Dear Casey I am a classical pianist and now I run a music school. I can tell while I understand movable do ( not why you would learn it) as I come from Europe and do is - c and the context is great as learning the pitches I have internalised all sounds I can look at music and read it in my head. I know the pitch of each note and in Europe frankly we only use letters for analysis or pop music. in fixed do we learn to recognise pitches by a sound same as people learn the sounds of letters in a way but we relate them to certain pitches and as they stay stable its so much easier to even notate from ear with time complex interval sequences. Also do in Europe doesn't represent do sharp or flat we have another sound to sing for that and to add. there is nothing to shift or add I would be glad to one day demonstrate how we learn and how we transpose etc.
Nah thats it, you sold me and the study at the end put an end for the discussion for me. F it, im getting the modus vetus and starting as soon as i wake up tomorrow. Was debating between possible advantages of movable do but since (one can only dream) i want to be able to sightsing highly chromatic music im going with fixed do. A million thanks man, godbless. (One day ill have the guts to go with modus novus, one day)
Thanks for the discussion about pros and cons of sight singing systems. I was first taught sight singing with numbers (Lars Edlund), then move onto moveable do (Kodaly- Australia) and am now looking to major in a fixed do system -Ha! Thanks
Very good video! One more important point I think should be added: In countries like Russia that only uses "fixed do", it is not just a sight singing system, these are the actual names of the notes. As a result, the student is not just learning to sing the notes, the student can also apply them to their instrument. This is incredibly helpful to transcribing or learning melodies by ear. Also helps to hear the notes in your head as you are sigh reading on your instrument. Accidentals are not a big issue, flats are added as "bemol" sharps are "diyez". Children are taught to sing with adding them to the syllable and without, eventually you learn to think of the accidental in your head. Transposition (at least in my case), is learned very early on. In second grade we had dictation that we had to hand in transposed to another key. In my opinion a child would benefit most by learning to sing the note names as they appear in their country. In other words, in English speaking or German speaking using letter names. There probably is some merit to learning some kind of a relative system additionally to fixed notes, just wish it was with different syllables names than do, re, mi... to avoid the confusion.
Hello...Is fixed-do solfege helps for singing only? or can we use it for piano?... and what will be the C# major scale ... Do, re mi fa sol la si do or re mi fa sol la si do re?...I am practicing with solfege but have some doubts in singing scales on black keys...Please help...thank you..
Will fixed-do enable me to easily find the tonic of any song? If I plan to write exclusively tonal music, is fixed-do still the better option for me? Can I use a fixed-do system with syllables that represent accidentals? What are the disadvantages of doing this?
Good questions, Bo ... It will be a matter of opinion but there are a lot of reasons that fixed-do is actually simpler. Finding the tonic will depend less on the system used for sight-singing and more on your analysis: what is the key signature, are there any accidentals, what notes does it begin and end on etc. Systems that use accidentals Do-Di-Re-Ri etc. in my opinion are kind of a neat trick, but damn is that complicated in comparison! I think it adds in too much, whereas fixed-do makes a good compromise in terms of the number of different syllables (7 just like the number of letter note names).
Sounds like a crazy sight-singing adventure! I was just looking at Edlund's Modus Vetus and that looks like some good material. I like using numbers to sight-sing serial or atonal music.
Do you know of a fixed-do system in which particular pitches always have the same syllable? For example, C#, Db, and B##(double sharp) would all use the same syllable because the arrive at the same pitch.
Sotorrio came up with such a system but I haven't heard of many using it. Check out the wikipedia entry on solfege, it has a table with some of the known syllable systems.
Thanks so much. I think we are going to give this a try in our school's program. Our kids all learn fixed-do solfege and piano from the early years in our school. I know it seems odd, but ever since we started strongly encouraging parents to buy a good digital pianos for their children. (We started this because, even if a family could easily afford a fine piano, we found that their pianos were infrequently tuned or were otherwise not cared for properly.) An odd consequence of this change is that a lot of the children seem to be gaining a heightened sense of pitch. We assume because one of the advantages of digitals is that they are always perfectly in tune. Latter on in the 4th or 5th grade, we strongly encourage out kids to take up an instrument for band, as the overall focus of our program is to increasing the fundamental musicianship of our middle and high school music programs. An odd consequence of all this is that students who choose transposing instruments such as Bb clarinet actually express some anxiety about looking at a C and hearing a Bb. Not a bad problem to have when you think about it. Our idea is to teach our students to learn to call the notes on their instrument parts by their alphabetic names, but to sing those same parts using the concert-pitch solfege syllables. After trying this ourselves, we quickly came to the conclusion that a system such as Sotorrio's (even though we did not know the name of it) would have certain advantages in this undertaking. Your advice has been most helpful. Thanks again.
Personally, fixed-do is much much more easier for me, as a person who has perfect pitch. If you play a note on the piano, the sound just goes into my ear as fixed-do solfège. For example, if you play a B on the piano, then I will just naturally hear the syllable "si". Does anyone have same experience with me?
Because that most English speaker don't use fixed-do, then if they ask me what I heard, then I need to translate "si" to "B" in my head, and then tell them it's a B. That's how perfect pitch work for me.
My solfege teacher at New England Conservatory had this experience. Makes me wonder how accidentals like G# sound to you though! Is it La or Sol or both?
It actually is a very interesting thing for me. When I was young, G sharp/A flat used to sound like a sol for me. Maybe because sing more sharp key music (eg. a minor, E major etc.) than flat key music. However the interesting thing is when I grew up a little bit, I start to compose, I love to compose in a flat key somehow. I love c minor, E flat Major, A flat Major etc. And then G sharp/A flat starts to shift. It gradually changed to sound more like a 'la'.
I used to be able to sight-sing any music super fluently without preparation (include atonal music) and listen out anything that you played on the piano, even if you just randomly sit on top of the piano key board, I could easily tell what keys you are sitting on in fixed-do solfege. But after I moved to Australia, I was forced sight-sing in moveable-do solfa. It is incredibly difficult for me. Especially when the music teacher play the piano while we are sing. Because each pitch sounds like a particular syllable for me, but I need to sing a different syllable which sounds super wrong to me. I was like why is the piano singing different with me?!!!! And also the score says la, why I need to sing a mi?!! What I sing does not match what I hear and read at all. At first there is like a calculator in my brain to calculate the name of the moveable-do solfa in order to read the score, and I was trying to ignore the piano sound. It was very tough for me. After long time of practice, I got the ability to sight-sing most every tonal music in solfa, but still not as easy as other students. But I found that me ability of sight-sing in fixed-do solfege is not as good as before. My aural is not as good as before either. But now, my fixed-do solfege is still better than my moveable-do solfa.
so why not just learn movable do? Sounds to me that if you learn movable do, you can just not move the do and it'll be the same as fixed do. Kill two birds with one stone by learning just movable do right? I imagine moving the DO would be harder if you only learn fixed do.
IMHO , Fixed Doh is a blindfold that prevents musicians from seeing the truth about the Composers intention ! on the surface it looks like Fixed doh is the way to go but in reality Movable doh is the authentic( except for Atonal Music-serial-ism) ! Try analyzing a JS Bach chorale without movable doh and what do we get?
Why do you think this? I use Fixed Do and It's perfectly ok recognizing the hierarchy of notes over each tonality. The argument that Fixed Do doesn't teach scale relationship is weird.
Because as you go deeper into Harmonic analysis ( eg harmonizing a J S Bach or Lutheran Chorale) or singing music with plenty of modes- (eg A Babe is Born by william mathias) Fixed doh will not help you appreciate whats going on or better still not work in learning such
Dear Casey I am a classical pianist and now I run a music school. I can tell while I understand movable do ( not why you would learn it) as I come from Europe and do is - c and the context is great as learning the pitches I have internalised all sounds I can look at music and read it in my head. I know the pitch of each note and in Europe frankly we only use letters for analysis or pop music. in fixed do we learn to recognise pitches by a sound same as people learn the sounds of letters in a way but we relate them to certain pitches and as they stay stable its so much easier to even notate from ear with time complex interval sequences. Also do in Europe doesn't represent do sharp or flat we have another sound to sing for that and to add. there is nothing to shift or add I would be glad to one day demonstrate how we learn and how we transpose etc.
As soon as I heard you sing the first example, I knew I HAD to have this skill.
Nah thats it, you sold me and the study at the end put an end for the discussion for me. F it, im getting the modus vetus and starting as soon as i wake up tomorrow. Was debating between possible advantages of movable do but since (one can only dream) i want to be able to sightsing highly chromatic music im going with fixed do. A million thanks man, godbless.
(One day ill have the guts to go with modus novus, one day)
Thanks for the discussion about pros and cons of sight singing systems. I was first taught sight singing with numbers (Lars Edlund), then move onto moveable do (Kodaly- Australia) and am now looking to major in a fixed do system -Ha!
Thanks
any system that has proven to be more effective?
Very good video! One more important point I think should be added: In countries like Russia that only uses "fixed do", it is not just a sight singing system, these are the actual names of the notes. As a result, the student is not just learning to sing the notes, the student can also apply them to their instrument. This is incredibly helpful to transcribing or learning melodies by ear. Also helps to hear the notes in your head as you are sigh reading on your instrument. Accidentals are not a big issue, flats are added as "bemol" sharps are "diyez". Children are taught to sing with adding them to the syllable and without, eventually you learn to think of the accidental in your head. Transposition (at least in my case), is learned very early on. In second grade we had dictation that we had to hand in transposed to another key.
In my opinion a child would benefit most by learning to sing the note names as they appear in their country. In other words, in English speaking or German speaking using letter names. There probably is some merit to learning some kind of a relative system additionally to fixed notes, just wish it was with different syllables names than do, re, mi... to avoid the confusion.
Any opinion on Nicholas Baragwanath new book "The Solfeggio tradition..."?
Great video! I wish I had this explanation 10 years ago!
Thanks Rodolfo, it was educational for me to produce that video as well!
Thanks! Haven't produced a video for a couple months as I am finishing my PhD, but will get back to work on this series soon.
Hello...Is fixed-do solfege helps for singing only? or can we use it for piano?... and what will be the C# major scale ... Do, re mi fa sol la si do or re mi fa sol la si do re?...I am practicing with solfege but have some doubts in singing scales on black keys...Please help...thank you..
Will fixed-do enable me to easily find the tonic of any song?
If I plan to write exclusively tonal music, is fixed-do still the better option for me?
Can I use a fixed-do system with syllables that represent accidentals? What are the disadvantages of doing this?
Good questions, Bo ... It will be a matter of opinion but there are a lot of reasons that fixed-do is actually simpler. Finding the tonic will depend less on the system used for sight-singing and more on your analysis: what is the key signature, are there any accidentals, what notes does it begin and end on etc. Systems that use accidentals Do-Di-Re-Ri etc. in my opinion are kind of a neat trick, but damn is that complicated in comparison! I think it adds in too much, whereas fixed-do makes a good compromise in terms of the number of different syllables (7 just like the number of letter note names).
These are wonderful! Thank you!
Don't you have a source for melodic dictation in fix do?
Sounds like a crazy sight-singing adventure! I was just looking at Edlund's Modus Vetus and that looks like some good material. I like using numbers to sight-sing serial or atonal music.
Do you know of a fixed-do system in which particular pitches always have the same syllable? For example, C#, Db, and B##(double sharp) would all use the same syllable because the arrive at the same pitch.
Sotorrio came up with such a system but I haven't heard of many using it. Check out the wikipedia entry on solfege, it has a table with some of the known syllable systems.
Thanks so much. I think we are going to give this a try in our school's program. Our kids all learn fixed-do solfege and piano from the early years in our school. I know it seems odd, but ever since we started strongly encouraging parents to buy a good digital pianos for their children. (We started this because, even if a family could easily afford a fine piano, we found that their pianos were infrequently tuned or were otherwise not cared for properly.) An odd consequence of this change is that a lot of the children seem to be gaining a heightened sense of pitch. We assume because one of the advantages of digitals is that they are always perfectly in tune. Latter on in the 4th or 5th grade, we strongly encourage out kids to take up an instrument for band, as the overall focus of our program is to increasing the fundamental musicianship of our middle and high school music programs. An odd consequence of all this is that students who choose transposing instruments such as Bb clarinet actually express some anxiety about looking at a C and hearing a Bb. Not a bad problem to have when you think about it. Our idea is to teach our students to learn to call the notes on their instrument parts by their alphabetic names, but to sing those same parts using the concert-pitch solfege syllables. After trying this ourselves, we quickly came to the conclusion that a system such as Sotorrio's (even though we did not know the name of it) would have certain advantages in this undertaking. Your advice has been most helpful. Thanks again.
I disagree, movable 'do' IS the DEVIL and it makes Baby Jesus cry.
MrPoochsmooch yes. But please elaborate!!!
Personally, fixed-do is much much more easier for me, as a person who has perfect pitch.
If you play a note on the piano, the sound just goes into my ear as fixed-do solfège. For example, if you play a B on the piano, then I will just naturally hear the syllable "si".
Does anyone have same experience with me?
Because that most English speaker don't use fixed-do, then if they ask me what I heard, then I need to translate "si" to "B" in my head, and then tell them it's a B. That's how perfect pitch work for me.
My solfege teacher at New England Conservatory had this experience. Makes me wonder how accidentals like G# sound to you though! Is it La or Sol or both?
It actually is a very interesting thing for me. When I was young, G sharp/A flat used to sound like a sol for me. Maybe because sing more sharp key music (eg. a minor, E major etc.) than flat key music.
However the interesting thing is when I grew up a little bit, I start to compose, I love to compose in a flat key somehow. I love c minor, E flat Major, A flat Major etc. And then G sharp/A flat starts to shift. It gradually changed to sound more like a 'la'.
I used to be able to sight-sing any music super fluently without preparation (include atonal music) and listen out anything that you played on the piano, even if you just randomly sit on top of the piano key board, I could easily tell what keys you are sitting on in fixed-do solfege.
But after I moved to Australia, I was forced sight-sing in moveable-do solfa. It is incredibly difficult for me. Especially when the music teacher play the piano while we are sing. Because each pitch sounds like a particular syllable for me, but I need to sing a different syllable which sounds super wrong to me. I was like why is the piano singing different with me?!!!! And also the score says la, why I need to sing a mi?!! What I sing does not match what I hear and read at all. At first there is like a calculator in my brain to calculate the name of the moveable-do solfa in order to read the score, and I was trying to ignore the piano sound. It was very tough for me.
After long time of practice, I got the ability to sight-sing most every tonal music in solfa, but still not as easy as other students. But I found that me ability of sight-sing in fixed-do solfege is not as good as before. My aural is not as good as before either.
But now, my fixed-do solfege is still better than my moveable-do solfa.
Thank you!!! I got it from your comment.but how long on solfege in fixed do to get absolute pitch?
so why not just learn movable do? Sounds to me that if you learn movable do, you can just not move the do and it'll be the same as fixed do. Kill two birds with one stone by learning just movable do right? I imagine moving the DO would be harder if you only learn fixed do.
Neither movable do nor fixed do is difficult to learn. However, I prefer movable do to fixed do.
Not a singer here..... what's the difference between this and just calling the notes their names? DDFDFAB
Nothing.
IMHO , Fixed Doh is a blindfold that prevents musicians from seeing the truth about the Composers intention ! on the surface it looks like Fixed doh is the way to go but in reality Movable doh is the authentic( except for Atonal Music-serial-ism) ! Try analyzing a JS Bach chorale without movable doh and what do we get?
Why do you think this? I use Fixed Do and It's perfectly ok recognizing the hierarchy of notes over each tonality. The argument that Fixed Do doesn't teach scale relationship is weird.
Because as you go deeper into Harmonic analysis ( eg harmonizing a J S Bach or Lutheran Chorale) or singing music with plenty of modes- (eg A Babe is Born by william mathias) Fixed doh will not help you appreciate whats going on or better still not work in learning such