixed/moveable is at least 30 years old (which is when I entered the profession and first paid attention to it), but certainly much older than that. I used numbers for three years as a HS student. Fixed DO for the first years of my teaching career, and moveable do with my students for the last 8 years, mainly because that's what they are taught in their aural skills classes. (BTW - I went all the way with fixed do - calling syllables "De" and "Fe" for Cb and Fb - teaching all 15 scales - De Ra Me Fe Se Le Te De was a different scale than Ti Di Ri Mi Fi Si Li Ti - although Cb and B Major occupy the same keys on the piano.)
All three systems have advantages and disadvantages - there is no utopia. My pick? Fixed Do. But I must say, I also can't disagree with those who think it is a crutch or an aid. It frankly gets in the way of a good reader who's plowing through fast, chromatic stuff.
When I hear students sight singing in auditions (currently to the tune of some 100 a year) - the most successful students are those who cast solfeg syllables aside when they get in the way, and seamlessly work syllables back in when they can. Most students, however, stop when they make solfeg syllable mistakes (even if the notes were correct) and ask to start again. So it seems prudent to teach the "skill" (which few directors seem to do, if the auditionees I ask are being truthful) moving in and out of syllables seamlessly. In other words - don't stop - no matter what!
The best readers? Well, if an auditioner reads well, I don't ask "Do you play an instrument?" I ask "What instrument do you play?"
One of most advanced sight reading choirs in Michigan in the early 80's was Paul Schultz's East Lansing HS. I asked him his secret once - here it is: He had a hymnal on every chair every day to start class. He asked a different student each day to pick a page number. The choir sang four verses of the hymn. Verse 1 - on their part. Verse 2 - Sops on Alto,Altos on Tenor, Tenors on Bass, Bass on Sop. In other words moving "down" one part. Next verse - down 2 parts, last verse - the part they hadn't yet done (octave displaced for their range). From first-hand experiecne, those kids could read!
Gary
DCS - Central Washington University
on September 10, 2010 8:33am
Simon Loveless challenges my "assertion" about difficulties in sight-singing modal music using moveable do, supported by John Howell. Perhaps neither of you noticed that I'm making no argument, simply reporting what I've observed from singers of (I'd imagine) more diverse backgrounds and experience than most of you have been in contact with.
All the best,
Jerome Hoberman
on November 28, 2010 2:43am
My public schooling was in New Mexico from 1970 - 1978 and Arizona from 1978 - 1982.
My college career was and has been from 1982 - 1992 and ever since.
I have had NO solfege, period.
I had Kodaly in elementary school A teacher that taught so effectively that I still remember and can teach her lessons TODAY.
I took ONE Kodaly masterclass.
I never played the flutophone.
I learned to read piano music by the number system.
I joined band in 1975 (6th grade) and play many instruments professionally.
I sing professionally.
As a music teacher NOW, I found that I wanted to teach solfege to my students after watching "Sound of Music" as a kid and not "getting" it. There are PLENTY of resources to assist you -- as an accomplished musician, it will take you no time at all to teach yourself solfege.
I teach solfege -- I then teach the younger kids songs to sing with solfege and the hand signals.
AND numbers -- once we begin reading notes, some students really respond to numbers.
As I differentiate my music instruction to whatever my students need, I also teach recorders to my third graders, as my sight reading was born out of my instrumental experiences. Today, I am an excellent sight singer. The reinforcement of pitch and intervals I gained through playing the saxophone raised my musicianship significantly as a youth. I want to develop the "concept" -- the sense of pitch and tonality. I do not completely "believe" in "perfect pitch", but my RELATIVE pitch is pretty dang close to perfect. The instrument is secondary, in my opinion, be it voice or piano or violin or tuba. Whatever works in the limited amount of time I have with each student during their schooling with me.
If it is not required or offered, I believe that you should do what YOU feel you are led to do. I am completely willing to do more work to teach my students more than is required by the school/district/county/state/national board of education if I think that it will add to their experience and not hinder them.
on December 14, 2010 9:29pm
I direct a 40 voice chorus of non-auditioned singers who range from music majors to just-wanna-singers and a few who have only one note they sing. Some read shaped notes, some find them confusing, so I transcribe the music in both formats and let the individual singers choose their format. For me, it is much easier to use shaped notes for if the piece has a high note the sopranos simply can't reach, is so simple to drop a half or whole step and the transition upsets no one relying on the movable do. Mostly, we have fun, record annually and enjoy ourselves.
 Community tags: Music Literacy Discussion and Resources
|
Help support ChoralNet by buying via these links
|
