Solfege - moveable do or fixed do?
jjtko75
and ear training. After I got out into the real world, I never
thought about it much, because every musician that I happened to talk
about it with learned moveable do. I knew about fixed do, but always
(incorrectly) assumed it was an obsolete style of solfege. But now I
understand that there's more to it than that. Some cultures use fixed
and some use moveable. I believe that Juilliard, of course not known
as a jazz school by any means, uses fixed do.
Not only that, but I heard that there's another completely different
system, based on half-steps, that rumor has it Stanley Jordan used,
but I don't know the name of it.
I'm interested to hear your opinions on this. Which did you learn?
Which do you teach? Which one would you choose to learn if you were
starting all over? Anything else?
John
Eric E
Movable do for me too. I'm not sure I can get my brain around fixed
do. I think that might be a European classical thing, but I don't
have any experience with it either.
--Eric E.
Joey Goldstein
I find fixed doh more suitable for 12-tone music and movable doh more
suited to Tonal music.
The problem with movable doh is that you need to know enough about Tonal
analysis to know when to move doh.
The problem with fixed doh is that it obscures the tonic of Tonal music.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
jjtko75
> as a jazz school by any means, uses fixed do.
>
Jeez, sometimes I hit send too soon. I know that Juilliard has a good
jazz department. What I was trying to say is that their tradition is
coming out of classical music, and maybe their use of fixed do is
based on that.
John
Steve Freides
> jjtko75 wrote:
>> When I went to Berklee, we used moveable do solfege for sight singing
>> and ear training. After I got out into the real world, I never
>> thought about it much, because every musician that I happened to talk
>> about it with learned moveable do. I knew about fixed do, but always
>> (incorrectly) assumed it was an obsolete style of solfege. But now I
>> understand that there's more to it than that. Some cultures use
>> fixed and some use moveable. I believe that Juilliard, of course
>> not known as a jazz school by any means, uses fixed do.
>>
>> Not only that, but I heard that there's another completely different
>> system, based on half-steps, that rumor has it Stanley Jordan used,
>> but I don't know the name of it.
>>
>> I'm interested to hear your opinions on this. Which did you learn?
>> Which do you teach? Which one would you choose to learn if you were
>> starting all over? Anything else?
>>
>> John
>
> I find fixed doh more suitable for 12-tone music and movable doh more
> suited to Tonal music.
> The problem with movable doh is that you need to know enough about
> Tonal analysis to know when to move doh.
> The problem with fixed doh is that it obscures the tonic of Tonal
> music.
Your last sentence is indicative of a common misconception. In most of
the world, the so-called fixed-do syllables are just the names of the
notes. Fixed-do solfege is just singing on the names of the notes, it's
not a "system" like moveable do and shouldn't be thought of as an
alternative to moveable do. If you sing on the names of the notes in
English, you'll be doing fixed-do.
-S-
Joey Goldstein
The way I learned the "fixed doh" system is that C was always doh.
Are you saying that this is wrong and that in the fixed doh system, as
you know it, the syllable for C is simply "C"?
If yes, then what is the syllable for C#?
Please don't tell me it's "C sharp" because that is two syllables and
will make sight singing of single note iterations of C# impractical.
Meanwhile, if you're going to tell me the syllables for C and for C# you
might as well lay them all on me while you're at it, please.
Thanks in advance.
Des Higgins
Holey mackerel; that looks like a can of worms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solf%C3%A8ge
It is all in there somewhere. I did not follow all the ins and outs.
When I was a kid, I learned do re me as moveable do and as a kind of
proxy for "the real thing" which were the
familiar note names CDE etc.. I understood that real musicians droped
do re me as soon as they got out of short trousers. I got confused
recently with Spanish and Italian friends who asked me if I read music
and if therefore, I used do re me etc. This baffled me but all they
meant was that these are the name they use for the notes; one Italian
guy who works for me and who sight reads organ music, had never heard
of CDE etc. I found this incredible. I had assumed CDE etc. was
simply universal, and especially in Italian, seeing as half the
musical terms we use are just Italian words. Looks like, in one
familiar country, it depends on whether you are anglophone or
francophone: guess where :-).
Des
Keith Freeman
> guy who works for me and who sight reads organ music, had never heard
> of CDE etc. I found this incredible.
sol-fa note names, so they pronounce
CMa Dm Em
as
do majore, re minore, mi minore
etc.
-Keith
Clips, Portable Changes, tips etc.: www.keithfreemantrio.nl
e-mail: info AT keithfreemantrio DOT nl
Bill Godwin
>
> Meanwhile, if you're going to tell me the syllables for C and for C# you
> might as well lay them all on me while you're at it, please.
> Thanks in advance.
>
Ditto what Joey said
I THOUGHT it went
ascending:
doh di re ri me fa fi sol si la li ti doh
descending
doh ti tay la lay so say fa me may re rah doh
Please correct me if I'm wrong
Des Higgins
> > one Italian
> > guy who works for me and who sight reads organ music, had never heard
> > of CDE etc. I found this incredible.
>
> The Italian jazzers I've met read a chart written in 'English' using the
> sol-fa note names, so they pronounce
> CMa Dm Em
> as
> do majore, re minore, mi minore
> etc.
>
Exactly!! I was astonished first time I heard this!
Bill Godwin
> Meanwhile, if you're going to tell me the syllables for C and for C# you
> might as well lay them all on me while you're at it, please.
> Thanks in advance.
hit send too quick
Ditto what Joey said
I THOUGHT it went
ascending chromatic scale:
doh di re ri me fa fi sol si la li ti doh
descending chromatic scale:
doh ti tay la lay so say fa me may re rah doh
Please correct me if I'm wrong
Further that with moveable doh, doh represents the tonic
and that with fixed doh doh represents "C"
Joey Goldstein
Well that's the way I understand it too.
And in the fixed doh system C is always doh.
Now for me, that will create problems at first, because my psychology is
all tied up with "doh" being the tonic of the key the music is in. If
the tonic of the key needs to be vocalized as some other syllable, that
will fuck me up, unless I spend a lot of time getting over that.
My ears and my abilities within the sphere of relative pitch are all
based on the relative distance of pitches to the tonic of the key. So my
ears are pretty bad for 12-tone music. That's something I need to work on.
If I'm singing something that *is* in a key and I've got to use some
other syllable than doh for the tonic of that key *I'll* get pretty
confused pretty fast.
But I suppose the fixed doh system could be learned too with some extra
effort.
Using fixed doh for Tonal music I guess you need to practice reading in
all keys and getting used to the idea that in the key of Db, for
example, rah sounds like doh and lay sounds like sol, etc. And if you
can do that sort of thing, ultimately, it's probably good for your ears
and for your musicianship.
I should spend some more time trying it.
paul
>
> Jeez, sometimes I hit send too soon. I know that Juilliard has a good
> jazz department. What I was trying to say is that their tradition is
> coming out of classical music, and maybe their use of fixed do is
> based on that.
I have a class at juilliard this evening, I'll ask my professor if
they do indeed use fixed do for ear training courses.
Bill Godwin
fixed doh.
My experience really only is with Tonal music. If you put enough
effort into moveable do you really can hear pitches as different
syllables.
So to me, unless I was trying to do atonal music, fixed doh seems
counterproductive.
Dan Adler
This is the funny part to me, and I'm sure to all the Europeans here
who learned music in a language other than English. You know that note
beneath the staff with a line through it? That's "Do" in most
languages. If you sharp it, it's not "Di", it's "Do Diez" or "Re
Bemol" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bemol ). I know that's how we
call it in Hebrew, and I'm pretty sure it's exactly the same in French
and Italian. There is just no other name for that note in any key
signature in these languages. C, D, E are not used at all in a
classical context, and if they are (like in chords or key signature
names), they are pronounced "Do", "Re", "Mi". Those are the names of
the notes.
Someone in the US/UK/Canada probably decided that since English
speakers don't use those names, then they can be borrowed and
repurposed to denote I, II, III, etc. which is fine, but it's
interesting that it went so far that people now don't even know that
these are just the names of the actual notes (or what you are calling
fixed).
paul
use a fixed do, when singing sharps and flats they do indeed use two
syllables, "do - sharp" and "do - flat", for example. he said that a
fixed do is used in the "french school" or tradition, and that's where
it comes from. a couple reasons he gave are:
- movable do is very confusing for 12 tone and atonal music, and also
music that modulates a whole lot.
- there is some degree of retention if "do" is the same every time, it
can be very confusing at first to "come back" to a "do" of a different
pitch after a modulation.
They probably do a whole lot of 12 tone/atonal sight singing in their
ear training classes. I have certainly done quite a bit of work with
serial stuff in my classes, they really expose you to a very broad
range of repotoire and I can see how fixed do would make sense for
them to teach from that perspective. my professor mentioned there are
many great things about movable do, it's just a choice they have to
make in terms of being consistent.
--paul
mlhartman
There are several ways that fixed do is used. My understanding of the
traditional use is: do re mi fa so la si do. That's it (and no "ti" -
that's the American adaptation); the names of the notes. In different
keys you just think the accidentals rather than saying them out loud.
For example, in the key of A the syllables for 1, 3, 5 are still la do
mi. That's how my conducting teacher in grad school did it. On the
other hand the classical guitar teacher, Aaron Shearer taught his
students to us a chromatic fixed do system. They were to learn the
music using the chromatic syllables (these were listed above do, di,
re, ri, etc.) and then visualize them at particular places on the
guitar. So, then 1, 3, 5 in A major would be: la, di, mi. Or in Eb it
would be: me, so, ta. These are just two very different ways of
conceiving and using fixed do. The traditional system is good for
reading orchestra scores and transposing as is required by conductors
and it works because it is more simple (only 7 syllables to keep track
of). The chromatic system is more precise, but I find it just too
complicated to master. It would take hours and hours and, like Joey
said, you would have to get used to the idea that do is not
necessarily tonic. I've taught ear training on the college level and I
always used moveable do because it teaches tonality and context, which
is relevant to most of our music. From there, if someone wants to sing
12-tone melodies then one can do as Sam Adler advocated and use
intervals. The arguments for fixed do are probably just as valid, but
mostly work better with serious and long-term study, ultimately
(according to some experts) with the goal of developing perfect pitch.
Mark
jjtko75
<snip>
> You know that note
> beneath the staff with a line through it? That's "Do" in most
> languages. If you sharp it, it's not "Di", it's "Do Diez" or "Re
> Bemol" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bemol). I know that's how we
> call it in Hebrew, and I'm pretty sure it's exactly the same in French
> and Italian. There is just no other name for that note in any key
> signature in these languages. C, D, E are not used at all in a
> classical context, and if they are (like in chords or key signature
> names), they are pronounced "Do", "Re", "Mi". Those are the names of
> the notes.
This is what I've come to understand. Fixed-do is not really an ear
training "system" the way moveable-do is. Fixed-do is just the note
names. You use it for sight singing, but you have to figure out,
memorize and hear the intervals, and the names don't really have any
significance, they're just names. In moveable-do, there is a
significance to the syllables. Do is always the tonic, Sol is always
the dominant, etc. It's reflects how people hear tonal melodies.
Whatever key you play a melody in, it's still that melody. But I
wouldn't want to solfege Trane's solo on Giant Steps.
John
Joey Goldstein
> "Do", "Re", "Mi". Those are the names of
> the notes.
OK. I see what Steve what saying now then. Thanks.
Keith Freeman
> Bemol" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bemol ). I know that's how we
> call it in Hebrew, and I'm pretty sure it's exactly the same in French
> and Italian.
You're right Dan, I remember now, the Italians say 'do diese', 're
bemolle'.
Steve Freides
Yes.
> Are you saying that this is wrong and that in the fixed doh system, as
> you know it, the syllable for C is simply "C"?
No, the syllable for "C" is "do."
> If yes, then what is the syllable for C#?
Do sharp. Do diez or similar if you're speaking French, Italian,
Hebrew, or most other languages. Bemol or similar for flat, bekar or
similar for natural.
> Please don't tell me it's "C sharp" because that is two syllables and
> will make sight singing of single note iterations of C# impractical.
In my ear-training classes, if I'm talking about a piece of music in the
key of "c sharp minor," I just call it "do sharp minor." The do, re,
mi, etc., are just the names of the notes. Pick up a piece of music
printed in France that we say is in the key of A minor and it'll say "en
la mineur" on the cover. They really are just the names of the notes.
See but one example, found by googling "en la mineur:"
http://www.musicroom.com/se/ID_No/0437641/details.html
When you sing in fixed do, you don't sing the accidentals. The only
time you use them is when talking about music, maybe if you're spelling
out a scale out loud, etc. Again, they're the names of the notes.
> Meanwhile, if you're going to tell me the syllables for C and for C#
> you might as well lay them all on me while you're at it, please.
See above.
> Thanks in advance.
Welcome. The only reason to use do, re, mi instead of a, b, c - well,
two reasons: the rest of the world uses do, re, mi, and; they're a
_whole_ lot easier to sing on and tell apart than when someone uses the
English letter names.
Even though I'm American, I went to college in do, re, mi and I'm much
more comfortable using that if, e.g., I've got to solfege some busy
passagework - I can do it with English letter names but it slows me
down.
Last but not least, I apologize for my condescending tone in saying what
you said was a "common misconception" - I've really got to learn to get
off my academic pedestal. I'm trying.
-S-
Des Higgins
> On Nov 5, 10:02 am, Des Higgins <dazzhigg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 5, 2:37 pm, Keith Freeman <x...@x.net> wrote:
>
> > > > one Italian
> > > > guy who works for me and who sight reads organ music, had never heard
> > > > of CDE etc. I found this incredible.
>
> > > The Italian jazzers I've met read a chart written in 'English' using the
> > > sol-fa note names, so they pronounce
> > > CMa Dm Em
> > > as
> > > do majore, re minore, mi minore
> > > etc.
>
> > Exactly!! I was astonished first time I heard this!
>
> This is the funny part to me, and I'm sure to all the Europeans here
> who learned music in a language other than English. You know that note
> beneath the staff with a line through it? That's "Do" in most
> languages. If you sharp it, it's not "Di", it's "Do Diez" or "Re
> call it in Hebrew, and I'm pretty sure it's exactly the same in French
> and Italian. There is just no other name for that note in any key
> signature in these languages. C, D, E are not used at all in a
> classical context, and if they are (like in chords or key signature
> names), they are pronounced "Do", "Re", "Mi". Those are the names of
> the notes.
>
It is amazing what things you take for granted (like I thought the
notes were named CDE etc. since year one and in all languages). It is
a funny world. It is like when I first discovered places where you
read books from the "back" to the "front" like in Japan and the middle
east (both in Arabic and Hebrew I think?), I was shocked and
astonished. It was as if a fundamental law of physics was being
broken.