Do-Re-Mi or C D E for my kids ?

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by iLaw:

Wow, we've really hijacked this thread.

I thought we were pretty much on-topic

[iLaw]

Originally posted by Floyd Tatum:

Originally posted by iLaw:

Wow, we've really hijacked this thread.

I thought we were pretty much on-topic

All I meant was that Jazz+'s original question was:

 

"So what do you say to those parents from Europe who want their kids living in America to learn beginning piano with the notes named only in the "fixed do" solfeg system?"

 

As much as I value solfeg from an ear training / sight singing perspective, I don't recall any piano teacher who solfegged (either system), and I don't think I lost out on anything as a result. Frankly, at the moment I don't know what I'd say to Jazz+'s parents.

 

Larry.

[Jazz+]

Thank you, Larry.

 

Anybody want to answer the original question?

[iLaw]

Well, now that I've had some time to think about it, I think I'd say something like this:

 

"Solfeg is an excellent tool for serious musicians and I will certainly include it in my teaching.

 

"Knowing the alphabetical note names, however, is an equally important ability, particularly here in the United States where your children will be performing with other musicians who may not be familiar with solfeg. Therefore I think I would be handicapping your children if I did not also teach them the alphabetical names that are so routinely used here in the United States.

 

"Many things can have more than one name, including notes. I do not believe that your children will find this in any way confusing, and it will be very useful in years to come for them to be 'bilingual' when naming notes"

 

 

I leave it to you to determine if and when you introduce "movable do" versus "fixed do" (you indicated that the parents are insisting on fixed do). My thought at the moment would be to wait awhile on movable do. By the time the kids are ready for scale theory you'll have determined other things that will direct you, such as whether they have perfect pitch (which, if so, will probably have resulted in strong pitch/name associations that you may not want to screw with).

 

Larry.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

Originally posted by Jazz+:

Anybody want to answer the original question?

Which one?:

 

Originally posted by Jazz+:

So what do you say to those parents from Europe who want their kids living in America to learn beginning piano with the notes named only in the "fixed do" solfeg system?

or

 

So how do young pianists that learn notes only as "Do, Re, Mi, etc" learn to deal with chords and music theory?

I answered the first one already, although it depends on whether you want to teach solfege or not. You haven't said whether you want to teach it in addition to your usual method.

 

As for the second question, it has been discussed in this thread also. It seems to me that solfege is not suitable for learning theory, that it is most suitable for singers, working on snippets of vocal music. What are your thoughts on the subject?

[Jeff Klopmeyer]

In getting my bachelor's in music, all performance-oriented topics were done in solfeggio. All composition/theory topics were done in notation.

 

So, at a final exam where you sight-sing, you have to do it with the do-re-mi. It sucked, but it was good for us. I'd often have the pitch and timing/duration fine, but the screw up the syllables.

 

Anyway, the answer: both.

 

- Jeff

[Finale]

Originally posted by Jeff Klopmeyer:

In getting my bachelor's in music, all performance-oriented topics were done in solfeggio. All composition/theory topics were done in notation.

 

So, at a final exam where you sight-sing, you have to do it with the do-re-mi. It sucked, but it was good for us. I'd often have the pitch and timing/duration fine, but the screw up the syllables.

 

Anyway, the answer: both.

 

- Jeff

Exactly.

 

Here at the university you not only need it for the exams, but also in the admission tests when you apply. Can't do it?

 

Go to Boardwalk Private Course, learn to "sing reading at sight", don't collect $200, then go back to University Avenue, try again the admission next semester.

[Jazz+]

It's required in France and Quebec.

[guestuserguestuser.com]

I thought about this some more. I also talked to my girlfriend, who is a professional singer, and used to be a professional music copyist. She also plays piano, composes, arranges, and sight-reads. She has been in many choral groups (classical, jazz, and pop), some of them acapella.

 

She learned solfege (the movable do variety) in elementary school before she learned to read staff notation. She said it helped train her ear, and that she still uses it to this day. After that, she was taught staff notation with solfege written above it. This helped her to relate solfege to staff notation, and cement both methods in her mind. I think that's a good thing, to be able to sing melodies from some kind of notation (solfege or staff) before learning piano. Perhaps all piano students should learn to sight-sing before they get their first lesson at the piano.

 

When she hears a melody, she can think of it in solfege, staff notation, interval numbers, or none of the above, just by the sound of it. I can think in all those ways except solfege, because I never learned it well enough - never internalized it. So I guess it's like learning languages - children easily learn two languages, whereas adults find it more difficult to learn a new language.

 

Learning solfege didn't do her any harm at all, it taught her an extra useful skill. She says she uses solfege in choral groups sometimes to discuss parts with other singers, but that it has limited value because a) it works better for diatonic melodies, and when there's no modulation, and b) other singers don't always know it.

 

So now I realize that it would be a good thing for a beginner to learn it, as a sight-singing and ear-training tool. Especially children, since they learn more easily than adults.

 

I have no idea whether it's better to learn movable do or fixed do, but perhaps it's better to learn whichever method is most popular in the country you live in, so that it would be possible to communicate to other musicians using the same method, if the need arises.

[Jazz+]

Excellent thoughts, Richard. And I agree with your points. I guess that for a beginner fixed do would be most practical and then later on they could graduate to a moveable do system.

[wurly_dervish]

I think I absorbed most of what is written above. Please note this is one quick glance with a beer in me.

 

In electrical engineering we have time and frequency views of the same problem. I remember this being a real head-f$%k when I first learned it. But its the only way to deal with the world of signals and systems. Time shows you transitions, glitches, sharp changes. Frequency shows you content, timbral characteristics.

 

Yes, I'd teach your children. A) They'll need it to communicate with other musicians. B) Each view has advantages. The initial learning "hit" is more mental calastenics (spelling?) which is ultimately good for a child. Do you use much from middle school? Me either. Was it good for us? Our "Listen and Scream (Sing)" book at Umich used both systems.

 

bye.david

[Alexander Nagel]

Originally posted by Jazz+:

Also, there is a difference in the do, re, mi system as used in United States and some European countries (like France). In U S. we use a moveable do. In France do is fixed, it is always C. Our do changes to be the first tone of the particular scale. So using do, re, mi does not mean the same to everyone.

 

Japan and England use A, B, C...

France, Germany, Italy and Isreal use do, re, mi (I think fixed)

For the sake of completeness: Romanic countries like France, Italy and Spain use the Do Re Mi system - and as Germany is no Romanic country, we don't.

 

Instead we have "C D E F G A H C" for the C major scale. Yes, that "H" is correct, because German "H" corresponds to English "B", German "B" corresponds to English "Bb".

 

Regards, Alex

[damoncrockett]

I didn't start taking Music Theory until college, and quickly learned solfege, though I always found it an impedance to singing the pitches in staff notation. It's more essential for a kid to be able to sing and hear an interval than to be able to name the solfege notes. When we did sight singing, we read from the staff, which makes sense - all of the singers I know read from staff, not some bizarre solfege tab. Also, I see no problem in using numbers for intervals - I do the same thing as Dave at the mall, and I think in thirds, fourths, fifths, etc., and it works. When I had to sing solfege syllables in Theory class, the syllable names were the only thing I would screw up (generally). Considering the goal- being able to sing the pitches of the notes in the right rhythm - it seems like a useless exercise to learn these syllables. Perhaps its more useful for children, and to be fair, it is pretty easy to learn (at least movable do; fixed seems like torture). I would note that my professor in Theory went to Eastman and said they never used any solfege syllables in theory class. So it is certainly not essential.