On 6 Feb 2006 at 15:52, Arkady wrote: > Later on, when I gravitated towards Jazz, I realized that even my > "Russian" System was more of an impediment, then help. Why? Cause > after year of pronouncing those syllables, like Do - Do dee-es - Re - > Re dee-es etc., it was SIMPLY IMPRACTICAL in the context of a fast > tempo in Jazz, particularly for me, as a sax player, cause sometimes > I'd play a particular piece on Alto, or Tenor, or on flute, and if it > was with a different singer, who needed to change a key, then it's a > whole other set of transpositions!!! Thus the Do Re Mi is an > impediment vs. Key/Tonality Barrier etc.
You don't say if the Russian system was movable or fixed Do. I personally see absolutely no utility in fixed Do, as you might as well just spell the notes by name, rather than adding a new set of syllables. Sight-singing using movable Do is an *analytic* process that forces you to consider melodic and harmonic function. The system you describe, with more than one syllable to the note, is impractical on its surface. This is why the movable Do system taught in the US works so well, because each chromatic note is unique in sound while also having only a single syllable. That is why numbers are inappropriate, because 7 has two syllables. Now, of course, movable Do is irrevocably tonal. Music that is changing key constantly needs to have a changing Do. In this respect, though, it's much like the mutations of the original Guidonian hexachord system, though I don't know that we have codified rules for where the mutation should occur, as was the case with the Guidonian system. And movable Do is useless for non-tonal music, since it presumes a tonic where there is none. Non-tonal music aside, the movable Do system as taught in the US (which is, apparently, derived from British models) seems to me to have the most utility in teaching sight singing, which is what I feel the purpose of solmization is. As to transposition, I used to amaze everybody in the speed with which I could arrange a piece for band and write out the parts from a short score. I could do a 3 or 4 minute piece for band in 4-5 hours, including copying the parts. I found transposition really easy, as I just solfeged the original and then used the solfege to write in the new key. I obviously had to know what octave to write in, but in terms of getting the notes write, it made trasposition extremely easy. I'm not sure if I could replicate that same speed in Finale, to be honest (I'm including the time it takes to create the arrangement, i.e., choosing harmonies, the overall plan of the piece and the orchestration), but the end result would be more readable than my pencil hand (which is what I used to create readable parts back then), and certainly more durable (though harder to correct). But I always felt that the solfege made my a much better musician than I would have been otherwise, and, indeed, to this day, I unconsciously solfege just about any music I hear. It's pretty darned annoying. :) -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
