 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: missclarinetist
Date: 2005-10-07 16:07
I know that I have been away from the Bboard for awhile due to starting a very busy semester at college. This is my last semester of theory and right now I'm learning how to teach music theory. One of the topics I learned in class was the use of solfege vs. scale degree numbers. It was interesting to note that solfege was more accurate in teaching students to learn to sight read then scale degree numbers. The advantage of scale degree numbers were that students will be able to learn intervals and to sing on pitch correctly. What do you prefer to use in teaching students - solfege or scale degree numbers? What is your preference? In teaching beginning students all about rhythm, my teacher emphasizes on 1. Beat, 2. Sound, and 3. Notation. It was also interesting to note that my teacher emphasizes that beginner students should beat with their foot in order to 'feel the beat' while practicing rhythm. I know that I have been told by many professional conductors not to beat with your foot as it will be a distraction to other members of the orchestra and the audience. Just wondering what your reaction is to the statement above. As an experienced orchestra player, I was just wondering what do many of you do to 'feel the beat' when playing in an orchestra setting? I usually thought about the conductor as our metronome in order for me to feel the beat. Any additional comments on this would be helpful.
Post Edited (2005-10-07 16:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BelgianClarinet
Date: 2005-10-07 16:22
Sorry, but was are 'scale degree numbers' ?
Solfege is what is commonly teached overhere I think.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda
Date: 2005-10-07 18:54
And why not keep the beat with your toe? That's what I'm teaching my student since the band director just hates to see those feet pounding out the beat. Seems to work in clarinet choir as well. Nobody will notice unless you're either barefoot or wearing open sandals.
Of course you could always sway with your body, but then someone behind you will complain because you're obstructing the view of the conductor - you know how they always want to see the conductor! Then too you'd be accused of feeling the music too much...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda
Date: 2005-10-07 18:55
And why not keep the beat with your toe? That's what I'm teaching my student since the band director just hates to see those feet pounding out the beat. Seems to work in clarinet choir as well. Nobody will notice unless you're either barefoot or wearing open sandals.
Of course you could always sway with your body, but then someone behind you will complain because you're obstructing the view of the conductor - you know how they always want to see the conductor! Then too you'd be accused of feeling the music too much... ![[grin]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/smilie5.gif)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: elmo lewis
Date: 2005-10-07 19:58
Fixed Do solfege is a far superior system. Scale degree numbers are OK until you start having modulations and atonal music.
I teach foot tapping, especially to students with rhythm problems. Later, when they have better rhtythmic skills I change them to tapping the toe inside the shoe. It's amazing how many pro musicians start to tap their feet when the conductor loses the tempo or a soloist and orchestra get a bit off from each other.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BobD
Date: 2005-10-07 21:15
The worst offenders are those who keep time with anything visible.....but their time is not the conductor's.
Bob Draznik
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2005-10-07 23:00
I have a very unusual, original (I think) way of keeping time when I need to. I twitch my calf. For instance, with your right foot flat on the ground, try to turn your toe inward (you'll feel your calf move a little outward as your muscles try to push against the friction holding your foot flat). If you do it every so slightly, you can twitch the calf in time, it doesn't wear out any muscles, and it's unnoticeable (I've had people WATCH as I do it and they still can't pick it up).
Lord knows where I learned it, but that's the way I've been doing it (especially in a very slow piece where I might want to subdivide it or a piece that has a lot of syncopation).
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Kel
Date: 2005-10-07 23:48
Interesting difference between the Clarinet BBoard and the Sax on the Web Forum...in five years of participation I don't think I've ever seen "pegagogy" used on the sax forum. (But foot tapping has been discussed there.)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2005-10-09 18:06
[Note to BelgianClarinet: scale degree numbers are simply the moveable-Do system with numerals. (Do=1, Re=2, Sol=5, etc.) The Chinese have an interesting music notation system based on this principle, and some Americans use a system of chord notation called the Nashville Number System that also has this as its basis.]
When trying to decide which system to use, let's clarify what students we're talking about teaching. Are these children of a particular age, or college music majors?
Fixed-Do is certainly the most complete system, but (like some of our alternate fingerings) can do more harm than good when used by people who don't practice it sufficiently.
I prefer scale degree numbers for most of my private students who have had no previous ear training. The reason for this is that most tonal music revolves around key centers, and I can use scale degree numbers to help force them to identify new key centers as a piece modulates. In addition, most instrumental musicians who actually rely on ear training work in the degree-number environment, and addressing it helps young players to be able to communicate with the many fine musicians who do not read music.
So my bottom-line opinion is that scale numbers are far more useful to the average musician for the following reasons:
1 - They are based on something that is very graphic in the untrained mind. (high and lower numbers, couple with higher and lower pitches)
2 - They address the issue of key centers, which is important to most musicians who actually play by ear.
3 - They closely mimic the actual process used by many non-reading (but very knowledgeable) musicians who play by ear and automatically provide a very accurate basis for transposition.
4 - The system's simplicity allows me to fully integrate all kids of ear training issues into the scale practice of even a beginner. (I have fully explained this process in a previous thread)
Admittedly, this it not done as a sightsinging course, and we don't generally sing songs by the numbers. (I do...they don't) It is done in the context of an instrument lesson, and is used for calcuating and transposing pitches while depending primarily on scales and arpeggios for the framework. (more detailed explanation available, but 'detailed' is the operative word)
Solfegge has two advantages that I see:
1 - It allow for singers to have one syllable per note, no matter what the pitch structure.
2 - Fixed-Do addresses atonality and allows you to operate when the tether to the key center has been cut.
However, IMO, Fixed-Do's only real advantage comes when music becomes sequences of intervals as opposed to pitches with a relationship to a tonal center. I don't see it as being beneficial if used where simpler systems are adequate. And I am not terribly impressed with the ear skills of the average college music major who has supposedly been educated and tested in it.
This dichotomy is also married to the key-center vs. sequence-of-intervals way of looking at a line. When music is tonal, comparing everything to the key center provides a certain degree of advance error correction. When there is no key center, we are following sequences of intervals and the accuracy of each successive interval depends on the accuracy of the one before it. One single mistake can become the basis for a cascade of mistakes.
That's the downside of Fixed-Do. You have to learn it very thoroughly to get any real benefit.
Allen Cole
Post Edited (2005-10-09 20:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: psychotic lil clarinet girl (don't as
Date: 2005-10-09 22:12
My music theory teacher was talking about this...
I learned on solfege... I think the number system is... um... not so good...
How would you sing accidentals?
She said the the best way to train the ears, the most easily heard pitches are so to mi.. so mi la so mi do... work with those for a while and then add re, fa, and ti...
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2005-10-10 01:21
Mary,
There are specific solfege syllables for a "sharp" and "flat".
For instance, A chromatic scale going up (using all SHARPS), would be,
Do Di Re Ri Mi Fa Fi Sol Si La Li Ti Do
Descending (all FLATS) would be,
Do Ti Te La Le Sol Se Fa Mi Me Re Ra Do
I learned these in my music theory class a while back, but you can look over this page which explains it better and shows the variations . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solfege
This is good (IMO) in the sense that if you see a C#, you can almost always simply call it "Di", instead of a moveable do system where you have to remember first where the tonic is, and then figure out it's relation to the tonic in order to figure out what syllable it is, and then figure out what the "sharp" of that syllable is. So it takes a little bit of the confusion out of the game in a fixed do system.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2005-10-10 16:43
All European conservatories lace great emphasis on solfeggio, and prizes are given for the best performers.
I learned the names of the notes, but have always fingered clarinet as I sing. It lets me hear the intervals quite clearly. Moveable Do certainly has a theoretical advantage, since it teaches you to hear the harmony and modulations, but for Fixed Do, I can't think of any particular advantage over finger movements.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
