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

[Litterick]

Why ask then? Is this a job interview?

I asked you because this is a thread about the musical education of children, you have taught music to children and you have an academic interest in pedagogy. You responded to my light-hearted remark about BC/EF with a post that would not be suitable for children. I was interested to know how you would answer the question if it were asked by a child you were teaching. That is all.

Obviously, I touched a nerve, so I will not pursue the matter.

[Christian Miller]

I asked you because this is a thread about the musical education of children, you have taught music to children and you have an academic interest in pedagogy. You responded to my light-hearted remark about BC/EF with a post that would not be suitable for children. I was interested to know how you would answer the question if it were asked by a child you were teaching. That is all.

Obviously, I touched a nerve, so I will not pursue the matter.

The thing I don’t understand is why do you want a model answer? What purpose does it serve beyond jumping through some weird hoop you’ve set up? I can’t think of a good faith reason based on what you said. Maybe you can enlighten me.

It’s quite a complex question and i don’t think that many musicians could give a simple answer if at all.

Any classroom explanation will involve ‘lies to kids.’ And while this question is a deep one, and deserves respect if asked by a kid and not some bloke on JGO who apparently isn’t even interested in learning the answer for themselves, in practice it’s not something that’s come up. I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it, frankly.

Now naff off and irritate someone else. Or me on a different thread.

[Christian Miller]

Any one of your students might be my spy.

I’m going to blame you for all subsequent misbehaviour and lack of practice.

[RJVB]

Any classroom explanation will involve ‘lies to kids.’ And while this question is a deep one, and deserves respect if asked by a kid

If this is still about why are there no semitones between B,C and E,F ... what's wrong with telling the kid that those intervals are already semitones, and they're semitones because that's the way it is in our music and that that fact is explained in a (much) more advanced course he/she can take in the future if they're still interested? I'd hope kids today are still used to hearing variants of "you'll understand later" ...

But frankly, I know there was a lot of theorising going on back when scales had Greek names rather than letters (or silly syllables), but am I really to believe that there was some successful theorist who had this brilliant analytical idea to complete the scaless by putting a couple of semitone intervals in the right spots, an idea that went viral until this day? Or is it something that evolved because of changing tastes and then was explained later on?
(It strikes me that this successful theorist could be a quantum physicist nowadays, inventing particles as the need arises )

[Christian Miller]

If this is still about why are there no semitones between B,C and E,F ... what's wrong with telling the kid that those intervals are already semitones, and they're semitones because that's the way it is in our music and that that fact is explained in a (much) more advanced course he/she can take in the future if they're still interested? I'd hope kids today are still used to hearing variants of "you'll understand later" ...

So what I said earlier, then?

But frankly, I know there was a lot of theorising going on back when scales had Greek names rather than letters (or silly syllables), but am I really to believe that there was some successful theorist who had this brilliant analytical idea to complete the scaless by putting a couple of semitone intervals in the right spots, an idea that went viral until this day? Or is it something that evolved because of changing tastes and then was explained later on?
(It strikes me that this successful theorist could be a quantum physicist nowadays, inventing particles as the need arises )

If you were talking about String and M-theorists I’d agree, that stuff doesn’t go near an actual experiment haha.

Though that stuff is actually hard, and music theory is usually fairly simple and just made to sound impressive.

[RJVB]

If you were talking about String and M-theorists I’d agree, that stuff doesn’t go near an actual experiment haha.

M - Maxwell?

Actually I was thinking about going near an actual experiment ... the idea got tested in actual music too, didn't it?

[Litterick]

The thing I don’t understand is why do you want a model answer? What purpose does it serve beyond jumping through some weird hoop you’ve set up? I can’t think of a good faith reason based on what you said. Maybe you can enlighten me.

I have no hoop. I was merely curious.

It’s quite a complex question and i don’t think that many musicians could give a simple answer if at all.

That is why it is interesting.

And while this question is a deep one, and deserves respect if asked by a kid and not some bloke on JGO who apparently isn’t even interested in learning the answer for themselves, in practice it’s not something that’s come up.

Who is this bloke? How do you know he is not interested in the answer, or has not read about it in other places? Surely you are not thinking of me? After all, I made clear I was not asking the question for myself but asking how you would answer a child.

And do you really think I would ask a question about music theory on this forum, given the quality of responses to such questions here, especially from you? Asking a question on this forum is asking for trouble.

I resent your assumptions about my education and my motives. You insult me, and I think you do so because I have put you on the spot and you don't have an answer. I expect you are unfamiliar with being challenged, like many in your profession. You could not accept that I was making an honest enquiry, even after I had explained my reasons for asking you the question.


The more time I spend here, the more I understand why so many musicians despise their teachers, and why so many students abandon music.

[Christian Miller]

M - Maxwell?

Actually I was thinking about going near an actual experiment ... the idea got tested in actual music too, didn't it?

Nah it’s something to do with multidimensional membranes.

[Christian Miller]

I have no hoop. I was merely curious.



That is why it is interesting.



Who is this bloke? How do you know he is not interested in the answer, or has not read about it in other places? Surely you are not thinking of me? After all, I made clear I was not asking the question for myself but asking how you would answer a child.

And do you really think I would ask a question about music theory on this forum, given the quality of responses to such questions here, especially from you? Asking a question on this forum is asking for trouble.

I resent your assumptions about my education and my motives. You insult me, and I think you do so because I have put you on the spot and you don't have an answer. I expect you are unfamiliar with being challenged, like many in your profession. You could not accept that I was making an honest enquiry, even after I had explained my reasons for asking you the question.


The more time I spend here, the more I understand why so many musicians despise their teachers, and why so many students abandon music.

oh do give over old chap

[pauln]

If we're going to ask a musical question, we should
ask at a more primary level. By the names of notes
there's a major key that has no accidentals but why
call its tonic "C" rather than "A"? If we call it "A" we
get a keyboard like this. BC and EF are whole tones
and CD and GA are semitones.



Maybe minor was more fundamental than major, with
A minor being the one without accidentals back when.

[Christian Miller]

If we're going to ask a musical question, we should
ask at a more primary level. By the names of notes
there's a major key that has no accidentals but why
call its tonic "C" rather than "A"? If we call it "A" we
get a keyboard like this. BC and EF are whole tones
and CD and GA are semitones.



Maybe minor was more fundamental than major, with
A minor being the one without accidentals back when.

However in Italy, the musical centre of the world for a long long time (notation and solfege were invented there), and throughout the Romance language speaking world (ie European civilisation) the note C was called Do or Ut. So no problem. Do re mi …

Who cares about those smelly Northern barbarians?

anyway, seriously, while I don’t really know I’m sure there’s a reason. One for an Early music sources video I think.

[James W]

If we're going to ask a musical question, we should
ask at a more primary level. By the names of notes
there's a major key that has no accidentals but why
call its tonic "C" rather than "A"? If we call it "A" we
get a keyboard like this. BC and EF are whole tones
and CD and GA are semitones.



Maybe minor was more fundamental than major, with
A minor being the one without accidentals back when.

This question cropped up on another forum I post on not so long ago. I still don't really have that satisfactory an explanation, but I do have the pictures of pages of Richard Hoppin's book on medieval music which I uploaded. It still doesn't really answer your question - I think the best explanation is that one of the first clefs was the C clef, which resembles the letter C which wraps around the line of the staff better than the letter A.

[Christian Miller]

This question cropped up on another forum I post on not so long ago. I still don't really have that satisfactory an explanation, but I do have the pictures of pages of Richard Hoppin's book on medieval music which I uploaded. It still doesn't really answer your question - I think the best explanation is that one of the first clefs was the C clef, which resembles the letter C which wraps around the line of the staff better than the letter A.

ah yes! Actually i do remember hearing that before now you mention it

[Litterick]

Gioseffo Zarlino, in his Dimostrationi Harmoniche of 1571, observed that music was based on two competing systems: modes that began on D, E, F and G, and Guido's hexachords, based on C, F, and G. Zarlino proposed bringing the systems together by using a scale beginning on C, which fitted with fitted with the tuning system he had devised, one that emphasised major thirds with the ratio 5:4. The C note is also the bottom of the 'natural' hexachord: unlike F and G, the C hexachord did not require a B, and so avoided all that molle and durum stuff. Zarlino's scale also ties with Guido's Ut-Re-Mi-Fa-Sol-La, which brings us back to Do: everything fits together.

[pauln]

Isn't it strange (and maybe encouraging) that we have present potential abilities that have not been discovered or engaged yet?

I've found things on the internet that suggest:
- there was a time of a million years during which homo erectus delayed progress in tool development due to being infatuated with fire
- there was a time when all singing in multiple voices used strict parallel intervals, so had no real sense of harmony as we know it
- there was a time when people who could read written language always spoke it out loud even when alone because the concept of reading silently to oneself had not been realized (imagine how noisy it must have been in the library)

What could we really do right now that we have never done if we could just "snap out of it" and transcend what's holding us back today...?

[Litterick]

The claim about reading out loud in antiquity was overturned by research published in 1997:

That year an important article by A. K. Gavrilov (subscription required) abruptly and completely overturned the old orthodoxy. The appendix of the article is where it’s all happening: there Gavrilov gives a tidy, straightforward catalogue of evidence both for and against silent reading. The catalogue doesn’t just undermine the old orthodoxy: it makes it blindingly obvious that silent reading wasn’t just an occasional thing, it was absolutely standard. References to silent reading are about three times as common as references that can be interpreted as supporting the reading-was-always-done-out-loud position, all the way from the 5th century BCE to late antiquity.

[RJVB]

which brings us back to Do: everything fits together.[/FONT]

Heh, after all isn't music (theory) one of the few western systems based on circular logic?

[Litterick]

Heh, after all isn't music (theory) one of the few western systems based on circular logic?

That would go some way to explaining why music theory seems quite different from other forms of academic theory.

[Christian Miller]

….and this is why we skip straight to Julie Andrews