Sight-Singing SOLFEGE VS. NUMBERS

Allowing teachers to use which ever method they prefer would greatly benefit the students: This is not a debate about forcing teachers to use any particular method. This is a debate about which method is the BEST and most productive method to use. Here is my original proposition: " My position will be that the use of scale degree numbers is superior to solfege in teaching sight-singing for the following reasons:" The whole purpose of my position in this debate is to show the value of numbers over solfege so that I might influence the preference of vocal music teachers. Learning seven simple syllables is not that difficult: Con's position: "My opponent continues to insist that learning solfege takes a considerable amount of class time. If this were the case, students who used the numbers system should have scored significantly higher in the experimental studies I described in round one. However, this was clearly not the case." My 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! Both sight-singing systems have advantages and disadvantages: " For instance, the traditional solfege syllables are much more conducive to promoting open, pure vowel sounds than numbers are. Therefore, choirs which use solfege are likely to have better overall tone quality. Studies indicate that roughly 15 percent of choir directors prefer to use solfege for this reason alone." The solfege syllables are altered from the original Ut Queant Laxis syllables. "Ut" has been dropped and replaced with "do;" "sol" (from the phrase, "solve poluti") has been shortened to "so;" and "ti" has been added later. (The seventh scale degree was dropped from usage during medieval times because the distance between the fourth degree and the seventh degree formed a tritone which was believed to be evil. That is why the hymn did not have the seventh scale degree that is called "ti" in the solfege system.) If the solfege syllables can be modified to suite the needs of education, why can't numbers? "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. A second question I have for the author of my opponent's research article is why should a choral director avoid diphthongs when teaching sight-singing? Sure, the Latin syllables in the solfege system have pure vowels; but, English, German and French choral literature does not. Diphthongs should not be avoided, they should be taught properly, even in sight-singing! The likelihood of a choir having better tone quality depends on the choral director! Two years ago, my 4th and 5th grade choir made a superior rating at state festival; and, everyone was impressed with our tone quality! Some observers said my choir sounded like a high school choir; and, all three judges commented on the "mature sound" from my choir. We sight-sing with NUMBERS! "My opponent points out that syllables could be used to count rhythms instead of numbers. However, studies have shown that high-school students tend to perform better when they use numbers to count rhythms." In my experience with sight-singing, rhythms are read prior to singing pitches; so the issue of confusing rhythmic numbers and sight-singing numbers is irrelevant since they are not read simultaneously. Conclusion: In the end a music educator will ultimately either use whichever sight-singing system they wish to use or use one that they are forced to use. I agree with my opponent that the teacher should have a choice in the matter. It is my contention that should the teacher choose to use numbers: 1. the rehearsal will be much more efficient and effective 2. the teacher will have ease in applying what is learned in sight-singing to theory and visa-verse. 3. the students will grasp the the concept of scale much more readily.