Sight-Singing SOLFEGE VS. NUMBERS

• Is solfege still a part of our culture?My opponent's argument:"When Guido developed the solfege scale, he used a FAMILIAR hymn to which his students could relate. During his day, EVERYBODY knew Ut Queant Laxis. Today, only a hand full of musicologists are familiar with the hymn; but, the solfege system is still being used."My rebuttal:Many people, including some non-musicians, are still familiar with the basic solfege syllables even though the hymn Ut Queant Laxis is no longer a part of our culture. For example, the seven main syllables may be heard in "Do-Re-Mi" from The Sound of Music, as well as the Robert Maxwell song "Solfeggio". Individuals who have heard these songs are likely to already be familiar with solfege. • Is learning solfege difficult? My opponent’s argument: “My contention is not that the solfege method cannot reach the same destination as the numbers method. My contention is that numbers take a more efficient route!” My rebuttal:In the experimental studies I’ve quoted previously, 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 extremely clear throughout this debate, this was 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. Oddly, my opponent even admitted in round two that solfege and numbers are of equal value in teaching sight-singing. • Can the numerical system tell students how far up or down they are going? My opponent's argument:“A whole step between 2 and 3; a half step between 3 and 4? This is overcomplicating things. My kindergarten students know that when the numbers get higher, the pitch gets higher and when the numbers get lower the pitch gets lower. What could be more SIMPLE than that?” My Rebuttal: My opponent seems to suggest that teaching students the difference between whole steps and half steps is not important. However, this simply is not the case. If students cannot audiate both whole steps and half steps, they will not be able to sight-sing chromatic scales or any of the various diatonic scales. This would become extremely problematic, since most songs contain portions of these scales. Given this rather obvious fact, it’s not surprising that many children’s choirs have emphasized the importance of teaching students the difference between whole and half steps. As the directors of one such choir state, “When [the student’s] ears learn where the whole steps and half steps are in the music, it helps them to sing much better in tune.” (1) • Could the numbers be modified to ease pronunciation? As I mentioned a few rounds ago, the traditional solfege syllables are much more conducive to promoting open, pure vowel sounds than numbers are. My opponent did note that the first seven numbers could theoretically be altered to eliminate any diphthongs and ease pronunciation. However, there are several disadvantages to doing so. As I have noted previously, five of the seven solfege syllables can easily be modified to represent notes outside of the major scale. These syllables can be raised or lowered one semitone simply by changing the vowel to a “long e” or a “short e”, respectively. (The remaining two syllables need not to be altered since they are already one semitone away from their successor.) However, I also noted in the last round that a simple rule such as this one cannot be applied to my opponent’s modified sight-singing system since a few of his syllables begin with the same consonant. My opponent countered that the syllables in his system could be altered by changing the consonant rather than the vowel. As he stated, “In my system, a flat two is sung, "floo" and a sharp two is sung, "shoo."” However, this also would not work since multiple syllables in my opponent's modified sight-singing system contain the same vowel. For example, consider the syllables “wah”, “faw”, and “fah” which all contain a “short a” vowel. If the consonants in these three syllables were replaced with a “sh”, they would become essentially undistinguishable. Obviously, different consonants would have to be used to represent augmented unison, an augmented fourth, and an augmented fifth in my opponent’s modified system. This would be very confusing for the students. Clearly, the solfege system would indeed be much less complicated. As I described above, one single vowel can be used to represent all notes which have been raised a semitone in the solfege system. Likewise, one single vowel can be used to represent all syllables which have been lowered a semitone. • Would it be easy for students to learn my opponent’s modified sight-singing system? My opponent's argument: "Fah" would not be a nonsense syllable, it would be understood as a different way to sing "five." My rebuttal: This is not the case. The syllable “fah” contains a different vowel than the number five and has no ending consonant. Thus, students would be unlikely to immediately remember that this syllable corresponds to the number five. Learning my opponent’s modified system would take just as much time as learning the solfege system. My opponent has provided no evidence to suggest otherwise. Conclusion:In summary, research has proven solfege to be just as effective in teaching sight-singing as the numerical method. Additionally, the solfege syllables contain pure vowels and allow students to focus solely on sight-singing pitches. Nearly 25 percent of the teachers who use solfege do so because of the ease in using pure vowels. If numbers could easily be altered to produce pure vowels, one might expect fewer choral directors to favor solfege for the above reason. References:1. http://www.emu.edu...