Fixed "Do" vs Moveable "Do" ; what do you use ?

[m1469]

Hello All.

Ultimately I am bringing up this topic because I want to be better at ear training for my students (and my own can always use some sharpening).   It also seemed there was some interest in this subject, so I thought I would bring it up.  Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of both systems, and use personal experiences with each if desired.  I believe ear training is intimately tied with theory, and that is why I placed this thread here.

Currently I don't press my students with solfege at all, actually, and I have realized that it's mainly because it seems to confuse them when I have (and I used moveable "do" because that's what I was taught (in Uni, mind you)).

But, I will admit that ever since Lenka visited our forum, I have been thinking more on this subject and I hear her voice echoing in my mind while I am teaching (I watched a couple of her videos, actually).  I guess it's time for me to address this subject.

So, as I explained, I was taught using moveable "do" however, I will admit that there is almost nothing natural to me about it.  I don't think it like I would a language, and thinking it like a language is ultimately what I want (maybe I just need more practise, but I feel unwilling to commit entirely to it since I am not sure of it's value).  I understand the reasoning behind moveable "do" and I like the idea of it, but I looked at the piano the other day and suddenly everything in me wanted to know it with fixed "do".  I just had a very clear glimpse of fixed do seeming much more natural to me and as though it is how I thought of the piano as a child (and perhaps that's the only reason it seemed more natural to me ?), and that perhaps it really would aid in developing perfect pitch.

I guess when all is said and done, I am most interested in the results produced by either system  .


Thanks,
m1469

[ptmidwest]

Hi, m1469.

I have had some advanced students who were brought up in their countries with solfege.  They could sing runs out of their Mozart and Beethoven sonatas in solfege as fast as an American kid can rip out "Happy Birthday" with the words at fastest tempo possible.  It was fluent, it was effortless, and it was moveable do, of course, because most passages move through other keys, or have some color with non-diatonic tones.

There were some who had learned fixed do, though, too.  They were fluent, yes, but at that level, they had to work a little harder at it, and their understanding of the theory was not "in their ear" as much.  Perhaps it was that they learned the fixed do, perhaps they were just not as good at solfege as the others, I was not sure, although the movable seemed more adaptable overall, and more useful at several levels.

Maybe it is an individual thing...some do better with one, some with other.

[m1469]

although the movable seemed more adaptable overall, and more useful at several levels.

Yes, that is what I like about it.  It seems more adaptable.  I get all messed up when I think about fixed do as it relates to analyzing music    I wouldn't even know where to begin, actually, if we were talking about Roman Numeral Analysis, for example.

I appreciate your post, PT, and I think it is indeed difficult to know whether the hardships or triumphs that people have with either system is because of the system or the person.  Thanks for posting in .


m1469

[danny_sequel]

What is moveable Do?
And what is fixed Do?

My ear training comes from learning the unique qualities of each interval
That means I practiced singing, recognizing and playing 3rds for a week, then 4ths for a week, then 5ths for a week and so on

I made an effort to separate my ear training from any theorical aspect, in fact you can ear train a child of 3 without him knowing anything about theory or music.
The result is that I don't need the piano to know what a melodic line, even complex, sounds like ... but maybe we're discussing different subjects

[m1469]

Well, yes, I am wanting to discuss something fairly specific, indicated by the title of the thread.

Both moveable and fixed "do" have to do with solfege.

On another note, theory is basically a way of explaining and communicating about the things we hear in music -- including intervals.  So, it doesn't matter if we know anything about it or not, thoery's happening.


Bumper Sticker :


'Theory Happens'

[danny_sequel]

Well, yes, I am wanting to discuss something fairly specific, indicated by the title of the thread.

Both moveable and fixed "do" have to do with solfege.

On another note, theory is basically a way of explaining and communicating about the things we hear in music -- including intervals.  So, it doesn't matter if we know anything about it or not, thoery's happening.


Bumper Sticker :


'Theory Happens'

But I still don't understand what fixable Do and moveable Do is all about
The way I've trained my ear and can sing-solfege complex exercises first-sight is this:

For example: 5th interval
This interval implies the relationship between the tonic-dominant
Hence it's an interval the give a sense of tension or in need of resolution like a bow ready to shot the arrow
For a week of two I kept singing all the 5th intervals found on a scale and this allow me to internalize the "unique quality" of the 5th
Hence now I can recognize and sing a 5th whether it starts from Do or from Mi# or from Sib or from Fa# and so on

What fixed or moveable Do has got to do with this?


 

[m1469]

What fixed or moveable Do has got to do with this?

I think the question is, rather, how does what you are talking about have anything to do with this thread ? .  Anyway, apparently you know what solfege is, so I assume you know what "do" is, as well.

"Moveable do" means that "do" can be any letter of the musical alphabet (as well as the sharped and flatted keys) and a scale can be built on that letter, giving each third scale-degree, for example, the same solfege name regardless of the key being used. 

"Fixed do" is something I know next to nothing about, but, what I understand of it, "c" is *always* "do" and everything else would be given solfege names built around that.

[danny_sequel]

I think the question is, rather, how does what you are talking about have anything to do with this thread ? .  Anyway, apparently you know what solfege is, so I assume you know what "do" is, as well.

"Moveable do" means that "do" can be any letter of the musical alphabet (as well as the sharped and flatted keys) and a scale can be built on that letter, giving each third scale-degree, for example, the same solfege name regardless of the key being used. 

"Fixed do" is something I know next to nothing about, but, what I understand of it, "c" is *always* "do" and everything else would be given solfege names built around that.

Fixed Do makes no sense to me. I work in a choir and have had several exam for ear training at my conversatory. Also I've been to other musical accademy and conservatories in Europe where they had tough (almost sadistic) classes in ear training and harmony recognition. In any of these instances I've ever seen someone using such a thing as "Fixed Do" nor I've seen anyone using "moveable Do" not getting absolute and perfect mastery of interval recognition, eat training and sight-singing
Talking about conservatories in Austria, Italy, France ... not New Zeland or Madagascar :p

[m1469]

In any of these instances I've ever seen someone using such a thing as "Fixed Do" nor I've seen anyone using "moveable Do" not getting absolute and perfect mastery of interval recognition, eat training and sight-singing

 

[danny elfboy]

What I mean to say is that faculties and classes of ear-training in the major european conservatories I have seen and the corrispective teachers and students with diploma have always used the system where you learn the sound of an interval and apply that to any degree of the chromatic scale. Since I'm not familiar with the concept of fixed vs. moveable Do I think what I described is moveable Do. I've never seen anyone in conservatories using a Fixed Do (or what I think the Fixed Do is supposed to be reading your description) system for ear-training and solfeggio

[will]

What is moveable Do?
And what is fixed Do?

This explains it pretty well - https://www.jomarpress.com/nagel/articles/Solfeg.html

My ear training comes from learning the unique qualities of each interval
That means I practiced singing, recognizing and playing 3rds for a week, then 4ths for a week, then 5ths for a week and so on

I made an effort to separate my ear training from any theorical aspect, in fact you can ear train a child of 3 without him knowing anything about theory or music.
The result is that I don't need the piano to know what a melodic line, even complex, sounds like ... but maybe we're discussing different subjects

I have started to follow the method outlined by Danny. I do not use either fixed of moveable "Do" but have recently been considering whether to start learning one of these systems. I'll try and gather some useful links that I have been reading and post more then. 

[danny elfboy]

This explains it pretty well - https://www.jomarpress.com/nagel/articles/Solfeg.html

I have to say that I find this pretty confusing because I'm european and I've internalized the Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Si scale ... so I can't related with all the fuss

What I can say is that I find the article kind of misleading as it makes examples as to why we need to not relatively but absolutely recognize a note FORGETTING that you never start singing by knowing absolutely which note is what but by getting oriented relatively starting from the note La (the diapason)
I've yet to find someone who is able to sight-sing absolutely a Do or Mi whithout first listening to the La and tuning the note they need starting from it

You americans are making it confusing while it is actually rather simple

Ear-training is known also as intervals-recognition which makes it clear that it's not a matter of reading and singing the note but "reading and singing the relationship between one note and the next" (which is also the core of sight-reading at the piano: you don't read the notes you read the intervals!)

I have read the article but I still can't understand how she managed to make it that complicated.

Going by steps I would say that:

1) Music is not made by notes. Music is made by intervals. Intervals are made by notes

2) Therefore each musical concept related to "reading" depends on "intervals"

3) Sight-singing means that you take a sheet and sing what you see (i.e. intervals)

3a) it's impossible to do this without having a "note of reference" which universally is the La of the diapason

3b) I think that singing with the sound "ta" would work anyway but teachers prefer students to sing the "note names"

4) As sight-singing depends on "intervals reading" you practice sight-singing by practicing "intervals"

5) Intervals are relative. Their quality remains the same whether the tonic is a C or a F#
In other words: intervals CAN'T BE FIXED

6) That's why I find the Fixed Do vs. Moveable Do so confusing. It's a matter of "fixing" the notes absolutely or "considering" the notes relative but sight-singing and ear-training ...  are not a matter of notes but a matter of intervals

6a) If one focuses on the intervals the Fixed vs. Moveable doesn't make any sense as the concept of learning intervals, reading intervals and singing intervals takes care itself of its methodology

7) So when I see a G - C I don't think about singing a G and the singing a C.
I think about singing a perfect 4th starting from the note G
The way I know the note G is by relatively finding it from the note La (which the diapason gives to me)

7a) Even thought I'm singing a perfect 4th which is relative and can start from whatever tonic and I could say Ta-Ta I'm singing a perfect 4th which is G - C so I sing this perfect 4th singing Soooll - Dooo

It's so simple. Why making it that complicated?

Here are two examples of solfege
The first is a "spoken solfege" and the second is a "sung solfege (sight-singing)"

Spoken Solfeggio MP3


Sung Solfeggio MP3

[m1469]

Well, if you have "internalized the Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Si scale", then you seem to use one of the systems "we" are discussing.  I will admit, though, that I can scarcely make out exactly what you are talking about and what your fuss is all about .

Anyway, of course music is about intervals and not note names, that's one of the main points of a "moveable do" system.

[danny elfboy]

Well, if you have "internalized the Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Si scale", then you seem to use one of the systems "we" are discussing.  I will admit, though, that I can scarcely make out exactly what you are talking about and what your fuss is all about .

I don't think so
Both the system as exaplained in the article will posted seem to me to have nothing to do with the normal european solfeggio and ear-training.

I still don't understand, how do you have a fixed Do?
Since either you fix a note or not you will never be able to tune it without a "sound of reference" hence the La ... I still don't understand what's the difference is going to be

My method is simple; I see the sheet and I sing what I see in the sheet using the names of the notes I see. I'm able to do this because I've trained my ear to recognize intervals

So is this Fixed or Moveable Do ... and why?

Anyway, of course music is about intervals and not note names, that's one of the main points of a "moveable do" system.

So you're saying that "moveable do" is about recognizing intervals as I do while "fixed do" is about recognizing notes. All I can say is that there's no recognizing notes per se as there's no choir and no singer that doesn't first listen to the sound of the diapason to know there the La1 is. So the "fixed Do" seems to promote the importance of something which is impossible anyway as no musician or singer does without a note of reference (not even the rare singers with perfect pitch do without the La of the diapason)

[m1469]

My method is simple; I see the sheet and I sing what I see in the sheet using the names of the notes I see. I'm able to do this because I've trained my ear to recognize intervals

So is this Fixed or Moveable Do ... and why?

I have no idea, really.  Firstly because you change around what you are saying everytime you say it, but secondly because what you have described really doesn't define a "system" at all.  Intervals on the page change in sound, too, depending on what the key signature is of a piece. 

And I am sorry, but I can only assume you are joking if you expect me to make sense out of this :

So you're saying that "moveable do" is about recognizing intervals as I do while "fixed do" is about recognizing notes. All I can say is that there's no recognizing notes per se as there's no choir and no singer that doesn't first listen to the sound of the diapason to know there the La1 is. So the "fixed Do" seems to promote the importance of something which is impossible anyway as no musician or singer does without a note of reference (not even the rare singers with perfect pitch do without the La of the diapason)

This is getting pretty silly  .

[danny elfboy]

On second thought
I read again other articles about moveable Do and fixed Do
It seems to be a matter of spelling of how you name the note you sing but it doesn't seem at all to influence the basic principle of ear-training and sight-singing
For me Do is always Do and Re is always Re. I don't see Sol and sing Do (while singing a sound which is Sol) just because Sol is the first degree of the scale of the key the piece is in
Yet I'm not able to sing what I see in the sheet because I think of the notes independently but because I recognize the intervals

Bottom line: moveable Do and fixed Do seems something appliable only to english non-UK world due to the problem of having internalized a music system wich call the notes with name letters rather than singable syllabes. But it seems to have little to do with the musically process of either sight-singing or ear-training

[danny elfboy]

And I am sorry, but I can only assume you are joking if you expect me to make sense out of this :

Then please, briefly, without letting me read confusing articles .. explaining in simple words what is moveable Do and fixed Do.
I'm almost sure it is just a system that you americans needed to make up for the lack of singable note names

I'm also sure everyone else not born in a country where the notes are called CDEFGAB would find this very confusing.

[m1469]

Please refer to the following post :

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,23095.msg257194.html#msg257194

And, btw, Fixed Do is European and the solfege names are how people refer to each note name on the piano (the note names are singable syllables rather than letters of the alphabet).  But, you didn't really need me to explain this, did you  ?  You are just messing around I guess.  Hope you got something out of it.  I guess I will just continue to discuss this with people in my real life.

[danny elfboy]

Please refer to the following post :

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,23095.msg257194.html#msg257194

And, btw, Fixed Do is European and the solfege names are how people refer to each note name on the piano (the note names are singable syllables rather than letters of the alphabet).  But, you didn't really need me to explain this, did you  ?  You are just messing around I guess.  Hope you got something out of it.  I guess I will just continue to discuss this with people in my real life.

Now I get it (searched a better explanation on the web)
I also get that my system is Fixed Do and that we don't have a Moveable Do system
Are you sure it may give some advantage? It seems to me to make things really confusing ... like seeing a note but thinking of a different name rather than the actual name of the note. I would find that really disorientating 
Now I understand it, but I still don't understand why to use it

[m1469]

Now I get it (searched a better explanation on the web)

I guess you could have done that to begin with in order to be equipped for this thread in the first place .  I should have just left my request for you to do that in, vs editing it out and instead bothering to explain it to you.

[danny elfboy]

I didn't mean to say I read a better explanation than what you said, but better than the article by that Jody 
I found a better article at berklee website before you posted your reply, but yours was good to 

I'm sorry I diverted the topic with my misunderstanding but now we can back to the original topic and I can attempt to answer to your original question.
I think Fixed Do is better because it's less confusing, what you see you sing
Moveable Do reminds me of that system they use to teach the bass cleff where they tell you to think of the note you see (like first space) and to move it to the next space and to think you're actually looking the treble cleff (second space in treble is La hence first space in bass is La) I've always found that more confusing than just learning what the spaces and lines of the bass cleff are called

I found a little research and found out that here "moveable Do" has been introduced in 1991 and it's just used (just by some teachers) in the first course of either solfeggio, sight-singing or choral practice. The point of "moveable Do" is using it to gradually move to "Fixed Do". So here it's considered a intermediate passage for beginners

[pianowolfi]

Hello All.

Ultimately I am bringing up this topic because I want to be better at ear training for my students (and my own can always use some sharpening).   It also seemed there was some interest in this subject, so I thought I would bring it up.  Perhaps we could discuss the pros and cons of both systems, and use personal experiences with each if desired.  I believe ear training is intimately tied with theory, and that is why I placed this thread here.

Currently I don't press my students with solfege at all, actually, and I have realized that it's mainly because it seems to confuse them when I have (and I used moveable "do" because that's what I was taught (in Uni, mind you)).

But, I will admit that ever since Lenka visited our forum, I have been thinking more on this subject and I hear her voice echoing in my mind while I am teaching (I watched a couple of her videos, actually).  I guess it's time for me to address this subject.

So, as I explained, I was taught using moveable "do" however, I will admit that there is almost nothing natural to me about it.  I don't think it like I would a language, and thinking it like a language is ultimately what I want (maybe I just need more practise, but I feel unwilling to commit entirely to it since I am not sure of it's value).  I understand the reasoning behind moveable "do" and I like the idea of it, but I looked at the piano the other day and suddenly everything in me wanted to know it with fixed "do".  I just had a very clear glimpse of fixed do seeming much more natural to me and as though it is how I thought of the piano as a child (and perhaps that's the only reason it seemed more natural to me ?), and that perhaps it really would aid in developing perfect pitch.

I guess when all is said and done, I am most interested in the results produced by either system  .


Thanks,
m1469

Okay I hope you all forgive me if I just skip this whole discussion and try to post what I know.


Fixed Do:

Do (Ut)= C
Re= D
Mi= E
Fa= F
Sol= G
La= A
Si (or Ti) = B

The origin of these syllables was actually a hymn to John the Baptist, written by Paulus Diaconus in the 8th century.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ut_queant_laxis

"The use of Ut queant laxis to name the notes is usually attributed to Guido of Arezzo in the 11th century.
It may be translated: So that your servants may, with loosened voices, resound the wonders of your deeds, clean the guilt from our stained lips, O Saint John." (Quote from the same article in Wikipedia)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_of_Arezzo

The system of moveable Do (as far as I know it) just uses  the term "Do" for the respective keynote. That means if you are supposed to sing a melody in G#Minor the G# is Do, the the A# is Re, the B is Mi and so on. In the aural training classes I visited we used to replace the moveable Do with just the numbers. That means if there was the task to sing a melody in A Major then A=1, B=2,C#=3 and so on. To me this was enough training. I have learned to relate the notes to their respective keynote.
 If you use 1,2,3 or do,re mi, does not make so much of a difference to me. To me it was important to learn to recognize the respective keynote (however it maybe called) and to learn to relate all the other notes to it. Of course this is only helpful in the context of our so called "tonal system" if you are training the so called "atonal system" with twelve equal notes it is better to have an absolute system like C,D,E or "Fixed Do" anyway. Hope this helps at least a tiny bit. 

[danny elfboy]

The system of moveable Do (as far as I know it) just uses  the term "Do" for the respective keynote. That means if you are supposed to sing a melody in G#Minor the G# is Do, the the A# is Re, the B is Mi and so on. In the aural training classes I visited we used to replace the moveable Do with just the numbers. That means if there was the task to sing a melody in A Major then A=1, B=2,C#=3 and so on. To me this was enough training. I have learned to relate the notes to their respective keynote.
 If you use 1,2,3 or do,re mi, does not make so much of a difference to me. To me it was important to learn to recognize the respective keynote (however it maybe called) and to learn to relate all the other notes to it. Of course this is only helpful in the context of our so called "tonal system" if you are training the so called "atonal system" with twelve equal notes it is better to have an absolute system like C,D,E or "Fixed Do" anyway. Hope this helps at least a tiny bit. 

I still think that Fixed Do should be the way to go even for the tonal system for the simple fact that I can just imagine how much the training is delayed when before having a chance to focus on actual ear-training and interval recognition you have to focus on sorting out the confusion of seeing one note and think another (like seeing a G# and thing of Do and sing the syllable Do) I think that's also why we use moveable Do for beginners (the rare times we Do) but consider it vital to move to Fixed Do when you have very complex rythmic figures and intervals, moveable Do becomes a challenge when you have to sing a Presto with lots of modulations and douple quintuplets and lot of dissonant intervals to tune

[ptmidwest]

One teacher here has a somewhat different background with the fixed or movable do.   It is basically the same as paragraph 5 in the jomar site referenced above, and the western European schools and some in Japan where she has worked consider this the norm. 

There are many exceptions, though, where it is taught that DO is the tonic in minor tonalities as well, with the syllables altered (or not altered!  much depends on who is teaching!). 

Either way,  DO is the tonic most anywhere.

I think it should be pointed out that perfect pitch is not considered much of a goal by most musicians and music educators, and the mixing up the process of developing perfect pitch with the use of the syllables really confuses this topic.

[pianowolfi]

One teacher here has a somewhat different background with the fixed or movable do.   It is basically the same as paragraph 5 in the jomar site referenced above, and the western European schools and some in Japan where she has worked consider this the norm.

Whom are you referring to?

[will]

Some food for thought....
https://choralnet.org/resources/viewResource.phtml?id=2178&lang=en&category=2
https://choralnet.org/resources/viewResource.phtml?id=1476&lang=en&category=2

[pianowolfi]

However, we have a joke here among music teachers: A student has to do an exam and is being asked: "What is the subdominant of F-major?" The student replies: "What? I thought that F-major IS already the subdominant " If he passed his exam successfully or not is a different question But to me this illustrates in a very simple manner the problem we have here. In practice we need both systems. For tonal harmony we use the tonal or better tonic-related system. For notation for instance we practically use the absolute system relating to middle C. Actually we need both. But to me it makes not very much sense to learn a lot of names and syllables and different terms. If you can sing a complex melody like in the examples above at sight on "na na" nobody will ask which system you have used to learn that. And to me it makes no sense at all to sing all this on these syllables. It just makes it unnecessarily complicated. Just my two cents.

[danny elfboy]

If you can sing a complex melody like in the examples above at sight on "na na" nobody will ask which system you have used to learn that. And to me it makes no sense at all to sing all this on these syllables. It just makes it unnecessarily complicated. Just my two cents.

That's what I say too
I had to learn the examples above in the past and actually with all this notes saying and notes singing it becomes a sort of tongue twister and believe it or not solfege is the MAIN reason here why many piano student just give up. It's not Chopin Etudes at full speed nor inverted motion scales but solfege

I agree with you that we would better just sing "na na" or "ta ta" since what matters is just singing what you see. But I think that if Fixed Do system where you say and sing the names of the note would work better with just a "na na" then Moveable Do system is the quintessence of the nonseless "notes naming/saying"as it is still more dependent on saying note names instead of "na na" than is Fixed Do. In fact the only reason for moveable Do to exist is "note names" ... allow students to use "na na" instead of note names and Moveable Do loses whatever little meaning it could have

[will]

Danny, thanks for providing the sheet music and audio examples above. 
 

However, we have a joke here among music teachers: A student has to do an exam and is being asked: "What is the subdominant of F-major?" The student replies: "What? I thought that F-major IS already the subdominant " If he passed his exam successfully or not is a different question But to me this illustrates in a very simple manner the problem we have here. In practice we need both systems. For tonal harmony we use the tonal or better tonic-related system. For notation for instance we practically use the absolute system relating to middle C. Actually we need both. But to me it makes not very much sense to learn a lot of names and syllables and different terms. If you can sing a complex melody like in the examples above at sight on "na na" nobody will ask which system you have used to learn that. And to me it makes no sense at all to sing all this on these syllables. It just makes it unnecessarily complicated. Just my two cents.

Well said pianowolfi. Luckily, in countries where the syllables are the absolute note names they don't have this problem.
m1469 - I am still nowhere near sure what the best approach is ,  how about yourself?

[danny elfboy]

Danny, thanks for providing the sheet music and audio examples above. 
 
Well said pianowolfi. Luckily, in countries where the syllables are the absolute note names they don't have this problem.
m1469 - I am still nowhere near sure what the best approach is ,  how about yourself?

I think (guess) you're at a leve where moveable Do will be too confusing
Either learn well the Do, Re, Mi scale and sing what you see or either just say "na na" or "ta ta"

[ptmidwest]

Still interested in ear training for piano students... In piano lessons, depending on the particular student, I have only occasionally gotten into sightsinging syllables.  In theory we have to, of course.  But the majority of piano students only have ear training that leaves out singing altogether.  I think it's primarily because of lack of time during the lesson. 

So maybe my question is--and if this is too offtrack from your original purpose, m1469, maybe I should start a new thread--what is the best way to use solfege for piano students?  I am not sure it is efficient/effective for the piano lesson.

[danny elfboy]

Still interested in ear training for piano students... In piano lessons, depending on the particular student, I have only occasionally gotten into sightsinging syllables.  In theory we have to, of course.  But the majority of piano students only have ear training that leaves out singing altogether.  I think it's primarily because of lack of time during the lesson. 

So maybe my question is--and if this is too offtrack from your original purpose, m1469, maybe I should start a new thread--what is the best way to use solfege for piano students?  I am not sure it is efficient/effective for the piano lesson.

The best piano-oriented solfege made easy book I have is
"Elementary Training for Musicians" by Paul Hindemith

It's a great book which deals with solfege technique (singing, counting, note reading, ear-training) but in a way which is very completementary to a piano student: by playing a single note with the left while tapping with the right or viceversa and so on

Take a look at this good book

[ptmidwest]

Thank you.  Yes, I have that and we do use that often, but not the solfege so much.

Maybe I will look at it in a new light again, but...

[danny elfboy]

Thank you.  Yes, I have that and we do use that often, but not the solfege so much.

Maybe I will look at it in a new light again, but...

What kind of book/method are you looking for? In other words what's are you expectations?

[Bob]

.

[timothy42b]

I'm self taught on this one and maybe way off base, but....

I've sung in choirs most of my life.  There is a real advantage to having some systematic way of improving your sightreading.  Sometimes in a small church very few of us read music and have to lead the rest.  Sometimes, painfully, it's been just me.  <g> 

The only advantage I can see for fixed DO, if your description is accurate, is it's a whole lot easier to say rah than D# (or whatever, I can never remember the accidental syllables).  I think that I used the equivalent of this system, but with note names, for many years.  I saw Eb, I sang Eb. 

Then I gradually moved to singing by interval and got away from note names.  This wasn't conscious, just happened.  Eventually as i aged this got a little harder.  In the past few years I've moved to a movable DO.  However, I don't use the syllables, I use numbers.  Sorry - self taught.  However, anchoring myself to a tonic and always knowing where I am in relation to that seems to help.

Except - I cannot for the life of me sing a tritone accurately.  Fortunately it's not that common.

Forgive me for being dense - you'll probably get just as irritated at me as with the elf - but how does it help piano?  I have always been able to look at a melody line and know what it would sound like, without using any system, and the piano doesn't require you to come up with the pitch internally before playing, unlike voice or trombone.

There are times when I have seen a clear advantage to using solfege.  For example, at an orchestra rehearsal I heard the conductor sing a line in solfege to illustrate what he wanted.  Note names would not have worked, as different instruments call the same note by different names for historical reasons.  La would have worked but would have been less descriptive. 

Ah, I've wandered too far.  Sorry.   

[mdshimazu]

I was not able to spend the time to read all the posts, but this is what I think.

Fixed do is a method of naming notes, just like A B C D... is. This is useful just like the note naming system is, we say "Play A E F E B" and they play the notes, similarly we could say "Play la mi fa mi si".

Movable do is just like the scale degrees, 1 2 3 4. No matter what key you're in the si is always going to push up to do, etc. This is more related to relative pitch and theory matters.

Personally I pretty much don't use any of it. I name notes using A B C D and I describe notes in analysis using 1 2 3 4. I don't need anything else.

[ramseytheii]

It seems like the primary purpose of fixed Do is for sight-singing, since you can't use movable Do when sight-singing: you don't always know where it's modulating to.  But a movable Do could be useful for analytic, theoretical purposes... maybe.

Walter Ramsey

[penguinlover]

I totally agree with Tim on this one.

[m1469]

It's all about moveable "DO", baby, all about moveable Do.

[pianistimo]

the kodaly method thinks so, too.  i have not studied orff - but i believe that it combines the two ideas equally (if i am not mistaken).  someone can clarify that one.

how children learn is not complex.  it's usually by voice.  and nobody knows if the first pitch is on or off the vocal score unless someone sets the pitch at the beginning.  with folk music - you just go by common denominator of voices that you have.  therefore - everyone sounds better with a moveable do - because the voice range is good.

that's my reasoning.  also, kodaly teaches the child hand signals that go with the solfege -and it is very very helpful (esp in choirs) to use because it sets in their minds where they are in the scale and where they are attempting to go.  it's visual and in space.

[beethovenlover]

I'm currently in school, and we were taught both movable and fixed "do". I prefer fixed. I think it makes more sense in relation to the piano, but most of the other students found movable "do" preferable. I believe it is valuable for any student or musician to understand and be competent with both.

[pipes]

Solfege originated as a moveable "do" system.  It was used this way for hundreds of years before pitches started to be fixed.  That isn't my reason for preferring it, I just thought it was interesting.  I do prefer moveable "do", but I DON'T mean that I think musicians accustomed to European usage/fixed "do" should change.  Their use of solfege syllables to express specific fixed pitches is so universal that, if some people started using those names to mean something else, no one could talk about anything.  It would never work.  The options under discussion only apply in the U.S., and anywhere else that non-solfege names are used for pitches. 


The point of moveable do is to describe function, which is not just a theoretical academic exercise.  If you think it is, try playing Happy Birthday for your students using wild untraditional chords and see if they think it sounds strange.  They hear function whether they know it or not.  When we play and hear music, we experience it in a whole way with harmony and texture.  If musicians recognize these qualities in written notation by the functions of melodic notes and the changing relationships between those notes and their tonic, they will experience their reading very differently.  They will start to hear the whole piece as they read, instead of just deciphering which keys to press.  Stating the function of notes by using moveable "do" constantly reinforces the harmonic underpinnings of music and encourages more holistic reading.  By the way, a good system is helpful but, no matter what the system is, you shouldn't need it forever.  Gradually some steps will meld together or become automatic or get bypassed altogether, and eventually you're just reading fluently.


A good sightreading teacher will keep reinforcing the memory of "do", encourage thinking in relation to "do" or the "I" chord (or "i"), and DISCOURAGE reading note to note by interval.  I know a lot of people try to read by interval and haven't found one who could read well at all.  Once you get off, you can't get back on again.  It's like typing with one hand shifted an inch to the right:  nothing works after that.  All the good readers I know read (or think/hear) in relation to tonic, and the GREAT readers I know read in relation to the whole harmonic structure (even when it's just implied, as in a single-line melody). 


If anyone here is a great reader and does it by intervals, my apologies, and I'm happy that you have a system that works, but it is very unusual to become excellent at reading in this way.       


Back to fixed "do", I don't think it's practical in the U.S. simply because our students have to know the letter names for the notes anyway, and fixed "do" solfege is exactly the same thing,:  one syllable or name for each specific pitch within an octave.  So we would be burdening them with two names for one thing, which is confusing and doesn't seem to have an advantage.  If you like the idea of fixed "do" for U.S. students, just have them use the letter names they already know.  One of the best readers I know (and that's stiff competition) was taught to sing with letter names.  He was also taught to constantly hold tonic in mind, so he "caught" the idea of function that way, and now he takes it all in-- the relationships, the textures, structure and harmony.   


* Hi m1469 *

[m1469]

* Hi m1469 *

*Hi, Pipes*

Fantastic post !  Very clear and very useable !  Thank you very much .

[pipes]

Glad you liked it.  Cheers!

[timothy42b]

We rehearsed last night.  I'm filling in for the cantor at Catholic services this Sunday, then leading the praise and worship team for the Protestant service, then playing organ for the Lutheran one.

So I sightread a lot of unfamiliar vocal music for the Catholic liturgy.  I noticed where I had a clear chord structure I was singing by movable DO (though not using the solfege syllables, that would really mess up the congregation).  Where I didn't have a clear chord character I sang by interval, and it was never quite as secure.  (B B King's "inch.")

What confuses me is what application it has to piano.  Or are you just speaking generally?  Your voice cares, as does any fretless string instrument and many wind instruments, but the piano doesn't seem to need it. 

[ramseytheii]

We rehearsed last night.  I'm filling in for the cantor at Catholic services this Sunday, then leading the praise and worship team for the Protestant service, then playing organ for the Lutheran one.

So I sightread a lot of unfamiliar vocal music for the Catholic liturgy.  I noticed where I had a clear chord structure I was singing by movable DO (though not using the solfege syllables, that would really mess up the congregation).  Where I didn't have a clear chord character I sang by interval, and it was never quite as secure.  (B B King's "inch.")

What confuses me is what application it has to piano.  Or are you just speaking generally?  Your voice cares, as does any fretless string instrument and many wind instruments, but the piano doesn't seem to need it. 

I think the value of sight-singing is purely musical: it gets your focus away from the phyiscal demands of your instrument, and puts it where it belongs, into your ear.  Learning good sight-singing improves sight-reading, memorization, playing by ear, improvisation, accompaniment, transposition, all of the basic music skills which are less practical by modern concert standards, but of the essence for a true well-rounded musician.

Moveable do is mor practical for less complex music of the type you might find in church, since the modulations are generally never far, they happen on a periodic basis, and because a lot of music in the church relies on the practical skills mentioned above.

Walter Ramsey

[nia_kurniati]

Dear m1469, I am now like moveable do. In Indonesia we're using fixed do when learning classic, so we use C D E F G A B for every piano key names. But for last couples months I learn pop music and my teacher using moveable do. Turn out it easier and useful. I teach 4-5 years old kids, just the basic music for fun. The song is just around do re mi fa so (C to G) and the key is only in C major, G major, or F major. For example the melody is do mi re do, I say the do is move to sol, but the sound is the same, it just higher. And I put their thumb (finger 1) to sol/G key. Turn out they can play it quickly. Instead of I tel them to play G B A G.
Do you understand what I am saying?
SO yes I use moveable do from now. Thank u.

[a-sharp]

I agree with WR.

I never learned solfege as a child... only just last year in college. We learned (they taught) moveable do. The instructor basically just felt as WR does above - it's easier to learn, and just as useful for what it's designed for - and it's really hard to learn moveable do after having learned fixed do - but not so much the other way around. That said - I was unconvinced it would help with my sight-singing, but I went along with the program (like I had a choice, LOL) - and it *totally* has helped me in that area. I'm personally really glad to have learned moveable do... What important to me is being able to think in the key of the piece & then simply & quickly recognize the tones of that particular scale - it works for me... that's all. I like the flexibility of it - but - in that statement, I really have no idea what I'm talking about. All I know - is it has been really useful & cool, despite my thinking it was possibly pointless at first.

I do teach (when I can fit it in) a bit of solfege to my students - and teach moveable do, probably b./c it's what I know & makes sense to me.

I don't know if my feedback is at all helpful to you or not..... ?

[28lorelei]

I use fixed do, because it's the way I think.  I get very confused when using moveable do. 

I think people with perfect pitch think in fixed do, and people who don't have it think in moveable do.  For people who are adults and use moveable do, I would think moveable do would be better. 
However, there's this whole issue of "is perfect pitch learnable."  If it is, I would think that it would be more beneficial to teach kids fixed do.  It would be interesting to see how this would affect AP.  Hope this helps...