Sight-Singing SOLFEGE VS. NUMBERS

Is learning solfege difficult? My opponent’s position: “It doesn't take a considerable amount of time to merely learn 7 syllables; however, it does take time to learn the order of the syllables both forward and backward; and, to learn them well enough to start in the middle of the list and go either direction. With numbers, one could start on 4 and know that 6 is two higher and that 3 is one lower EASILY, the FIRST TIME! For a beginner in solfege, starting on "so," does he know which direction to go to reach "ti," or will he have to think about it? How far is "re" from "la"? These issues are quite confusing for the beginner in solfege. Those issues are not present with the number system!.” My position: Although it may appear at first glance that numerical sight-singing methods are more intuitive, research does not support this. In fact, studies indicate that numerical and solfege methods are equally effective. (1-2) My opponent has failed to recognize this. Furthermore, while the numerical system can tell students if they are going up or down, it cannot tell them by how much as my opponent suggests. For example, going from 2 to 3 is not the same distance as going from 3 to 4 in a major scale. In order for students to learn these distances, they must repeatedly practice the various scales. This can be effectively accomplished using either method. Could the numbers be modified to ease pronunciation? My opponent's position: "One" can be sung, "wah." "Two" has one of the best singing vowels, "oo" which is missing from solfege. "Three" could be altered to "thee" ("th" as in thick) to ease pronunciation. "Four" could be sung, "faw." "Five" could be sung, "fah" (in order to eliminate the diphthong "ah-ee" to satisfy those who feel a need for vowel purity). "Six" could be sung "sih." "Seven" could be shortened to "seh" both to eliminate the second syllable and the final consonant. This modification of the numbers can change the numbers to pure vowels; AND, ease the mind in knowing melodic direction while coordinating with interval names, roman numeral analysis, and parts of the triad.” My position: Pro’s argument is not valid for several reasons. Most notably, the numbers can no longer be immediately integrated with the study of music theory when they are altered to such a degree. For instance, students are unlikely to instantly associate the nonsense syllable “fah” with a perfect fifth or the fifth in a major triad. Over a short period of time, students would realize that the syllable “fah” corresponds to the fifth degree of the major scale. Once the students learn this, my opponent’s modified numerical sight-singing system could indeed be integrated with the study of music theory. However, the same applies to solfege. When students learn that “so" corresponds to the fifth degree of the major scale, they would be able to connect this syllable to the perfect fifth. Thus, the numerical system is clearly not superior to solfege if pure vowels are important in teaching sight-singing. Indeed, simple logic suggests that this is true. When students are trying to learn how to sight-sing, it’s difficult for them to focus on vowel pronunciation. As a result, some may develop a habit of mispronouncing diphthongs if they are taught using the numerical system. As it turns out, there are actually several other disadvantages to using my opponent’s modified numerical system over the solfege system. For instance, five of the seven solfege syllables can easily be modified to represent notes outside of the major scale. These syllables can be raised one semitone simply by changing the vowel to a long “e”. For example, do would become di (pronounced dee) when raised one semitone. Mi simply becomes fa and ti becomes do because these two pairs are already one semitone apart. The solfege syllables can also be lowered a semitone by changing the vowel sound to a short “e”. However, a simple rule such as this one cannot be applied to my opponent’s modified sight-singing system in which all syllables consist of a single consonant followed by a single vowel. This is simply because multiple syllables begin with the same consonant. As an example, consider the syllables sih and seh, which both begin with an “s”. If the vowels in these syllables were replaced with a long “o”, for instance, the two syllables would become undistinguishable. This would become very problematic if a student attempted to sight-sing a chromatic scale in which all twelve pitches are used consecutively. Clearly, different vowels would have to be used to represent a minor sixth and a minor seventh, as well as an augmented fourth and an augmented fifth in my opponent’s modified system. I acknowledge that it would be possible to develop and implement such a system. However, it would take students a much longer time to learn to sight-sing chromatic scales and the various Gregorian modes under this system. Perhaps in the beginning of sight singing instruction numbers could be used. However, by the time students begin reading accidentals and working with the various modes, solfege would theoretically be the best method to use. Would students confuse rhythmic numbers and sight-singing numbers?In round two, my opponent claimed that he uses syllables to count rhythms in order to avoid confusion. However, he makes a contradictory argument in round three by suggesting that "the issue of confusing rhythmic numbers and sight-singing numbers is irrelevant". References:1. http://kuscholarworks.ku.edu...2. http://jrm.sagepub.com...