How to explain kids why they should go to solfege class at all?

[ragman1]

Something like this, I suppose.

Julie Andrews had perfect pitch, which is why many people find her voice irritating :-)

[ragman1]

Thankfully I never encountered the word Solfège but obviously heard about Do Re Mi and all that, usually in reference to young children being taught something or other musical.

But, for example, if Do Re Mi goes up the C major scale, what you call a C# or an Eb?

[kris]

It's sad that there is a lack of professionalism here on this forum.
I went to school and studied solfege.It was a school of classical music, not jazz.
The solfege classes were excellent - f.ex. you had to sing the notes from the book using do, re, mi, etc.
These exercises greatly developed the so-called musical hearing.There were also musical dictations - you had to sing and write down fragments of melodies.

[emanresu]

Thankfully I never encountered the word Solfège but obviously heard about Do Re Mi and all that, usually in reference to young children being taught something or other musical.

But, for example, if Do Re Mi goes up the C major scale, what you call a C# or an Eb?

do-diees mi-bemoll

[kris]

Thankfully I never encountered the word Solfège but obviously heard about Do Re Mi and all that, usually in reference to young children being taught something or other musical.

But, for example, if Do Re Mi goes up the C major scale, what you call a C# or an Eb?

Don't write nonsense - because it's a shame!
Singing is very important in music schools - without it you won't play properly - singing is the basis!

[Litterick]

Nothing is simple on a Wikipedia music theory page.

[ragman1]

Nothing is simple on a Wikipedia music theory page.

Oh, so true!

[kris]

...just to clarify - solfege isn't just for kids...

[RJVB]

Singing is very important in music schools

Erm, maybe if you you mean music school = conservatory, i.e. a institution for forming professional musicians.

without it you won't play properly - singing is the basis!

There are two aspects to music according to lore of old: cantare but also suonare. Yes, knowing how to sing helps with the interpretation of a lot of music, and I sometimes feel handicapped for really not being able to sing. Out loud; I can sing in my head and I haven't needed to take solfège classes to learn that.

BTW, interesting claim to see on a jazz guitar forum, that you can't play properly without being able to sing. I'd put jazz guitar firmly in the suonare camp (lots of choppy chords or fast scale runs, if you look at it analytically).

[Christian Miller]

Anything that isn’t the hexachord system or classic French fixed do gets side eye here mate.

‘Te’ and ’ma’???? F off m8

Do re mi fa sol re mi fa is the correct solfege for the C major scale. ;-)

[Christian Miller]

NB functional ear training which is essentially moveable do solfege is something the missus claims was really helpful in developing her sight singing chops. I think it was helpful to me as well. She was taught numbers, not syllables.

I think all that stuff where you have to solfege every syllable with some chromatic variant of the basic syllables and quibble over the syllables to use with modes is not especially helpful. At that point I think you don’t really need to sing syllables any more, you should I think be able to audiate the notes at this stage. In fact I think that can be a real crutch if you need to solfege everything you sight sing. Obviously more acceptable for instrumentalists.

(I think it’s more common in choirs in Italy say to do a pass through the part as solfege when singing and then do the words afterwards - not here.)

One jazz book that uses solfege is ‘Jazz Ears’; I haven’t looked at it for ages. It has some good stuff in but after a certain point the continued use of solfege syllables seems a bit dogmatic.

[ragman1]

What I don't get is this. The music we know is dots on a page, and has been for long time. Why introduce yet another system to be able to hear that?

I get that when it first came out in year dot it might have had a point but not now surely? I can look at a score and hear it, complete with chord symbols, etc, because that's what I deal with and play all the time. Why complicate it with an intermediary system as well?

Or am I missing something?

[Christian Miller]

What I don't get is this. The music we know is dots on a page, and has been for long time. Why introduce yet another system to be able to hear that?

I get that when it first came out in year dot it might have had a point but not now surely? I can look at a score and hear it, complete with chord symbols, etc, because that's what I deal with and play all the time. Why complicate it with an intermediary system as well?

Or am I missing something?

Re: the first point - there are books on music history, you know. It’s complicated but you start with Guido of Arezzo.

the modern moveable do solfege system is as far as I know the Hungarian system. So that would be Kodaly I think?

I know some frighteningly good musicians who learned this way though. So I can’t knock it.

Tbh I’m sympathetic with your second point. I think people get hung up on the syllables while the powerful thing about solfege is it is about learning the sound by the notes position within the central tonality rather than the intervals between notes; which makes it better for tonal music than intervallic ear training. This ‘easily distinguished singing syllable’ stuff I think can be a bit of a distraction. Good for kids though, esp with the Kodaly stuff .

[John A.]

Theory+ear training+singing+knocking.
So they go through all keys, intervals & chords with inversions, write down rhythm or melodic dictates,
sight read and sing melodies, knock rhythm exercises.
All together, this class is called solfege here. No extra theory or ear training courses for kid's music school. Those are all bundled into this one "solfege" class.

That sounds like "ear training" to me. I could be wrong about this, but I think that in the US it’s unusual for this material to be called solfège. Americans think of solfège as just the syllables, not the curriculum. I’d say I found it helpful for improving my reading and for developing musicianship more generally. I enjoyed the courses I took.

[kris]

What I don't get is this. The music we know is dots on a page, and has been for long time. Why introduce yet another system to be able to hear that?

I get that when it first came out in year dot it might have had a point but not now surely? I can look at a score and hear it, complete with chord symbols, etc, because that's what I deal with and play all the time. Why complicate it with an intermediary system as well?

Or am I missing something?

You lack musical education.
Just by going to school you learn to listen and educate your hearing ... and what will come of it is a completely different story.!!!
I have friends who dropped out of music school and they regret it very much.

[kris]

That sounds like "ear training" to me. I could be wrong about this, but I think that in the US it’s unusual for this material to be called solfège. Americans think of solfège as just the syllables, not the curriculum. I’d say I found it helpful for improving my reading and for developing musicianship more generally. I enjoyed the courses I took.

+1
And that's it.

[kris]

Erm, maybe if you you mean music school = conservatory, i.e. a institution for forming professional musicians.



There are two aspects to music according to lore of old: cantare but also suonare. Yes, knowing how to sing helps with the interpretation of a lot of music, and I sometimes feel handicapped for really not being able to sing. Out loud; I can sing in my head and I haven't needed to take solfège classes to learn that.

BTW, interesting claim to see on a jazz guitar forum, that you can't play properly without being able to sing. I'd put jazz guitar firmly in the suonare camp (lots of choppy chords or fast scale runs, if you look at it analytically).

Too much philosophy.
A music school is not always identified with a conservatory.
The human voice is the most beautiful instrument.

[kris]

I remember from music school adult opera singers who passionately sang solfege exercises ... funny.

[ragman1]

Re: the first point - there are books on music history, you know. It’s complicated but you start with Guido of Arezzo.

No, sorry, I absolutely don't start with Guido of Arezzo, of whom I've never heard, I start here, now, with what is current.

Tbh I’m sympathetic with your second point. I think people get hung up on the syllables while the powerful thing about solfege is it is about learning the sound by the notes position within the central tonality rather than the intervals between notes; which makes it better for tonal music than intervallic ear training. This ‘easily distinguished singing syllable’ stuff I think can be a bit of a distraction. Good for kids though, esp with the Kodaly stuff .

But you're not meeting the point about the un-necessity of two systems when one will do. When the mind is young what we're taught goes in and stays there a long time. Someone who's been raised on solfege is going to have to supersede it with dots at some point. One point is that 'do' isn't always the same note depending on context whereas, for example, the note G, on the second line up on a stave, is always the same (unless it's modified in some way, but that's advanced). If kids started with dots they'd be better at it quicker.

[RJVB]

You lack musical education.

I also lack a lot of biological, physical and mathematical and (even more so) psychological education, but that didn't stop me from being a biologist doing successful research on the boundaries of those.

Just by going to school you learn to listen and educate your hearing ...

I actually got that in music classes in regular secondary school, where we listened to and discussed plenty of different styles of music in the context of their history.

Starting with theory and solfège always feels like putting the cart in front of the horses to me, to a large extent.

[ragman1]

Starting with theory and solfège always feels like putting the cart in front of the horses to me, to a large extent.

Quite so. Music is practical. Theory is there to explain and enhance the practical. The practical is not there to explain the theory!

[kris]

I also lack a lot of biological, physical and mathematical and (even more so) psychological education, but that didn't stop me from being a biologist doing successful research on the boundaries of those.



I actually got that in music classes in regular secondary school, where we listened to and discussed plenty of different styles of music in the context of their history.

Starting with theory and solfège always feels like putting the cart in front of the horses to me, to a large extent.

Apparently one school is not equal to another school.
It all depends on the curriculum and who conducts the classes....I had what you write about in music history class.
If you are an excellent biologist, congratulations.

[Christian Miller]

But you're not meeting the point about the un-necessity of two systems when one will do. When the mind is young what we're taught goes in and stays there a long time. Someone who's been raised on solfege is going to have to supersede it with dots at some point. One point is that 'do' isn't always the same note depending on context whereas, for example, the note G, on the second line up on a stave, is always the same (unless it's modified in some way, but that's advanced). If kids started with dots they'd be better at it quicker.

Better at what? Sight singing and dictation? Sure - if you have perfect pitch.

Let’s set aside the fact that not everyone calls the note on the treble clef second line from the bottom G (many in the world call it Sol) and focus on the fact that if you want to pitch any note and you don’t have perfect pitch and can hear the note G cold, it is necessary to do so from a pitch reference.

For those who don’t have perfect/absolute pitch it’s always going to be necessary to transform from an absolute pitch reference system to a relative pitch system. Why? Because we don’t hear the note G, for example, we hear, 5th in the key of C, 3rd in Eb, and so on and so forth.

Most of us already use a form of relative pitch notation - 1 2 3 etc. moveable do is the same things with single syllables that can more easily be sung. We pitch C from G for example not by hearing C in our heads but by hearing a 4 or FA in the key of G.

Tbh this is all basic stuff which could be learned by reading up on the subject, or indeed had seriously looking into any formal ear training. I recommend a book called ‘Sight Sing any Melody Instantly’ if you have any interest in improving your musicianship in this area which I doubt. But maybe others will find it useful.

Unless you (and any children you propose teaching) have perfect pitch of course in which case your suggestion makes total sense lol.

Good one!

[kris]

Quite so. Music is practical. Theory is there to explain and enhance the practical. The practical is not there to explain the theory!

Anyone can learn the theory easily.Playing an instrument is not so easy anymore.
Perhaps one should ask the question - why is that so?

[Christian Miller]

Anyone can learn the theory easily.Playing an instrument is not so easy anymore.
Perhaps one should ask the question - why is that so?

I’m a bit cross that through his more or less total cluelessness Ragman is making me defend moveable do solfege lol - which is in many ways clunky and annoying and people get way too dogmatic with it imo - but it will absolutely teach you to sight sing simple music accurately.