Sight-Singing SOLFEGE VS. NUMBERS

• Is solfege still a part of our culture? In the last round, I demonstrated that solfege is still a part of our culture, at least to some extent. As I noted, the seven main solfege syllables may be heard in "Do-Re-Mi" from The Sound of Music, as well as the Robert Maxwell song "Solfeggio". My opponent did not address this argument in his final post. • Is learning solfege difficult? In the last round, I made the following argument: “In many experimental studies, researchers have attempted to identify relationships between the sight-singing scores of students and the instructional methods employed by their teachers. These studies obviously took into account several other variables which could potentially obscure the results, including rehearsal time spent on teaching sight-singing. The researchers found that the teachers spent about the same amount of time on sight-singing instruction regardless of which method they used. Therefore, if the numerical sight-singing system is indeed much more efficient, the students using this system should have scored significantly higher than their peers. However, as I have made clear throughout this debate, this was certainly not the case. It may appear at first glance that numerical sight-singing methods are more intuitive and efficient. However, scholarly research clearly does not support this. ” My opponent also failed to refute this argument in his post for round five. • Can the numerical system tell students how far up or down they are going? In the last round, I demonstrated that it’s extremely important to teach students the difference between whole and half steps. My opponent did not refute this argument either. • Could the numbers be modified to ease pronunciation? Throughout this debate, my opponent has claimed that the first seven numbers can easily be altered to eliminate any diphthongs and ease pronunciation. As he suggested in round two, “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. ” However, as I've explained previously, these nonsense syllables cannot easily be altered to represent notes outside of the major scale. My opponent appeared to concede this point in his argument for round five. As he noted, a "sharp one" in his modified numerical sight-singing system would have to be sung “shun”. Furthermore, a "sharp four" would have to be pronounced “shore”, and a "sharp five" would have to be sung “shive”. However, these nonsense words contain diphthongs and ending consonants. As I noted above, my opponent’s modified sight-singing system was DEVELOPED to eliminate the ending consonants and diphthongs in the numbers. Therefore, there simply isn’t any logic in using this system once the students begin working with notes outside of the major scale. • Would it be easy for students to learn my opponent’s modified numerical sight-singing system? This issue is now irrelevant, since my opponent and I seem to agree that there's no logic in using the modified numerical system. Regardless of this fact, it would indeed take time for students to learn exactly how each number is modified. • Should diphthongs be avoided in teaching sight-singing? As I explained above, my opponent basically conceded in round five that his modified numerical sight-singing system would not work. However, he then proceeded to suggest that diphthongs shouldn’t be avoided in sight-singing after all. As he stated directly, “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! ” This argument is simply wrong. As I stated in round three, “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, [which can be a daunting task] 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 I’ve stated previously, nearly 25 percent of the choral directors who use solfege do so because of the ”ease in using pure vowels”. One might expect fewer teachers to favor solfege for this reason if using pure vowels in teaching sight-singing didn't benefit the students in some way. • What has the Con side of this debate established? 1. Solfege and numbers are of equal value in teaching sight-singing. While it may appear that numerical sight-singing methods are more intuitive and efficient, scholarly research does not support this. 2. Neither sight-singing system can, in and of itself, tell students how far up or down they are going. As I have noted above, 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 singing the major scale. 3. Solfege can also be integrated with the study of music theory once the system is learnt. For example, when students realize that “so" corresponds to the fifth degree of the major scale, they would be able to connect this syllable to the perfect fifth and the fifth in the major triad. 4. Solfege is still a large part of our culture. Roughly 60% of choral directors use solfege. (1) In addition, the seven main solfege syllables can be heard in the song “Do-Re-Mi” from the Sound of Music. Many non-musicians and children are familiar with this famous musical. 5. The traditional solfege syllables are much more conducive to promoting open, pure vowel sounds than numbers are. Meanwhile, the numbers cannot easily be modified to produce these pure vowel sounds. When students are trying to learn a challenging task, such as 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. Final Remarks: I urge everyone to vote con. I have provided several research articles to back up by contentions, but my opponent has used mainly intuition to back up his own. In addition, I remind the voters that my opponent, as the instigator, has the burden of proof. References:1. . http://etd.ohiolink.edu...