Lately my 9 year old daughter has been playing once a week with a flutist. What a great experience.

For her and her flutist I am preparing a little arrangement of the aria "Seguidilla" from the opera Carmen.

This is music that my daughter knows very well, she sings it sometimes in the bathtub. Well, I asked her to sing while I played.

The first note when she enters, after the introduction, she must sing C-sharp while I play F-sharp. Only she couldn't sing her note, she kept on singing my F-sharp, and couldn't find her note at all. Even when I played her note and she sung it to prepare herself, she started right in on F-sharp when I played. This is reading from the score.

If she had to play the melodic line on the piano she would have had not problem. You read the score, you touch the key and the note is emitted.

But when you yourself are the instrument it is another story. It is a different experience, which calls for a more profound musical mastery.

In the end, I didn't get to hear my arrangement but we had a very interesting session at the piano, trying to get her to hear in her mind the melody that she had to sing, and to get her to understand the difficulty.

I teach solfege as well. It is my students' first musical language and the key to developing the ear.

First musical language? Would you explain? I am very interested.

All of my students learn solfege rather than letter names to name the notes on the staff. We sing the notes of every song that we will eventually play, we sing while we are playing, and students will hear dozens of solfege patterns as part of their weekly lesson.

Dumdumdiddle,

In your experience as a piano teacher have you noticed a difference between the progress of your students who were taught solfege and those that were not taught solfege?

My younger son is currently enrolled in a Musikgarten pre-piano course where he is being taught solfege. My older son was also enrolled in the same course but is now completing his first year of private piano lessons.

Dumdumdiddle, that is very interesting. It is certainly very unusual in North America -- at least I would suppose so. How does it happen that you have chosen this approach?

Musictuary,
Yes, I've noticed a huge difference in ear training ability as well as overall musicality. The solfege helps students interalize pitch. Singing the letter names of a song is in my opinion, pretty useless, as the notes B, C, D, E, and G all end in the long E sound. I will say that I do teach about the 'Key of C', 'Key of G', 'Key of Am', as we move through the different 5-Finger patterns. This way they will have no trouble later identifying that C is 'do', D is 're', etc... They learn that a C chord is do-mi-sol, a G7 chord is ti-fa-sol.

landorrano,
True, solfege is the not the common way to teach note reading in N. America, although most of the world uses it. There are no private piano methods on the market that use solfege. Yamaha and Harmony Road are the two group piano programs that use solfege exclusively as their musical alphabet. Music For Young Children uses letter names and incorporates some solfege, but I think it might be 'moveable do'. Not sure about Musikgarten; I'm curious if it's 'fixed do' or 'moveable do'.

I can certainly see why singing solfege syllables is more effective than singing letter names - as a movable do practitioner from way back I haven't always seen this, but I do now. They're easier and more distinctive to sing.

However, those for whom solfege syllables are actually the way of naming the notes (in many European countries, for example) also need to realise that movable do is used widely (UK, Australia, USA apparently - and certainly in Kodaly's teaching "method").

Similarly, those who use movable do should realise that if you try to tell a fixed do person that "in this piece do is G" they'll think you're crazy.

The main thing to be clear about IMO is that movable and fixed do systems shouldn't really co-exist. Use one OR the other. To do otherwise causes massive confusion.

I learned both solfege and letter names when I was younger, so I can switch back and forth between both systems.

However, I have seen some students who struggled when they transition from solfege to letter names. These are transfer students from a local Yamaha school. Not all students make a smooth transition. For those who are confused for longer than a year, I wonder if they would be better served starting in letter names and _not_ learning solfege at all?

But, then, how could you tell/predict those who will struggle with the transition?

I think that's easier than switching from fixed to movable do. That is, you're just learning do=C, not going from do=C to do=tonic (which could of course be a note you've learnt to always call re...)

But yes, I expect some students have trouble even with this transition.

I just wish movable and fixed do used different syllables, so that there would be no confusion. Or that letter names were more singable. Or something.

Dumdumdiddle, to answer your question about whether Musikgarten uses movable or fixed do: they use movable do. I think the idea is that movable do teaches intervallic relationships (whereas fixed do replaces letter names) but I could be mistaken.

In my teaching, I use movable do, and we don't so much switch to letter names but add them at a later time (always going back to solfege for patterns). For me personally - I have perfect RELATIVE pitch, but not perfect pitch - movable do makes singing a melodic pattern possible even when I'm not at the piano.

That's it in a nutshell IMO, though obviously there's more to it. But I didn't mean to develop a fixed vs movable thread. We've had some longish ones in the past and I'm not sure I have the stamina.

How did you get to teaching solfège yourself? Are you european, or did you study music in Europe?

Really, I am quite impressed. I have never seen anyone post on PianoWorld, saying that they teach solfège as the "first musical language". I have posted about solfège a number of times, but it seems to pass unnoticed.

I am completely in agreement with your approach.

With what you are calling "fixed do" this is also the case. One learns, with time of course, to sing all intervals from any note. All musicians ... students, teachers, amateurs, pros ... do it as a matter of course.

Both forms of solfege (fixed, which you are talking about, and movable, as in Kodaly-based instruction) have as one of their main aims to develop the ability to sing at sight. They just go about it in different ways.

I was first introduced to solfege as a young adult, when I was trained to be teach the Yamaha method back in the 80's. At first it was weird and I had a hard time switching my thinking from letter names to solfege. I also felt really out of place as a teacher for using solfege, since I knew no one outside of Yamaha teachers that used it in their piano studios (with some teachers even going so far as to tell me that "no one uses solfege for note naming anymore"). But then I had students whose parents came from different countries, and THEY told me how they, too, had learned solfege (countries like Mexico, Spain, France, Russia, most Asian countries, most South American countries). It was then that I realized that the US and a few other countries (Germany, Canada, and GB) are really in the minority with letter names.

I now teach the Harmony Road course and have been sold on teaching solfege for almost 30 years.

With regard to transfer students changing over to letter names, the comments I receive from private teachers who have some of my HR graduates has been very positive. Some of those teachers will continue with the solfege, some will have them switch over to letter names right away. Also, many of my HR students will take up a band instrument at school after a few years of piano; they will most definitely learn letter names there. My own kids did this; my daughter would go to her piano lesson and read in solfege, then go to clarinet lesson and read in letter names.

I'm so happy that someone else also teaches solfege. It's true that not many people in north America teach it, although at my uni everybody seems to have learned it.

It makes a huge difference and everything should be sung first rather than pluncked out on the piano. It teaches so much about phrase and line!

When I was saying

For me personally - I have perfect RELATIVE pitch, but not perfect pitch - movable do makes singing a melodic pattern possible even when I'm not at the piano -

I was not referring to sight-singing, but to just making up a short melodic pattern for my students to sing back to me. For sight-singing, you want to make sure that you are indeed singing a C (or fixed do) when the score says C, of course.

I don't have perfect pitch (don't want it, either) but I usually get pretty close when I try, I'm usually not more than about a second or so off. But away from the piano, if I want to sing a melodic pattern, "do-re-mi" works even when I am not sure whether my do is actually a D or whatever I am trying to sing. Hope that makes more sense than my original post.

Just curious, why don't you want perfect pitch?

I am curious as to why you prefer to move the Do for this sort of exercise.

Thanks Elfenbein for answering the question concerning fixed or moveable Do within Musikgarten. I wasn't 100% sure. To the best of my knowledge Musikgarten is also another program in the US that also teaches solfege.

I don't understand this idea. It seems to me that when a student grasps the value of an interval, he can sing it starting from any note. For example, the just fifth, tonic-dominant, be it in the key of Do-major or the key of Sol-major, or any other key.

Which makes me think: when you teach solfège in English, do you say "key of Do". Because here "key" -- the clé or clef -- isn't used in this sense, one says "tonality", or simply "in Do" or "in Sol".

The Wikipedia definition of solfège:

Dans la musique occidentale, le solfège (ou formation musicale) est l'étude des éléments permettant de lire, écrire, jouer ou chanter une partition. Le but ultime du solfège est de pouvoir entendre une œuvre musicale, son orchestration et son interprétation, sans autre support que son audition intérieure.


In western music, solfège is the study of elements permitting to read, write, play or sing a score. The ultimate objective of solfège is to be able to hear a musical work, its orchestration and its interpretation, using no other medium that one's interior hearing.


The English Wikidefinition:

In music, solfège (pronounced /ˈsoʊlfɛʒ/, also called solfeggio, sol-fa, or solfa) is a pedagogical solmization technique for the teaching of sight-singing in which each note of the score is sung to a special syllable, called a solfège syllable (or "sol-fa syllable").

For me, this misses the point. Solfège is not about sight-singing, it is about reading. But reading in the sense that one reads literature.

When you read a book, the letters form words and the words follow along and provoke immediately the formation of an idea. So it is with music, and the objective of solfège is to be able to form a musical idea from reading a score, whether the idea is sung or played ... or simply heard in the mind.

"key" and "clef" have different meanings in english. This can be confusing for non-english speakers. In English, "key" means either the tonality, or the black and white things you push (sorry kbk, scratch and flick ) on a piano. "Clef" means the sign on the written music which indicates the reference pitch - thus, treble (G) clef, etc.

As to Elfenbein's summary - I think it's a description of the way the method proceeds. Movable do goes from the general (scale degrees) to the specific (scale degrees in G major, or B major, or whatever you're looking at). Fixed do goes from the specific (do is this note here, on the keyboard and on the staff notation) to the general (grasping the value of an interval generally, as you describe).

In my experience here at PW, I've found that it is very difficult to explain movable do to anyone who's grown up with the fixed system.

I agree with this, of course. It's just that sight singing is a (useful) tool along the way. It's also often how you know you're hearing something (internally) correctly. Movable do is about internal hearing as much as sight singing. You need the former to do the latter, and you develop the latter with the help of the former.

Reading back over this post brings me to ask if I understand you correctly:

You do not, then, speak for example of the "key of Do". You say the key of C, which is composed of Do, Ré, Mi etc.

I have to admit that I cannot see the advantage of movable Do.

If, growing up with letter names for notes, someone had suggested to me that C doesn't really have to be C, that it could be any note, just as long as "D" then were a whole step above "C" - I would have thought they were nuts. This is, I imagine, what movable Do must look like to someone who grew up with fixed Do.

I think, movable Do and letter names can co-exist, and fixed Do and letter names can coexist (just different terms for the same thing), but, as Currawong pointed out, movable Do and fixed Do cannot.

(Of course, now I want to look into the history of how come there is a fixed Do and a movable Do in the first place )

Yes, that's right.

Well no, it's not my reaction at all. However I fail to see reasons for moving the Do.

Is it a consequence of not embracing do-ré-mi as the general musical nomenclature, of limiting its utilisation?

Is movable do used in professional circles? In what way?

These are true questions, I'm not trying to convince anyone to abandon movable do.

That said, I do believe that movable do in some form preceeds fixed do, historically speaking.

My understanding is that movable do is used more in choral settings for transposing purposes.

With twenty guns to my head, I could still never work with any OTHER system. It's what I was drilled in from about grade 2 in public schools when "music" on your report card meant sight reading for singing. No rote there.
I swear I still remember a lot of those songs.

I see no difference between teaching fixed do and between teaching note names.

However, teaching movable do requires the learner to read relationships between notes (intervals) and understand/hear key.

Can you explain? I cannot understand how movable do requires that more that fixed do.

For example, in the key of sol, of G, in what way does reading and singing the arpeggio Do-mi-sol-do-sol-mi-do help to understand interval or key more easily or clearly than singing Sol-si-ré-sol-ré-si-sol?

I don't mean to debate, but I am very interested to understand.



Now that is food for a great deal of thought.

I suspect, though, that in countries where reading is based on the a-b-c nomenclature, movable do is used to compensate the deficiency of a-b-c, which is perhaps perfectly represented by the scale c-d-e-f-g-a-b.

For the purpose of the sound itself, that seems logical. Since I'm not a singer, if I must sing something, for any reason, I just hum or sing "la, la, la", or "dum dee dum dum".

But for the development of an excellent ear, I think nothing is better than playing brass in addition to piano (other than singing itself). This is no good for small children, but for middle-school age on, it's great, if the student can handle playing and practicing two instruments. The development of accurate pitch sense is a mysterious and unpredictable thing. I think it is singing itself, rather than what sounds are sung, that sensitizes the ear. When a singer has to enter with a note, it's pure pitch. It must be pre-heard. It's much the same on brass, since the buzzing of the lips is about 99% of it. The fingers (valves) are almost zero help, especially in the upper register.

I will say that I do teach about the 'Key of C', 'Key of G', 'Key of Am', as we move through the different 5-Finger patterns. This way they will have no trouble later identifying that C is 'do', D is 're', etc... They learn that a C chord is do-mi-sol, a G7 chord is ti-fa-sol.

My other reservations about singing in solfege:

1) Modulations?

2) Chromatic passages? Half steps?

3) Atonal music?

Singing in letter names is awful, too. I'd much prefer singing in free syllables (La or Di) before attaching the lyrics. Solfege has its limitations, in my opinion.

landorrano, if you have the strength, you might want to read This Interminable Thread About Fixed and Movable Do from a while back. Actually, it was an interesting discussion, and I think both sides learnt a bit.

double post

Very interesting, and very well put.



I don't know if I have the strength to read it twice!

Seriously, thanks, I'm going to have a good look later on when I have a little time.

I was going to suggest that too, then decided against it.

For whatever reason, I rarely sightsing in the key of C. Perhaps because of the needs of accompanying instruments (guitars like the sharp keys like G, D, and E) or vocal range it's just more common to see D and Eb than C. Just try Happy Birthday in C, you'll see what I mean. Never make a congregation sing a high G.

For me personally it's far more useful to call the key center do. I'd hate to call C do knowing it won't be the first degree of the scale more than a few times a year. But that's just what helps me find the next pitch, YMMV.

Actually you could simply use the numbers rather than the solfege for movable do, just as most of us use the letters names rather than the solfege for fixed do. Sorry, Julie Andrews.

There's another factor for children in finding pitch that hasn't been mentioned. Stability of pitch across timbre has to be learned. My kids could match the pitch of another voice long before they could do the same with piano, or any other instrument. After learning it with a couple different ones (piano, guitar, trumpet) the concept seems to generalize.

We noticed this in church when the preacher played an unfamiliar hymn (melody only) on the organ. Then he led us singing it, but several keys away, and too high for any of us. I commented to my child that I couldn't see how that was even possible. She said she couldn't do it either, she could not sing and match an organ pitch. It's like you have to learn how to anchor it somehow.

Because once learned, do-mi-sol applies to all keys without further thought. Merely recognizing the pattern lets you sing D-F#-A without mental computation.

Er, it does me. That may not apply universally.

I turned over the question in my mind yesterday, and also had a look at the other thread.

My feeling is that there isn't really any basis for comparison beween movable do and fixed do.

It appears to me that the reason-to-be of movable do is as a complement to the a-b-c nomenclature. Because solfège-type study on an a-b-c nomenclature ... that is to say, on a c-d-e-f-g-a-b nomenclature is an absurdity. And, of course, solfège-type study is necessary, is it not?

The do is not fixed because that would undermine completely the a-b-c system, everyone would be completely lost.

Does moving the do have advantages over fixed do? Perhaps. But for the moment I cannot see them. In any case, everything that has been mentioned in this thread like ...



is true with fixed do solfège as well.

No it's not. Doh means tonic. Soh, dominant. That's the reason movable is so important. In teaching I use ABC, Doh Re Me, 123 or la la la. Each has its function.

I don't see your point at all. But it doesn't matter, no need to rehash the other thread, if there isn't something fresh to add.

In fixed doh solfege, in the way it is used in those countries, doh does mean note-name. It is the name of the pitch, not the function. For example, in French Canada where I live, a piece in the key of G major is called "en sol majeur". If French Canadians learn "movable do" for sight singing, they would then move into a different mode of thinking where "doh" is the tonic, and then they would call that same tonic note "doh" whereas before they called it by the pitch name "sol". Many people think this should be confusing. Since I didn't learn that way, I don't know whether it is.

In the way I learned solfege, it was more than just a sense of intervals. It also gave a sense of function. (What you are saying kbk, I think.) You sing Fa closer to Mi than a semitone, ditto for Ti - Do because of voice leading. This was so engrained from childhood that I did it automatically and wondered why my singing was not the same as the piano for functional mi-fa (what kbk is describing), until it was explained to me.

If it comes to intervals, when I go back to the old solfege I have some odd quirks: a P4 brings "sol-do" to my mind, and not "do-fa". When simple intervals were first explained I heard them as the old solfege exercises. In any case, this did not seem to be good so I left it behind.


That makes a lot of sense. I wonder how many PW teachers do something similar.

I understand that. I don't see anything confusing about it at all. But I fail to see in what way that is an improvement over fixed do. An improvement over or a compliment to the a-b-c nomenclature, yes, and I believe that it was brought into service in that capacity, not as an answer or improvement to the solfège existing in France and Italy.

But why would someone ... or some school, or some country, or French Canadiens ... that uses the do-ré-mi nomenclature need to add movable do?

I tune my piano to la = 440.

I don't think moveable or fixed 'do' are more important. The only reason I learned fix do was because we had NO other names for the notes in Europe. I didn't even know ABC existed until I was 14.

That being said, I have no problem sightsinging or recognizing I from V (if I did I should not be doing what I'm doing), anyway. I also have found that people who learn fixed do as the first solfege system usually are the ones with perfect pitch.

I don't see how you can add movable do without confusion, if you are using solfege terms instead of letter names for individual notes.

However the fixed do solfege contains no information about the function within a particular key, so we still have to add a system to supply that.

Fixed do solfege describes individual notes directly, movable describes notes only in context. For me the latter is more useful, but that may not be true for everybody.

Landorrano, I'll try to explain what I understand. Movable do and fixed pitch (whether as solfege syllables or letter names) are two different ways of looking at music. It is useful to have both, though it is probably less needed for piano.

In a sense, movable do came first, rather than being added. The reasons are historical and have to do with the way music evolved. You had the modes (even they evolved) which is like having a scale going Do to Do (our modern major), Re to Re (Dorian), Mi to Mi (Lydian) etc. For the most part music was sung and went along the structure of those scales, in a manner of speaking. Now supposing you have a simple song like Twinkle, which is in the major "mode". If you take the degree numbers, with 1 being the tonic, it would go: 1155665, 4433221. No matter what notes you start on, if you go up the notes of a major scale starting on 1, you will get Twinkle. Essentially that is what movable do does. The Do, Re, Mi syllables are 1,2,3 of degrees of a major scale. 1, or Tonic, has nothing to do with pitch. 1 can be any note. That is the role of movable do.

Depending on how it is taught, maybe, it also gives a feeling for function. Sol is not only the 5th degree note in m.d.solf., it is also the Dominant and the role that it plays. When you play the piano, the chords give you clues about function, but when you sing a capella there are no chords. M.d. solfege helps me orient within the scale to know where I am.

For me personally, because I had only this since childhood, something happens when I sing new music. Supposing that the music is in C major and modulates to G major. Up to then, the pitch G would be called "sol". But once it modulates, without thinking about it I am automatically calling that same note "Do". I will have sensed the modulation and can carry on seamlessly. I'll still be singing the correct pitch so on some level I am also hearing pitch and aware of it. But I am oriented within the active key itself. It makes singing easier.

This only works for music written in that manner. Music that uses different kinds of scales, is atonal, non-Western, don't work with it. But that's the raison d'etre. There are two ways of perceiving music.

Easier than what?

Because everything that you say here ...



... holds true in solfège as well, except that we don't call sol do, we call sol sol. We modulate seamlessly, we know that we have modulated, we know that sol has replaced do as the tonic, we know what the new dominant and the new mediant and the new sensible are.

I don't see why that would create confusion. I don't see anything confusing about it at all.

But why add movable do? What would it add to the fixed do system?



Well of course we have all the information you could want. I believe that it is the same information that you have: the armature on the staff, and the accidentals. It is not singing do for G that tells you that you are in the key of G, it is the fact that you are in the key of G that tells you to sing do, n'est-ce pas?

Landorrano, I have mere explained to you what I learned and how it works. There is no debate about anything being better than anything else. These are merely tools that we can use as we see fit. I moved toward pitch from movable do in recent years because it gave me greater flexibility. But I am glad to know both systems. You seemed to want to know, so I gave some information, that's all.

Why are you assuming that it was added?

Landorrano, perhaps it will help to say that my experience is exactly the opposite of yours. I've just now learned from reading this thread (thanks, all!) that there is such a thing as "fixed do" and my question, much like yours, is why?

I've learned solfege in various places, notably ear traning/sight singing class in college, and I've always understood that the purpose of using solfege instead of note names is to be able to sing the same thing no matter what key you're in, without doing any mental gymnastics to transpose. In other words, if I'm singing along with a piano accompaniment, but can't see the keyboard, I have no idea what key we're in (as most people, I don't have perfect pitch), but I know what "do" is, it's the tonic, and therefore by relative pitch I know what all the other solfege notes are, without ever needing to know what key I'm in. If I need to know specifically what key I'm in, that's what note names are for.

I say this not to criticize your take on it... yours is every bit as valid as mine... but to point out that it makes just as much sense for me to ask, "why do we need to 'add' fixed do?" Don't we already have note names for that?

My comment is in response to TimR, who said



as if it is evident that the French Canadien would benefit from adding the the Queen's movable do. Sounds like cultural oppression to me! (Just kidding !)

I am not debating either. It is just a question, to try to understand what you are thinking: when you say that moving the do makes singing easier, easier than what?

Finally, what do you mean here:



I've read all of your posts but I hadn't understood that you are now using French solfège, if that is what you mean by "pitch".

That is so in countries where the a-b-c nomenclature is used. But I don't think that the mental gymnastics would be from the fixed do, but rather doing singing excercises using c-d-e-f-g-a-b.

Your movable do isn't an alternative to a fixed do, it is a alternative to fixed c.

Which brings me to another point.

I believe that the movable do solfège used today is not the heir of Guido d'Arezzo. I believe movable do was dusted off in the nineteenth century in England, as a result of the development of musical education, to permit students to benefit from the practice of solfège ... but to do so without overthrowing the a-b-c system.

That's the English. They don't like revolutions, they like to have things both ways: democracy and House of Lords, a-b-c names and solfège. You gotta love 'em.

The si was changed to ti for the purposes of the family von Trapp and the like. A drink with jam and bread, really! Sol, a needle pulling thread! Really!

I would just like to add that ...

"fixed do solfège" is solfège, and "movable do solfège" is "movable do solfège."

If you say "solfège" it is French-Italian-Russian solfège, there is no ambiguity. If you want to talk about this solfège, you only have to say "solfège".

If you want to talk about your movable do solfège you have to say "movable do solfège" or else one will think that your are talking about French-Russian-Italian solfège ... solfège I mean.

It would thus be logical to write "movable do solfège" movabledosolfège.

Thanks for explaining, Landorrano. I didn't realize that it was in response to TimR. I have thought of the two co-existing at the same time, not of one being added to the other.

It is not a creation of English Canada. Movable do is used in countries that use solfège syllables for pitch names instead of alphabetical names. They are two separate things. It gets tricky when the two cultures and sets of names come together. In choir a French woman was madly scribbling down alphabet letters since she could not follow what the choirmaster was saying. In the RCM repertoire, everything is written bilingually: "Scales in one octave in A major / Gammes d'une octave en La majeur". CBC Radio announces "G minor" or "sol mineur"- bilingualism is a way of life here.


It makes some singing easier. Melismatic passages are definitely easier for me sung in movable do. In counterpoint with four voices going where you suddenly jump in after a modulation it seems easier for me to orient in movable do. After all, it was designed for singing.


Pitch means pitch. It is the frequency of a note. A = 440 or in "fixed", La = 440. If I am thinking in movable do I am not consciously aware of the pitch. I am moving within the context of the scale which is at whatever key. You have to keep in mind that I worked with this alone, and nothing else, for almost a lifetime.

I would say that any musician playing an instrument that (s)he has to tune will be aware of pitch as well. Even though I moved in relative pitch, I was quite in tune and stayed on key. In actual fact you are concentrating on both relative/functional (fixed do) and actual pitch either way. I think the weight of the two might be different.

Speaking of a needle pulling thread ...

There is a marvelous French song for children:

"J'ai perdu le do de ma clarinette,
J'ai perdu le do de ma clarinette,
ah, si Papa savait ça,
tra la la,
il dirait, il chantrait,
Au pas camarade!"

I lost the do of my clarinette
Ah, if Papa knew
He'd say, he'd sing,
"Hep hep camarade".

And then the next verse

"I lost the do, the re, the mi of my clarinette"

Then

"I lost the do, the re, the mi, the fa, the sol of my clarinette."

And so on ...

Sol, a needle pulling thread! Really!

Ah! It took me a few minutes to realize what you have written. Is this so? Pray tell!

I think so. Actually I think there might be three systems. This was discussed to death in the humungous thread Currawong alluded to.

It would be helpful to know what the three systems are, if there are three.

I have never used any kind of solfege. As I explained elsewhere, I was a part of an experemental class, in college, where students were allowed to use any system they chose. They were graded solely on their ability to look at a score and sing it. Some students did what I did. They just hummed or used made up syllables (scat or "la-la-la").

However, those who use fixed do used this system:

Do di re ri fa fi so si la li ti do, ascending

Do ti te la le so se fa mi me re ra do, descending

I never used these. I just observed others using them.

I assumed this was a alf-hassed attempt to adapt a fundmentally diatonic system to one that was more chromatic one. For me it seemed to be the worst of two words. I utterly rejected it.

But I do believe it exists.

.

Gary, I looked up solfege and solmization, and got a whole slew of approaches under the same name. I think it would be hard to tell what those people learned, and how they had learned it because by that time they were in university using what they had gotten who knows how. Is that plausible?

What I learned was very simple and basic. The teacher pointed to a chart that looked like the one on the left. On the right I have written from memory the types of things we would sing. They are patterns rather than random things. There was no reading of music at this stage. These were sung by following where the pointer went. However, the patterns we practised are ones commonly found in music, and they are also going along chords as well as the scale.

If I try to reconstruct it, then we internalized aurally the kinds of patterns we would see visually in written music and this worked for any key. When we read music we are using three sets of senses: visual, aural, and tactile. I suppose that they have to come into balance. This particular sequence of experience made mine come in the way they did. I had a sense of the patterns in music aurally before I got it in notation form, and the two worked together.

It's one way. It probably isn't "the" way, and it probably only works well for a certain type of music.

The thing that strikes me is that this came first. If you try to learn that kind of solfege after years of reading music the ordinary way, and do it by looking at written music, then wouldn't your usual habit interfere?

This is for anyone who has worked in either kind of solfege. I came across this by chance while looking up Westphalia for my work. It must be sung in fixed do. The singers actually sing the words "fa re fa si la sol fa fa" which my mind immediately wanted to rename "sol mi sol do ti la sol sol..." in movable do. It is by pitch, and is in Bb major.