Fixed versus Movable Do

 

You've probably heard someone sing a musical scale with the syllables "do, re, mi, fa, so, la, to, do." These syllables are called solfege; they date back to the middle ages, and are derived from the beginnings of Latin words in the Catholic mass. (Some of you may think of the famous song "Do, a deer" from The Sound of Music, where Maria teaches the notes of the scale in a way that was easy to remember.) However, there is actually quite a bit of confusion about these syllables and how they are applied, or not, to the learning of music.

In Asia (including Russia) and some European countries, they teach a system of learning using a fixed do. The note "do" is always the note C; therefore D is "re," E is "mi," etc. If you want to sing a C Major scale, it is straightforward and simple. However, once you want to sing another scale, one containing sharps or flats, use have to use other terms, such as "si" for the sharp above "so." So you actually have to learn 12 syllables, not 7. In some music schools and conservatories, you'd be required to sing complex melodies, using these solfege syllables. It is thought to be a form of ear training. It is quite difficult to learn to do, and, in my opinion, there are better ways to train the ear. I have had quite a few students over the years who were brought up and attended music schools in Russia, and they have described the torture of learning to sing solfege.

Here in the U.S. we use a movable "do." Whichever scale you sing (or play), the first note is do, the second is re, etc., regardless whether the scale begins on a flat, sharp, or natural. The reason why this approach is so superior is that it makes clear that every scale (let's just say a major scale in this example) has the same relationship of its tones to every other major scale. This is the whole point of the scale, in a way. I can sing Happy Birthday in any key (i.e. based on any scale) and it still sounds like Happy Birthday because all its tones have the same relationship to each other, regardless of key. So, too, with the scale itself. With the fixed do approach, every scale would have a different combination of syllables, and therefore, singing the same song in a different key would also require a complete new set of syllables. It emphasizes the individuality of each tone rather than its relationship to other tones. (I think there's a metaphor for life here, possibly.)

The other problem with the fixed do system is that it tends to emphasize what I call a "white key mentality." (See my post with this title.) Since the system is based on C, the C scale is viewed as the basis and everything else is some sort of exception. Composers have written in every key, with no bias towards the key of C. (They may have a few hundred years ago, but not now.) So we, as musicians, must be able to play with equal ease in any key, with no bias for the key of C. For years I had an adult student who grew up in China and learned the fixed do system. He could only play in the key of C. Trying to play in any other key (even by ear!) so disoriented him, he just couldn't cope.

Another problem with the fixed do system is how chords are taught. (I only recently learned about this from one of my Russian students.) Let's take the example of 7th chords (4-note chords). A D minor 7th chord would be learned as "re-fa-la-do," (D-F-A-C). That's easy because they are all white keys. But if the chord is C diminished 7, you would have to sing do- me (lowered mi)- fi (raised fa) - la. So again, every chord would have a completely different "spelling" than every other chord, even if it's the exact same type of chord. This would mean hundreds of combinations to learn. More important, it just misses the whole point of learning chords. To learn 7th chords (or any type of chord) you need to learn how they are constructed (what intervals). Once you know that, you can build any chord on any note.

Taking this one step further, I think we should abandon the solfege system entirely. It is a relic of a bygone age. When teaching people to sight-sing, for example, I just use the numbers of the scale, 1 through 7. It's so much easier to relate to the numbers 1 and 5 being a fifth away from each other, for example, than some arbitrary syllables such as do and so. For non-scale tones, they can be referred to more as how they are functioning (e.g. raised 4 vs. flat 5), rather than fixed syllables. You can sing with equal skill in any key with this method and does more to train your ear, in my opinion, than the fixed do method.

If you happen to be with a teacher who uses the fixed do system and insists you use it, I would absolutely urge you to find another teacher. If your teacher was taught that way and perpetuates that system, they probably are using many other "300-year-old ideas" as well. You would be wise to find someone who has a more modern -- and sensible -- approach.

The Smarter I Practice, the More Talented I Get

 

"The harder I work, the luckier I get." -- Samuel Goldwyn

I always liked the above quote. While perhaps some things can be attributed to luck, there is no doubt that hard work can lead to great success. Someone might appear have just been "lucky," yet they put a great deal of effort, sacrifice, and dedication into getting where they got.

Regarding musicians, people often say that the great performers, composers, etc., were/are just "talented."  While each person may be born with greater or lesser degree of natural abilities in regards to music (or any other discipline), clearly one would need to work hard and put in many hours to achieve a very high level of musical excellence. There are some who even say there is no such thing as talent. You may have heard about the 10,000 hour principle -- that someone who puts in 10,000 hours before the age of 8 or so will achieve mastery, regardless of the innate abilities they were born with. Malcolm Gladwell wrote about this and others have embraced this idea.

When it comes to music, however, I don't believe that anyone could become a great musician just by  putting in the hours. Everyone is born with a different level of "ear," meaning the sensitivity to and awareness of musical pitch. Some are born with "perfect" or "absolute" pitch, which could be considered the highest level of ear. Others have difficulty singing on pitch and can't even tell whether a pitch goes up or down from the previous pitch. They may say they are "tone deaf," though I do not believe there is any such thing. (People who are "color blind" still see colors, just not as distinctly.) Having a great ear to start with will help someone on their musical journey, but, by itself, does not guarantee success. (And, no matter how good your ear is to start, you can, and must, continue to make it even better.)

Musicians certainly do put in the hours to get to a high level. Many who start at a young age will have a "head start" on the hours. But I am quite convinced that there are many who put in thousands of hours yet do not achieve greatness or anything even close to greatness. People might assume that they just weren't talented enough to begin with. Yet I believe it is more likely to be the quality of the hours, not the quantity.

Many people who have attempted to play the piano waste tremendous amounts of time on practices which do not help them (and can even cause harm). Some examples of this are: finger exercises that do not really improve your technique, spending too much time playing hands separately, playing everything too slowly, using a metronome, excessive repetition (which dulls the mind), playing un-musically, going through the motions while the mind is elsewhere, not really listening to your own playing, and many more. Many of these subjects have been discussed in my previous posts.

The level of achievement or mastery you attain is a direct reflection of the quality of your practice. I'm always amazed that people actually think they can practice one way (e.g. un-musically) and then flip a switch and play differently when it comes to performance time. It just doesn't happen. 

Certain "talents" that you didn't think you had may develop over time if you persistently work towards them. For example, you may think you have no talent for improvising. But if you improvise every day, really listen to what you are doing, assess what could be improved (with the help of a teacher, hopefully), you will get better. After some years of doing this, someone else might hear you play and say, "wow, you really have a talent for improvising!"

My advice to students of the piano would be this: forget about "talent." Spend your time at the piano making your playing as beautiful as you can, and your practice time as efficient and focused as you can. The smarter you practice, the more talented you'll get.

More About Fingering

 

If you read my previous post on fingering, you'll see that I disagree with a lot of the "traditional" beliefs about fingering.

I recently read the blog post of another teacher of the piano, whose advice is basically the same as the old ideas that have been passed down through generations of teachers and pianists. He doesn't offer any new ideas at all. One of his ideas was so bizarre that I want to respond with my own thoughts on this.

He said, when it comes to fingering, "always look back, never forward." Just reading that statement should make you say "huh??" To paraphrase, he says look back to the finger you used on the previous key and that will determine the finger to use on the current one. If fingering were as simple as that, one could, theoretically, determine the finger to use on the first note of the piece and the rest would be obvious. But clearly that is not even remotely the case. Consider this example: when you play a basic scale and start with thumb on the first note and then use the second and third finger, you would presume you would use the fourth finger on the next note, since that would seem to be the logical progression from the third finger on the previous note. But, as we all know, you are almost certainly going to want to get thumb on the next (fourth) note, so that your hand is positioned to complete the remaining five notes of the scale. So in fact, the exact opposite is true: your fingering is determined by where your hand needs to be next. This is such a simple truth that I can't understand how this particular blogger could have missed it. The same would be true of any arpeggio, as well as any phrase that spans more than five notes (the five fingers), which is practically all music! So my motto would be "always look forward, never back."

(The whole issue of crossing the thumb under is also a badly misunderstood concept. Once again, it is not about the thumb at all, but rather about a means of getting your hand to where it needs to be next.)

This person also said that your teacher should write in the fingerings in your manuscript and you should follow it. Sadly, this is what a lot of people do. There are several problems with this idea.

1) It makes you dependent on the written fingerings to the point that you never really know how to figure it out on your own. You will be lose the opportunity to develop your own understanding of fingering, and you will be forever dependent on the teacher. What happens when you are no longer taking lessons? 

2) Most of the fingerings should become obvious to you over time. Again, if you are aware of where your hand needs to go next, all you need is a minimal number of fingerings written in to remind you of this hand position change, and the rest will follow. Writing a finger number over every note is not only distracting, but tends to make you focus on each note separately instead of the whole phrase. It can lead to "note-wise" un-musical playing.

3) If your teacher does write fingering in, it had better be based on your hand, not theirs. In my previous post I say that fingering is not a one-size-fits-all. I have heard of teachers who write every finger number in the music before even seeing how the student would play it. Clearly, at the very least, people with small hands may do things differently than people with large hands.

4) Keep in mind that people who play by ear and/or improvise often have astounding technique and play with speed and brilliance without the "benefit" of reading written fingering. It should be obvious that this is possible. And if you are tempted to reply that "those people are just talented," I would say that you want to work towards becoming talented in that way. You will never develop those instincts in you slavishly follow the fingering prescribed by someone else.