... Is Solfeggio Useful?

I believe that even the most boring thing, if one finds the right way to teach it, can be fun. Regardless of this, solfeggio is fundamental for the study of an instrument. Those who read music as if they were reading a newspaper have less difficulty putting pieces together and do so in very little time.

... so it is a problem of the teachers and not of the subject?

But if something were useless (that is the question), why persevere in teaching it?

Look, the fact that most problems of many performers are caused precisely by a poor mastery of solfeggio—and when I speak of the subject, I mean it from every angle and to be approached somewhat 'the French way'

Therefore, at most it is a problem of method (teacher) or lack of will (student) ... rather than the subject itself

Giove wrote:

Are many teachers opposed to teaching solfeggio because it causes many students to drift away from music?

What do you think?

Could it be taught in another way?

It should definitely be taught in another way and, as has been said, the problem is not the subject itself, because saying that solfeggio distances one from music is a convenient excuse if one does not know how to teach it, and it is equivalent to saying that barre exercises distance one from dance.

There are at least two things that should not be done: teaching by imitation and claiming that one cannot play something if one does not know how to sight-sing it.

Teaching by imitation is wrong because... well, we all know why: I sing a quintuplet to you 100 times and in the end you will reproduce it exactly, but as soon as you encounter one written in a different tempo, you won't know how to do it.

Preventing a child from playing a rhythm if they don't know how to sight-sing it first is depressing and very wrong, because the ear also has an extremely important function and I would like to see if anyone would have the courage to say to a 6-year-old child «no: "if you were to" [subjunctive] you can't say that, because we haven't studied the subjunctive in school yet!». Certain things can be achieved through intuition, and theory serves to rationalize them and to help place them in more complex contexts. After all, we all learn to read well before knowing how to write the same things we read, right?

Carlos wrote:

After all, we all learn to read well before knowing how to write the same things we read, right?

... if I haven't missed anything, it is my understanding that we learn to speak first ... and through imitation

In fact, we don't arrive at school mute, and there isn't a need to wait for the teacher to teach us the alphabet ... to pick up our first words.

I didn't understand what "à la française" means

Giove wrote:

I didn't understand what "the French way" means

In France, the basic course ("solfeggio" in a broad sense) lasts 7 years... have you ever seen a French solfeggio method?

… they aim to produce Musicians

The contents of the Italian curriculum reform are unfortunately a poor copy, but hope is the last thing to die

Giove wrote:

... if I haven't missed anything, it is my understanding that we first learn to speak ... and by imitation

One moment, I understand there might be a misunderstanding, but "by imitation" when speaking of music theory means not being able to rhythmically place a complex rhythm because its structure is unknown (the difficulty of a quintuplet is not executing 5 notes in one movement and in the abstract, it is executing them within a piece), whereas speaking by imitation does not mean not knowing what one is saying: it only means not knowing what a verb is "called" even when used with full knowledge; because when you say "if I would like" [se io vorrei], your mother tells you "no: one says if I wanted" [se io volessi] and you learn to contextualize a verb form even if you cannot define it. These are two different things.

Carlos wrote:

saying that solfeggio distances one from music is a nice excuse if one doesn't know how to teach it

I quote.

Do you realize that you are claiming one cannot play without knowing how to sight-read?

...who knows how Art Tatum did it ......

Carlos wrote:

while speaking by imitation does not mean not knowing what one is saying: it only means not knowing what a verb used with full awareness is "called," because when you say «if I would want» [se io vorrei] your mother tells you «no: you say if I wanted» [se io volessi] and you learn to contextualize a verb form even if you do not know how to define it.

... perhaps you meant conjugation?

Sorry, but if you play and the teacher tells you: you must play like this or that ...is it not the same thing?

Gennarino wrote:

Do you realize that you are claiming one cannot play without knowing how to sight-read?

I said exactly the opposite

I quote myself: "Preventing a child from playing a rhythm if they do not know how to sight-read first is depressing and very wrong, because even the ear has an extremely important function [...]".

Gennarino wrote:

... perhaps you meant conjugation?

Yes, of course, but I was trying to reproduce the way a child expresses themselves.

Gennarino wrote:

Sorry, but if you play and the teacher tells you: you must play like this or that... isn't it the same thing?

The sight-singing teacher is one person, the instrument teacher is another. Teaching sight-singing by imitation is characterized by the fact that a single rhythmic "problem" (triplets, quintuplets, syncopation, etc.) is isolated in exercises packed with only one of these problems. By dint of singing quintuplets or triplets or... you get what I mean, always in the same way and always at the same tempo (and always without inserting them into a rhythmic grid), one thinks they have learned them (and the other thinks they have taught them), but that is not the case.

Playing an instrument is different, because you don't play sight-singing exercises but pieces that might be simple yet meaningful, where perhaps a complex rhythm is encountered in the middle of a simple phrase. In that case, one will play without perhaps knowing exactly what the rhythmic placement of a quintuplet is, but that does not prevent them from playing it, within that piece and that quintuplet, without claiming to tell the young student that "all quintuplets are like this." I don't know if any of you have ever heard a quintuplet being taught. I have: "look: the quintuplet is like saying Ce-li-bi-da-che," with the subsequent rapid-fire repetition of that word, well-divided, moderately fast... but that isn't "teaching the quintuplet," because the first time that poor unsuspecting person encounters a quintuplet in a Mahler Adagio at 42 metronome, they won't know how to pace it (try saying Ce... li... bi... da... che... while underneath someone plays a septuplet and someone else plays a quadruplet... impossible if you don't know exactly how to place that rhythm). I hope my reasoning is a little clearer.

Carlos and Frank's reasoning is crystal clear, for those who want to understand it...

i have always attributed the problems in teaching solfeggio to the fact that, generally, solfeggio teachers are composers. And I imagine that for a composer, having a solfeggio chair isn't exactly the best thing...

Hi everyone, this is a beautiful discussion!

I agree with both Frank and Carlos; I would add an "obviously," but perhaps that wouldn't be so obvious.

I think it would be interesting to have a discussion on how one does "solfeggio practice"; I find that the experiential circle of "Listening - Analysis - Practice" is the best thing, because it allows us to always be in contact with reality, with the musical repertoire whatever it may be.

For Gennarino:

It is clear that Art Tatum is an exception. I would say "he was lucky".... an impressive amount of extraordinary talent!!!!!!!! but "he was lucky"!

To stay within jazz, I believe that Jarrett, Mehldau, Moran, Evans, and many others would have many objections.

Unfortunately, I have never known any musician who had the same musical experience; everyone I have known has studied and practiced many hours a day, and they still do so today.

In conclusion, it is clear that one can play without knowing how to sight-read (solfeggio), but the exceptions remain such and cannot be transformed into models to follow.

For Frank:

Do you have a PDF or a link where I can view the French solfeggio program?

Hi everyone

I don't have direct links, but I would take a good look at the French conservatory websites:

http://www.musicalchairs.info/france/conservatoires

I also like the idea behind:

L’enseignement du Conservatoire International de Musique de Paris s’adresse à un large public, amateur ou professionnel, sans limite d’âge, de tous niveaux, de toutes nationalités, et à tout moment de l’année, de septembre à juin.

At least in the noblest interpretation that I like to give it... maybe they are at their wits' end and are just taking anyone and everyone.

Returning to the programs, I had the chance to get to know them through a couple of friendships that have been active over there. Thanks to their input, I also obtained some texts (both on musical training and music history) and I tell you that in terms of approach and setting, it is well understood how their courses are structured, or at least the content and requirements.

I don't want to write something stupid, but in this regard, 7 years of training are planned, somewhat like adding pre-academic + a three-year degree or similar combinations.

… and it is enough to see how they manage the composition course; they do few exams but large ones... whereas we have infinite mini-courses that require the student to take about thirty complementary exams (I see the approach as somewhat high-school level), so, between attendance, study, travel... everything works if the student didn't compose anything... and someone who enrolls in composition probably has writing among their priorities.

Tanto pour parler, caro Feliciano

Feliciano wrote:

I think it would be interesting to have a discussion on how to do “solfeggio practice”; I find that the experiential circle “Listening - Analysis - Practice” is the best thing, because it allows us to always be in contact with reality, with the musical repertoire no matter what it is.

I agree with the idea of always staying in contact with reality (that which already exists), even though I do not demonize theoretical abstraction; on the contrary, for some disciplines it is important because knowing how an existing theoretical model is constructed allows one to have a training such that they can eventually create their own. Without wanting to act superior at all costs, theory is what exists, and where I will arrive starting from those notions could even be something new.

Be that as it may, I love musicians like Bach, Brahms, Prokofiev (men of the past) as well as musicians like Beethoven, Wagner, Stravinsky (men of the future).

Given that I start from the premise that the more one knows, the freer one is to express oneself as they please, solfeggio (always in a broad sense) remains the first of a long series of building blocks that a good musician must possess.

If you happen to get bored, take it out on your teacher … because you can also have a lot of fun (if not a great deal!).

Or at any rate, know that there are those who have fun, so if you are not in this condition, somewhere something is not working correctly.

thallo wrote:

i have always attributed the problems in teaching solfeggio to the fact that, generally, solfeggio teachers are composers.

... I, on the other hand, always hope there is a choir conductor behind it. Given the average age of the members, it would be nice if they were also specialized in children's voices and well-acquainted with the problems related to voice changes, etc.

thallo wrote:

And I imagine that for a composer, having a solfeggio chair is not exactly ideal...

It might not be ideal, but if they don't like it, they should change or give up the position instead of boring the students (reminding us that they are also paid, so... a shred of professionalism)... but from the topics I read around, it seems more like the students can't wait to get the practice out of the way. As always, perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle

A few months ago, I happened to overhear a young girl asking the piano teacher of a music school near my house for information about the solfeggio course; guess what she asked him? "But can one study only the treble clef? I'm not interested in the others," I think she also said they were difficult; he obviously replied that she had to study all of them, at least for a more complete training, and she obviously declined.

Frank wrote:

If you happen to get bored, take it out on your teacher … because you can also have a lot of fun (if not a huge amount!).

Or at least know that there are those who do have fun, so if you aren't in that condition somewhere, something isn't working

Agreed. While keeping in mind the concept that, anyway, everything cannot always and in every way be fun and that a bit of "effort" is necessary, in music as in any discipline one wants to approach seriously... otherwise it sends the message that "either I have fun or the teacher doesn't understand a damn thing," but that's not necessarily true: learning to subdivide for a week is not fun at all, especially for a child, but one must learn it... we all did scales and arpeggios, didn't we? Raise your hand if you think they were fun... nobody? Hmm... how strange!