<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV><BR>Dear Art and the List,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>it seems to me that if someone started learing the system of solfege ("I started fixed do as a freshman") one should expect to have problems ("I sucked at it"). Music presents many problems, but this one is unique. It blocks the way to understanding all other musical issues. Then, one can fantasize about congitive aspects of music, etc. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The thesis that tonality is the relationship of seven scale degrees is the product of the problem above. No, it is modality that operates with scale degrees. Tonality operates with keys and chords, located on scale degrees but not finally determined by scale degrees alone. For example, G is not the Dominant in C major. It can be the fifth of the tonic triad. The triad of G major, with all its contextual effects, is. So, the task of solfege is not to teach the intervals within a seven-scale mode, but to internalize tonality as a complex system of relationships of chords and keys. For that, you have to learn the relationship of C major and G major by singing them both in one system of syllables. Harmony (progression, tonal-functional cycles, modulation) is the goal of solfege for professional musicians. Letter-names are abstract mute symbols. Solfege syllables are sounding elements for singing, within which a person can
train his or her professional hearing. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I agree with Dr. Gjerdingen that current system of training is based upon training adults. It is, therefore, wrong and has to be reformed. The Society for Music Theory can take the leading role in implementing countrywide network of music schools with decent training in both instrument and academics. It has been done elsewhere. Solfege (fixed Do or moveable Do) has to be taught professionally at the ages of 5 to 14. That is the core of the problem, not the system of solfege. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dr. Ildar Khannanov</DIV>
<DIV>Professor of Music Theory</DIV>
<DIV>Peabody Conservatory</DIV>
<DIV><A href="mailto:solfeggio7@yahoo.com">solfeggio7@yahoo.com</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> <BR>--- On <B>Sun, 7/15/12, art samplaski <I><agsvtp@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:<BR></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px"><BR>From: art samplaski <agsvtp@hotmail.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Movable Do Subculture<BR>To: smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org<BR>Date: Sunday, July 15, 2012, 12:32 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail><BR>Dear List,<BR><BR>Many thanks to Jena Root and Bob Gjerdingen for their comments re<BR>the current kerfuffle.:)<BR><BR>From a cognitive standpoint, I agree absolutely that if you want<BR>students to be able to internalize the relationships between scale-<BR>degrees, you need to have _SOME_ system that says "This is tonic,<BR>regardless of what pitch it is." You can use movable-do, numbers,<BR>whatever; but you need something like that. While singing Rossini's<BR>_Petite Messe Solennelle_ (which, as the program laconically noted,<BR>is neither:) in a community chorus this past spring, various<BR>chromatic passages made zilcho sense until I looked at them using<BR>movable-do SDs, after which: "Oh, right--Duh!"<BR><BR>I also agree 10,000% with Bob's point about college students being<BR>adult learners and just experiencing great difficulties in moving<BR>to a new system. I speak from personal experience, having grown up<BR>on
movable-do and then my freshman year of college suddenly having<BR>to do fixed-do--to say I sucked at it big-time would be a severe<BR>understatement, and it took many many many years to overcome my<BR>resulting extreme dislike for it. I now understand the need for<BR>both some sort of fixed system as well as a relative system; and<BR>found that students used to movable-do had basically no problems<BR>whatsoever sight-singing Renaissance modal music (we did so for fun<BR>one day) _IF_ they used fixed-do for that--the fixed syllables let<BR>them get past the unfamiliar scale-structure. Regrettably, I've not<BR>had a chance to see how quickly they might be able to internalize<BR>such new scale-structures and switch to a "movable-finalis" system.<BR>(BTW: Stephano Mengozzi had a very interesting book out two years<BR>ago from Cambridge on solmization in late-Med & Ren treatises: _The<BR>Renaissance Reform of Medieval Music Theory_. Definitely worth
a<BR>read for anyone interested in the history of the topic.)<BR><BR>On the flip side, I have had freshmen able to sing octatonic and<BR>whole-tone scales on Day One of Sight-singing I using movable-do<BR>by adding mutation of syllables straight from the Guidonian hand<BR>tradition. They didn't know they were doing Sight-singing IV stuff<BR>already until I told them so afterwards--and they got a terrific<BR>ego-boost out of it.:) They were just thinking, "Sing sol-fa-mi;<BR>hold that note and say sol; now sing sol-fa-mi from there; repeat<BR>ad naus." I told this trick to other students who had not taken<BR>SS1 with me but who were waiting in the hall in terror at having<BR>to sing octatonic for an SS4 hearing--they came into my office 15<BR>min. later and beamed that they'd nailed it solid.:):)<BR><BR>So, movable-do is __NOT__ useless... just as fixed-do isn't, either.<BR><BR>Art Samplaski<BR>Ithaca, NY<BR>
<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Smt-talk mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc450.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org" ymailto="mailto:Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org">Smt-talk@lists.societymusictheory.org</A><BR><A href="http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org" target=_blank>http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table>