Sight-Singing SOLFEGE VS. NUMBERS

I would like to begin this round with a story: A newly wed couple were preparing for their first Thanksgiving. ï¿½The wife took the ham and cut the end off before putting it in the oven. ï¿½This intrigued the young husband, so he asked why she did it. ï¿½"Oh, I think it has something to do with the flavor. ï¿½I do it that way because my mom did it that way." ï¿½That wasn't enough for the young man, so he called Mom. ï¿½She also said something about flavor and said her mom did it that way. ï¿½When he called Grandma, she said, "I cut my ham off because I cooked in a wood stove and the oven was too small for a ham." When Guido developed the solfege scale, he used a FAMILIAR hymn to which ï¿½his students could relate. ï¿½During his day, EVERYBODY knew Ut Queant Laxis. ï¿½Today, only a hand full of musicologists are familiar with the hymn; but, the solfege system is still being used. ï¿½In order to be true to Guido's original method, teachers would need to use something which their students would be readily familiar. ï¿½After a whole millennium, it is time to retire the solfege system for one that is more familiar. Rebuttals "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." My contention is not that the solfege method cannot reach the same destination as the numbers method. ï¿½My contention is that numbers take a more efficient route! ï¿½ "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." A whole step between 2 and 3; a half step between 3 and 4? ï¿½This is overcomplicating things. ï¿½My kindergarten students know that when the numbers get higher, the pitch gets higher and when the numbers get lower the pitch gets lower. ï¿½What could be more SIMPLE than that? ï¿½ "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." My opponent is choking here! ï¿½"Fah" would not be a nonsense syllable, it would be understood as a different way to sing "five." "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"." In my system, a flat two is sung, "floo" and a sharp two is sung, "shoo." ï¿½Much less complicated!