"battere" Il Levare

Honestly I wasn't able to understand the gesture...

Left hand up and down on the table, when it touches the table obviously the striking can be heard... the lifting is normally silent.

What he has him do is, at about 20...25 cm from the table, have him place the left hand over the right with the palm facing downwards and immobile (like a "counter-table")

When the right hand goes down it "hits" the table, when it rises its back hits against the palm of the left... marking the lifting.

I hope this is clearer

All this mess just to explain how to interpret these two gestures (I mean this person, not you, who tried to explain how it's done), the situation seems a bit

tangled; I get the impression (and I understood how it's done) that in this way, instead, one focuses too much on the gesture itself and "loses" a bit
ofthe meaning of the two gestures, which are the antithesis of each other.

I think that this could cause problems regarding, first of all, concentration; as I was saying before, a person who has to dwell on acquiring

a gesture like this would have some difficulty reading the score correctly; then, of course, this "overlapping" or "subordination"
of the right hand to the left, which remains still to indicate the upbeat, and since they are placed practically on the same axis, for me it causes confusion. It is much simpler
to do the typical beat by keeping the hand "flat" and the upbeat by lifting the hand and arching the wrist, like this, just as an example.

Valchiria wrote:

Left Hand up and down on the table; when it touches the table, obviously the beat can be heard... the upbeat is normally silent.

What he has them do is, about 20...25 cm from the table, have them place the left hand over the right with the palm facing downwards and immobile (like a "counter-table")

When the right hand goes down it "strikes" the table; when it rises, its back strikes against the palm of the left... marking the upbeat.

I hope this is clearer

The only thing that solfeggio teachers should do would be to teach solfeggio using universally known gestures, namely those used by conductors, which are also studied for the spatialization of time and for the distribution of accents between strong and weak beats. The habit of making everything beat downwards is a disaster, in my opinion, and this idea of making the upbeat strike upwards... well, it would be just as good to use a metronome that beats the subdivisions. To me, it is useless, to say the least.

Carlos wrote:

solfeggiare utilizzando i gesti universalmente conosciuti, ovvero quelli che usano i direttori, che tra l'altro sono studiati per la spazializzazione del tempo e per la distribuzione degli accenti tra forti e deboli.

Il punto è che è diplomato in direzione corale (a parte composizione, organo, maestro al cembalo...senza contare approfondimenti seri in ambito jazz ed elettronica) ed è pure bravo ... mah!?

Piccinesco wrote:

I think that this could lead to problems regarding, first of all, concentration

I understand it's complicated to describe; practically little changes if not for the fact that one "feels" the lifting. As Carlos used to say, a bit like if you were playing the subdivisions with the metronome quite hard...

Carlos wrote:

The only thing sight-singing teachers should do is teach sight-singing using universally known gestures, namely those used by conductors, which are also studied for the spatialization of time and for the distribution of accents between strong and weak beats. The habit of making everything beat downwards is a disaster, in my opinion, and this idea of making the upbeat strike upwards... well, you might as well use a metronome that beats the subdivisions. To me, it's useless, to say the least.

I quote !!

Aparte the correct initiative reported by Carlos regarding using a metronome that beats the subdivisions, it seems to me that this thing is fine as long as we are talking about simple meters; if he wants to sight-sing 6/8 in subdivisions, what is he going to do? Beat once on the table and twice on the hand ??

This could work if one only sight-sings on the beats. Regarding subdivisions, this doesn't work with compound meters. The standard for teaching should be to ensure that everything always works and not just in certain cases... Imagine if the laws of gravitation only worked in certain cases, how many satellites would have fallen on our heads !!

TheSimon wrote:

The norm of a teaching approach should be to ensure that everything always works and not just in certain cases... Imagine if the laws of gravitation only worked in certain cases, how many satellites would have fallen on our heads!!

Let's say that from my point of view, pedagogy is not exactly an exact science in the sense that one often has to adapt the method to the student. And students are all different.

Now we need to understand if Valchiria has seen this done with a student who was perhaps "stubborn" [de coccio], as you say in Rome... and who perhaps needed some "extra reinforcement"... or if it is the norm.

Effectively, I find this to be an excellent objection or rather, Valchiria, do you know how she handles 6/8?

TheSimon wrote:

Aside from the correct initiative reported by Carlos to use a metronome that beats the subdivisions, it seems to me that this works fine as long as we are talking about simple tempos; if she wants to sight-read 6/8 with subdivisions, what is she going to do? Tap once on the table and twice on her hand??

The discussion would be a bit long. I believe it is useful, at the beginning, at least until the appendix to Ciriaco's first course, or even until the completion of the first course, to clearly explain the subdivision. It is even necessary to make one understand and internalize the double subdivision. Naturally, in solfeggio performance and musical performance, the subdivision and the double subdivision must not be highlighted by gesture or accent, but only internalized and thought of when necessary. Naturally, I am only summarizing things that for many teachers and others are obvious.

Take the first page of Beethoven's Pathetique op. 13 and perform this exercise also on the double subdivision (the sixteenth note) and we will obtain the maximum precision in the division of the beats and the figures that represent them.

It is also obvious that the fragmentation of accents, i.e., their highlighting, increases with the slowing down of the tempo. In a grave, a greater number of small appoggiaturas are expected, and then some subdivisions become strong... even within a weak beat. Moving towards Adagio, allegretto, allegro tempos, the accentuations decrease until they only take into consideration the accent of the strong beats or even that of the beginning of the measure. A classic example is a 3/4 that in a Presto tempo is conducted in 1. Opp., exceptionally, do not be scandalized, a very slow 6/8 which is better to conduct in 6.

Naturally, regarding the solfeggio course, it is a cause for reproach at the exam to see a student who "subdivides," but rhythmic precision and naturalness in reading difficult rhythmic cells are highly appreciated, perhaps deeply understood (using the visualization of subdivisions) and "once and for all and without uncertainty" during study sessions with one's own Maestro.

P.S. a fundamental lesson is the one dedicated to the differences between simple meters and compound meters. Even today, I sometimes notice a lack of absolute clarity between the two "different natures."