You Opinion- "La" Based Minor versus "Do" minor

Alright, in high school, our choir director used a "la" based minor and in college they've been teaching us a "do" based system. I was wondering which on you all preferred and why. I told my old choir director today that we used "do" based and he wasn't terribly happy with that because he was a strong component of the "la" based.

Thanks So Much,

Ethan

It doesn't matter. They both work.

I have no clue what any of that means...

Personally, I find La based minor to be easier... cause when you modulate to a major section, you don't have to modulate to Do based major... you just keep singing the solfege as it is.

In high school we used la base minor and for most of my college experiences we used it as well, but I did have a few prof that made us use both or do based minor.

I prefer la based mainly because I did that the longest and its easier for me.

At times though, I wish I was taught C based Do

FIXED DO??? WHY???

FIXED DO??? WHY???

mainly because of the whole relative pitch thing that seems to be a by product of Fixed Do

I was brought up on fixed do and it really isn't a problem.

I was brought up on fixed do and it really isn't a problem.

It's so foreign to me. I was brought up on moveable Do.

That's why I find it so weird.

I'm not a fan of fixed do. Singing in C# would suck. Movable do teaches relative pitch just fine.

Why bother with solfege at all?

FSU just uses numbers 8-)

Why bother with solfege at all?

I don't anymore. But it is a GREAT way to learn relative pitch.

FSU just uses numbers 8-)

I have heard of the number system. not a fan

Well it alll works.... so it doesn't really matter.

I was brought up on a fixed "Doh!" system in undergrad aural skills. Worked fine. My initial thoughts on the whole application of syllables to pitches was a bit uncomfortable at the onset, but it makes sense... The theory behind it, that there's some kind of association between pitch and syllables, seems like it would have benefits to some.

The problem is that the association doesn't work for every learning type, and the difficulty of learning that particular system tends to make the system overly complicated. Some just get so lost in the syllables, they lose focus on the actual objective. Someone who learns better aurally will likely benefit, where someone who is more analytical might spend the majority of their time just trying to memorize the syllables.

I dunno, after learning how to teach aural skills, I'm rather indifferent on which system would work best. I think a lot of it is still experimental and the success of the system depends on the comfort and competence of the instructor using it as a teaching method. If I could teach better using a knife instead of scissors (random analogy), I'd use the knife.

Aural skills, after all, are methods. There is very little practical application in the professional world outside of teaching. It certainly won't land you a job if, on the interview, you can sing the C scale in fixed "Doh!" or movable "Doh!"

I hope someone picks up on the Simpson's reference here... or I'll be sad.

i used both... however once we got to ear training IV solfege became largely irrelevant as the music we were singing didn't have traditional tonal centers. we started using a system of singing pitch names and... adding an "es" for flats and "eese" for sharps. (c, ceese, d, deese, e, f, feese...etc) i think it works much better...

*shrug* I just sing the appropriate lyric. The whole point of ear training and sight-singing is to be able to sing at sight, no? You should have these skills before you get to college.

*shrug* I just sing the appropriate lyric. The whole point of ear training and sight-singing is to be able to sing at sight, no? You should have these skills before you get to college.

See, I came into my program with none of this -- I was pretty much a blank slate. But we had mandatory courses for ear training which involved, among other things, tonal and atonal sight-singing.

For us, we used a hybrid system -- it was movable Do for the root, but we would be aware of the accidentals by the vowel sound.

I think it was like this: flats became the "e" sound in re, except for re, which went to ra; sharps went to "i" as in ti. Would get fun when "di" or "de" was used.

*shrug* I just sing the appropriate lyric. The whole point of ear training and sight-singing is to be able to sing at sight, no? You should have these skills before you get to college.

I don't think it's fair to expect all students of music the world over to be able to sing at sight at 18. Not everyone was born with relative pitch like you and I. That's why they are students.

*shrug* I just sing the appropriate lyric. The whole point of ear training and sight-singing is to be able to sing at sight, no? You should have these skills before you get to college.

Well, seeing as musicianship courses in this country have been the way they have been for a while... Hmmmmmm...

I'd guess they are necessary.

Much like the huge proportion of incoming freshman who end up getting shunted to 0-level (remedial) courses... to learn what they were supposed to have learned in high school? ;)

Flint -

Unfortunately with music programs in the US eviscerated over the past 35 years, you'd be lucky to find entering music undergrads with good skills to pass basic Aural skills. Add in the fact solfege is done with a piano -- ugh --- and I am amazed American college students achieve decent aural skills.

Flint you imply one of the best ways to develop your ear - Sight singing and transpose melodies by ear. Start young or start now - there are private music programs that start doing this with 3 and 4 year olds.

BUT I will say solfege fixed DO is helpful when you get to advanced solfege as traditional shifts to tonal centers are tenuous at best.. Also, a good solfege course will teach you great exercises you can do on your own to reinforce and build good aural skills - especially if you don't have time to do much sight singing or transposing by ear.

Much like the huge proportion of incoming freshman who end up getting shunted to 0-level (remedial) courses... to learn what they were supposed to have learned in high school? ;)

That really isn't a fair comparison. Remedial work isn't a regular curriculum. Very basic aural skills are, in fact.

We never (officially) used any solmization in my ear training classes. (Although we -did- "learn" it in high school.) We were always free to sing according to whatever sounds we liked (commonly something like "no-no-no").

In the cases where we talked about different notes of a scale (such as describing a melody without knowing the key), we used numbers (with "flat" or "sharp" when needed). If we did know the key, we just used the tone names directly (in German, where pronouncing them is arguably quicker than in English). And in atonal pieces it was either note names or intervals. (For discussing that is. For singing it was always just uniform sounds.)