[Note from TeachingMyToddlers: This topic was split off from http://forum.brillkids.com/teaching-your-child-music/add-the-solfege-train/ to keep the original thread on topic. All posts regarding the Solfege Train Printables can go in the original topic, and all posts regarding color vs. images or fixed vs. movable Do can go here.]
I have to congratulate Tamsyn for her creativity and high level of professionalism.
All the bad methods are wrong in different ways. All the working approaches are based on the same foundation, which is common sense.
I am very happy to see, how Solfeggio is flourishing! There is less and less of ‘Movable Do’ around, which is also healthy thing. Teaching music through speech memory engagement is a very wise idea. Today I was watching a little girl, who just came in USA from Spanish speaking country. Even though, she is a kis with special needs, she grasped piano piece by reciting it with Solfeggio syllables.
However, I think, color coding each note has little to do with music literacy. What is the point to place notes on lines and space of Grand Staff then? You can name them by putting them in one line by their colors.
When I was providing a research initially, I also went on this rout - placed each name under each note (Door, Rain, Mirror etc) and placed the same names on the piano keys. My idea was to gradually reduce ‘help’ (take away 10%, 20%, 30% etc of helpful hints 'till a child will be able to read music)
I created a lot of materials, text books, cards and started teaching my students with this. To my greatest disappointment, this method failed. Of cause, most talented kids grasped the concept regardless, but other kids left behind.
I was watching many LM videos and found out that kids mostly memorize pieces using their speech memory skills. Solfeggio syllables also winning point for Suzuki (alone with Yamaha ‘methods’)
But the most important part in music training are vision and straight interaction with notation with no ‘interpreters’
I was happy to see your eye training cards (space and line notes) and the training on 1, 2 and 3 lines.
We have special software games to develop these skills.
SoftMozart,
First of all, thank you for chiming in! :yes: We agree that solfege is important, that singing in solfege can help children learn music, and that it’s increased use in the music classroom is a highly beneficial thing. I applaud your program for that very reason.
I do have to disagree with your stance on “Movable Do”. I am actually a big proponent of it, for many reasons. I’m not going get into the “Movable Do vs Fixed Do” debate here, (it took me a 10 page essay to do that, and it’s not the purpose of this thread, . http://www.teaching-children-music.com/2012/10/movable-do-vs-fixed-do.html).
However, I will say simply that it has been very beneficial to my children, especially my musically-inclined 3-year-old. She has several nursery rhymes memorized in solfege, and thanks to the “Movable Do” insert, she can instantly play those melodies in any of the 12 keys. Too often, piano methods handicap students into thinking that “C major” is the easiest key to play in, and that a song with 5 flats is “hard”. It doesn’t have to be that way. Using Movable Do from the start is what I am doing with my children to ensure that they feel as comfortable in “Ab” as they do in “C”.
I agree that color coding each note has little to do with music literacy overall. I never used colors as a child, and I turned out alright. Why use it then? It’s just a tool, and an effective one at that. Little kids LOVE color! My daughter likes to color the notes. She knows that “Do” is red, and “So” is blue, so when I give her black and white music labeled with solfege, she has a blast coloring the notes. It’s a fun theory exercise for her, and it reinforces the music. Because of our color-coded system, I can color a new song for her, and even though it isn’t otherwise labeled with solfege, she will look at the colors and start singing it in solfege. This gives space for the words of the song, and makes the sheet music appear less crowded. If she likes the melody, before long she has the melody memorized in solfege. Color works for her. It’s working for my 5-year-old too. If it didn’t work, I would try to find something else that did. Color is just a little something I have in my toolbox. I can take it or leave it at will.
However, I think, color coding each note has little to do with music literacy. What is the point to place notes on lines and space of Grand Staff then? You can name them by putting them in one line by their colors.
Well, the point of putting the notes on lines and spaces in the Grand Staff comes back to my use of Movable Do. “Do” can move around, but middle C is middle C no matter what, and the staff shows us when to play it. When I give my children a new song, I tell them what key it is in, and they need to place the insert accordingly. If the song is in “F”, I show them the “F” on the staff, tell them that it is an “F”, expose them without quizzing them to the key signature with 1 flat and tell them that one flat means “F major”. Solfege can change, it is the letter names that are absolute. Letter names are shown on the staff. Yes, you could have a student play music by putting the solfege on one line, either by the solfege name, or by their colors (I prefer solfege labels over color in this case). It’s actually a valuable exercise, and we do it. It’s a convenient short-hand for notating a melody when you don’t have a 5-line staff to write on. Twinkle Twinkle, for example, could be written “d d s s l l s, f f m m r r d” and so on, with stick notation for the rhythm underneath. That’s fast and effective once you know the system. There are plenty of sight-singing methods that train students that way, especially in the Kodaly method. It’s just another exercise in my toolbox. (“The Solfege Train” has a few print-outs labeled “Solfege Chains” for this very purpose.)
Of course “Movable Do” vs “Fixed Do” is a mute point if you live in a country that doesn’t use letter names. If your local conductor asks the musicians to tune to “La”, “Movable Do” will be of little use to you, and will confuse your children. I applaud “Little Musician” for choosing “Fixed Do” for that very reason. They are an international company, and they need to be sensitive to how the international audience names their notes. “Fixed Do” is a good choice for your product for the same reason. I also tried to be sensitive to that need by making “The Solfege Train” compatible for both. However, if the local orchestra tunes to “A”, then you already have a solid system in place for absolute pitch. “Movable Do” a fantastic additional tool, in this case, for teaching children relative pitch. As I live in the United States, it is my method of choice.
However, I think, color coding each note has little to do with music literacy. What is the point to place notes on lines and space of Grand Staff then? You can name them by putting them in one line by their colors.
How is that any different than lining up solfeggio symbols like door, mirror, etc on a line?
When I was providing a research initially, I also went on this rout - placed each name under each note (Door, Rain, Mirror etc) and placed the same names on the piano keys. My idea was to gradually reduce 'help' (take away 10%, 20%, 30% etc of helpful hints 'till a child will be able to read music)
I created a lot of materials, text books, cards and started teaching my students with this. To my greatest disappointment, this method failed. Of cause, most talented kids grasped the concept regardless, but other kids left behind.
Isn’t this how SM teaches now, except instead of the labels being put under the notes they are now on the notes?
Of course the point of both of these methods, colors or images, is that over time the kids no longer need the training wheels. In regards to using color–every single successful mass Absolute Pitch program I have found throughout the world has 1 thing in common, and that one thing is integrating color into their note/chord recognition training.
Dear Tamsyn, I also won’t provide here any lectures about Movable Vs Fixed Do. I also wrote an article about Solfeggio (as an academic subject) and it was published by Moscow conservatory for educators in a book ‘How to teach Solfeggio in 21 century’. Some volunteers translate the article to English and it is available from our website: http://www.softmozart.com/our-library/articles.html
With help of interactive technology and digital pianos (keyboards) we can and we should teach all the kids in public school using most effective tools available. It is simply more effective and less expensive.
BTW, Zoltan Kodali also graduated Russian school of music and he developed his system with the aim to train musically illiterate masses to sing in choirs from different keys
Soft Mozart - is not a method, but rather Visual and Interactive Grand Staff with gradual changes to original notation. All the features (lines, spaces, ABC, DO RE MI, note duration etc etc had been incorporated into the software). Paper material could be great addition, of cause, because kids would love to play all these little games and color books.
I wish to know your opinion on eye-focus in consideration with music notation.
As for statement that just Movable do teach kids to transpose, I strongly disagree. I have tons of videos, where our Soft Mozart students transpose piano pieces, write them down and harmonize different melodies.
Here is the video of Rachel (3 year old girl), who transpose Bach’s Musette, for example:
Solfeggio notes names promote voice and ear training,
But training beginners eyes to read lines and spaces are also essential. Otherwise, kids with great ear and memory would prefer to play by ear and finally will fell behind in music sight-reading.
This is the common problem of Suzuki school, for example.
Making an reading music is a complex skill. All the component of the skill should be trained at the tme time.
@ SoftMozart, I never implied that Movable “Do” was the only way to transpose music, far from it. It’s just one way of doing it, and it’s working well for my children. It’s a slippery slope to say one method of teaching is the “only” way, and I’m not going venture down that path. There are many ways for students to learn how to transpose. When you get right down to it, what a musician really needs is a system for understanding Absolute pitch, and Relative pitch. Watching the videos you shared, it appears to me that hand position, in some cases with the aid of stickers, is the SM means of teaching relative pitch, at least as it relates to transposing the Musette. If it works, great. I only argue that it’s not the ONLY way.
For the record, Kodaly didn’t invent movable “Do”, he just developed a method of teaching it to young children. Guido d’Arezzo invented Movable “Do”. At first, “Movable Do” was all there was, and musicians were trained to “Run the Gamut”, by singing the scale in solfege in all of the different modes. It is “Fixed Do” that is new to the scene, beginning when France decided to assign “Do, Re, Mi” to absolute pitches. We could debate for hours which one is better, but the truth is that both are widely used throughout the world, and they both work!
I disagree with this part of your article, relating to the disadvantage of Movable “Do”:
Students are limited to the repertoire learned from a teacher’s voice or hand signs. Without the ability to read new music material aloud or to oneself, learners’ music thinking is not developed properly; it is closed into the confines of a limited repertoire.
I learned Movable “Do” in a sight-singing course. Singers trained this way use Movable “Do” to sight sing new music. I do it all the time. I think it’s a logical fallacy to say that this is a limiting factor for the Movable “Do” student, while implying that somehow that barrier disappears for the Fixed “Do” student. There’s a disconnect in that line of thinking, and I don’t follow you.
You may also argue that solfege is a superior method, over letter names, to teaching absolute pitch to young students. In Russia, this is the system that is used, so naturally Movable “Do” is a poor choice for Russians. But, love it or hate it, letter names ARE what is used in the United States. And because my children will need to understand and use letter names when they join the local orchestra, choir, or band, I would be doing my children a dis-service if I didn’t teach them letter names on the staff. If “Every Good Boy Does Fine” helps them to that end, great. Your articles says “this phrase also carries unnecessary meaning, which is likely to confuse students every time the association is used.” How is that any different from turning “Do” into “Door”, and “La” into “Ladder”?
Like TMT, I see an inconsistency in saying first
When I was providing a research initially, I also went on this rout - placed each name under each note (Door, Rain, Mirror etc) and placed the same names on the piano keys. My idea was to gradually reduce 'help' (take away 10%, 20%, 30% etc of helpful hints 'till a child will be able to read music)
I created a lot of materials, text books, cards and started teaching my students with this. To my greatest disappointment, this method failed. Of cause, most talented kids grasped the concept regardless, but other kids left behind.
and then later,
Soft Mozart - is not a method, but rather Visual and Interactive Grand Staff with gradual changes to original notation.
You ask about my opinion on “eye focus in consideration with music notation”. I think that you have to start somewhere, and that with practice this becomes easier and more intuitive until the student has mastered the concept. Using color or pictures of ladders are aids to help the beginner get started. Ultimately they become a handicap, and the aids must be removed for faster reading. Stickers on the keys are likewise a handicap to help students get results sooner, which is a worthy goal I have no problem with. I think the sooner a student can taste success on the piano, the better. I want my children to build confidence in their ability to play, as well as develop their sight-reading skills. With practice, the stickers and piano inserts, whether they use colors or pictures, should be removed. Additionally, the reliance on hand position or finger numbers to transpose will likewise become a handicap if the skill isn’t further developed and practiced. All of these more advanced skills will come with practice as the student gains fluency and proficiency on their instrument, and as they continue to study music theory.
Edit: Now my husband points out that my thread heading was wrong. “Ad” is short for “Advertisement”, and “Add” is a math function. Oops.
Of course just like the SM picture images, the colors are put on a staff and the kids learn where they go over time. What is the difference between using color or images? If you find fault with the method of using color to identify notes, then you should find fault with the “method” or “system” or “technique” or whatever you want to call it of SM using pictures to identify notes…it’s a variation of a similar philosophy! It’s musical training wheels to help child reach the low hanging fruit sooner and spur their motivation and to promote pitch training by incorporating another sense (visual). Can you see the irony that these approaches are not so far from each other?
For what it’s worth, we do enjoy your program and I hope that a new version comes out soon that allows users to customize and input their own songs. That is really what I am looking for right now.
I want to emphasize again that Soft Mozart is not a ‘method’. It is just visual and interactive Grand Staff with its gradual modifications. It can apply with any method that teaches music notation with Grand Staff.
There are many ways for students to learn how to transpose. When you get right down to it, what a musician really needs is a system for understanding [i]Absolute[/i] pitch, and [i]Relative[/i] pitch. Watching the videos you shared, it appears to me that hand position, in some cases with the aid of stickers, is the SM means of teaching relative pitch, at least as it relates to transposing the Musette. If it works, great. I only argue that it's not the ONLY way.
Again, the result shown on video is not the result of ‘method’. Simply Rachel has more intense practice, because she interacts with notation 1 on 1 and sings what she plays with Solfeggio. Since she plays piano pieces in different keys and sing alone, she naturally developed an ability to translate any music into notation with sharps and flats gradually imbedded in her mind.
Of cause there has to be some ‘point of support’ for 3 year old kid to start transposition smoothly! But no ‘hand position can help, when it comes to many sharps and flats.
For the record, Kodaly didn't invent movable "Do", he just developed a method of teaching it to young children.
Yes, he created hand signs and his own syllables similar to Solfegio to avoid the confusion between real, academic solfeggio and ‘simplified’ version of it. His system came at a time, when idea of mass music education came to existence. There were founded some free schools of music in Russia and Europe and singing in choir was the most affordable way to involve people in music making. I described this time in my book ‘You CAN be a musician’ in more details. http://www.pianolearningsoftware.com/Book-You-CAN-be-a-Musician-by-Hellene-Hiner-downloadable_p_36.html
Guido d'Arezzo invented Movable "Do".
Guido invented music notation, Re Mi Fa Sol La notes names and placed the notes on lines and spaces of soon to be Grand Staff. At his time for several centuries down the road there was no DO, but UT. Also such hexachords didn’t have 7th tone of the scale. SI (Ti in English school of music) is abbreviation for the words Saint Ioannus or Saint John. It was also added much later.
Singing in movable hexachords was developed long before Guido and tradition came from the Ancient Greece. In 10th – 11th century there was no need for fixed DO, because the instrumental music was forbidden in church and only 1 line Gregorian chants and 1 voice singing were presented. Therefore, movement of melody up and down scale was very visual for singers.
At first, "Movable Do" was all there was, and musicians were trained to "Run the Gamut", by singing the scale in solfege in all of the different modes. It is "Fixed Do" that is new to the scene, beginning when France decided to assign "Do, Re, Mi" to absolute pitches.
Fixed DO came as a necessity for multi voice music especially when predecessors of piano came to existence. Music language matured and music science needed ‘point of support’ for all instruments and voices. The exact pitch of notes had been measured and ‘Fixed Do’ had been established to serve more advanced forms of music.
We could debate for hours which one is better, but the truth is that both are widely used throughout the world, and they both work!
Yes! You are absolutely right! Our students ought to know them all and use at appropriate stage and appropriate time of training.
I disagree with this part of your article, relating to the disadvantage of Movable "Do":
Students are limited to the repertoire learned from a teacher’s voice or hand signs. Without the ability to read new music material aloud or to oneself, learners’ music thinking is not developed properly; it is closed into the confines of a limited repertoire.
I learned Movable "Do" in a sight-singing course. Singers trained this way use Movable "Do" to sight sing new music. I do it all the time. I think it's a logical fallacy to say that this is a limiting factor for the Movable "Do" student, while implying that somehow that barrier disappears for the Fixed "Do" student. There's a disconnect in that line of thinking, and I don't follow you.
I will try to make it more clear for you. With fixed DO students learn how instantly translate any pitch into their syllables. Sharps and flats are imprinted as Step Step Half Step Step Step Step Half Step on intuitive level. They do not have to divide their mind between what is Do and what is G. Please, watch the video about how they start thinking in music language by singing Solfeggio with Fixed Do: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-thPcTOzzNU&feature=plcp
You may also argue that solfege is a superior method, over letter names, to teaching absolute pitch to young students. In Russia, this is the system that is used, so naturally Movable "Do" is a poor choice for Russians. But, love it or hate it, letter names ARE what is used in the United States.
I am musicologist and can’t love or hate facts. It is true that world is divided and English school with ABC system. But Russia, France and Japan use Solfeggio. Geography has nothing to do with our choice, however: we use ABC, when it comes to learn theory, harmony and counterpoint. For ear, memory and voice training Solfeggio is doing better job and I believe we both would agree on that.
And because my children will need to understand and use letter names when they join the local orchestra, choir, or band, I would be doing my children a dis-service if I didn't teach them letter names on the staff.
You are absolutely right. I just don’t understand, how one can be on the way of another? Soft Mozart teaches both and our students learning both systems. And they start with Do Major to have some 'movable do ‘vaccination’!
If "Every Good Boy Does Fine" helps them to that end, great. Your articles says "this phrase also carries unnecessary meaning, which is likely to confuse students every time the association is used." How is that any different from turning "Do" into "Door", and "La" into "Ladder"?
We use icons instead of words for the syllables for the simple reason: when cortex is processing some audio information, visual symbols being grasped faster. Our students see DOOR but say do.
‘do mi la re’, for example, doesn’t have any sense and simply stick to mind through established speech memory channels - but Boy Every Fine Good Does confusing and hard to comprehend. Music notes move up and down all the time and there no preferable direction.
Like TMT, I see an inconsistency in saying first
When I was providing a research initially, I also went on this rout - placed each name under each note (Door, Rain, Mirror etc) and placed the same names on the piano keys. My idea was to gradually reduce 'help' (take away 10%, 20%, 30% etc of helpful hints 'till a child will be able to read music)I created a lot of materials, text books, cards and started teaching my students with this. To my greatest disappointment, this method failed. Of cause, most talented kids grasped the concept regardless, but other kids left behind.
and then later,
Soft Mozart - is not a method, but rather Visual and Interactive Grand Staff with gradual changes to original notation.
Music notes have names. We involve all the senses of our students to make learning experience most effective. Speech memory is one of our ‘points of support’.
You ask about my opinion on "eye focus in consideration with music notation". I think that you have to start somewhere, and that with practice this becomes easier and more intuitive until the student has mastered the concept.
It reminded me of: Alice: Would you tell me, please, which way I ought to go from here?
The Cat: That depends a good deal on where you want to get to
Alice: I don’t much care where.
The Cat: Then it doesn’t much matter which way you go. LOL
Using color or pictures of ladders are aids to help the beginner get started. Ultimately they become a handicap, and the aids must be removed for faster reading. Stickers on the keys are likewise a handicap to help students get results sooner, which is a worthy goal I have no problem with. I think the sooner a student can taste success on the piano, the better. I want my children to build confidence in their ability to play, as well as develop their sight-reading skills. With practice, the stickers and piano inserts, whether they use colors or pictures, should be removed.
When ABC - with pictures next to letters were introduced to public education, there were the same arguments: it is BAD to introduce letters in large prints, it is BAD to help students to learn letters by using pictures, because students will always depend on this.
Well, Soft Mozart around for 10 years, also ‘home made’ like your materials. We have winners of international piano competitions and none of them went on stage with pair of piano key guides. It is just point of support at the beginning.
Additionally, the reliance on hand position or finger numbers to transpose will likewise become a handicap if the skill isn't further developed and practiced. All of these more advanced skills will come with practice as the student gains fluency and proficiency on their instrument, and as they continue to study music theory.
Can’t agree more. This is why our Soft Mozart students shift away from hand position pieces asap after developing initial coordination. Here is our 6 year old kid helping to prove my point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcbOK6bsQ2c
Interesting comments. Well, I really don’t know how I’m supposed to respond to that. While we may agree on many points of music education, we obviously disagree on many things too, and nothing is going to change that. I also know all to well that I’m not the first musician who has disagreed with you on this forum. [remembers Piano Wizard discussions] :wub:
Would my manipulatives be a waste in the hands of some? Of course, but those people are unlikely to buy my product too. I don’t pretend to have years of research behind any of the materials in my product, nor am I planning on it, that’s beyond me right now. My credentials are simply a bachelor’s degree in vocal performance, Level One Orff teaching certificate, 15 years as an independent piano teacher, and a personal study of the Kodaly method. I’m not out to save the world with my product, nevertheless I do stand behind them. They are working with my tiny test group consisting of my children, my siblings, my former piano students before I quit because of my growing family, as well as feedback from a few local homeschoolers. That’s it. But it’s also not a curriculum, or a method. They are just printables, and they could be incorporated in any way a music teacher wants to. Take what you want and leave the rest. For that purpose, they’ll do their job well. I’m here to answer questions and offer support as needed. I have offered suggestions for their use, but that’s all they are. It’s how I have used the materials in my own home, and I share that experience on a Mom to Mom basis. I tried to make them as versatile as possible. With this disclaimer, I hope I have established what my product is and isn’t.
Geography has EVERYTHING to do with what method I teach my kids. I agree that ultimately they will need to know how to function in fixed and movable do, but in my neck of the woods, every music program I am, or potentially would, enroll my kids in uses movable “Do”. The local children’s choir does a fantastic job. They are very professional, and the students are excelling. I do not know of any locals who have disputed this. My son has certainly benefited. They use Movable “Do”. Teaching my children Movable “Do” is just common sense to me. I venture that if we have a musically illiterate society, as a whole, it is because, as a whole, the masses aren’t being taught music. Of course Movable “Do” works. I’ve seen it work for young children, middle-schoolers, high schoolers, and I experienced it first hand as a college student. It totally works. Should we continue that debate, it isn’t for me to prove that it works, but for you to prove that it doesn’t.
Here’s the danger of using an ultimatum like “The ONLY fun and easy way to learn to play the piano”. Is your method fun and easy? Yes, perhaps it is. Overall I admit that it looks like a great program. But by using the word “ONLY”, you are implying that there is no other fun and easy way to learn piano out there, in the entire world. Absolute statements like that raise a red flag for me. All I would have to do is find one other “fun and easy way to learn the piano”, and your statement would be proven false. It’s a slippery slope to be treading.
Tamsyn,
please, take my apology for being so pushy.
When I was watching your videos and materials, I found them very creative, ingenious and … unusual for BA teacher. For example, space and lines notes training and notes on 1 line, 2 lines etc
I just saw you developing your staff in the right direction and got excited about it and trying to help you to avoid my mistakes on the road of teaching. This is why I jumped in to share what I had found so far.
I also think that kids shouldn’t be at computers all the time and in our community many parents create helping aids. In fact, your materials would be very beneficial for our Soft Mozart students and I welcome you to tell about them in our forum, too.
Thank you for the apology. I also noticed that you made some dramatic changes to your post previous to mine, and as it now stands, perhaps we have more in common then I previously gave you credit for. I’m certainly guilty of getting defensive and I’m sorry for that. As a little fish in the sea, I appreciate the compliment.
I do think that Soft Mozart looks like a great program, and I applaud the success you have had on such an international scale.
Of course just like the SM picture images, the colors are put on a staff and the kids learn where they go over time. What is the difference between using color or images?
Colors apply to eyes of learners, images that represent Solfeggio syllables apply to their vocal chords.
If you find fault with the method of using color to identify notes, then you should find fault with the "method" or "system" or "technique" or whatever you want to call it of SM using pictures to identify notes..
A letter is an abstract graphic symbol of the secondary signal system , and sound is a phonetic occurrence of the first signal system. The pitch of a sound and a graphic symbol have no physical relation to each other. But they can be tied together, if the symbol is pronounced or sung out loud. The voice of a person is the tie between sounds and abstract symbols. It is specifically because of this that every letter and sound has an articulated name. This creates a relationship between sounds and symbols; only the voice can pass on a name to letters or notes. Both speech and music were born in the human throat. Only the voice of a person can sing out and name a note at the same time! Moreover, only the voice can connect the perception of a symbol and its sound into a single whole.
.it's a variation of a similar philosophy! It's musical training wheels to help child reach the low hanging fruit sooner and spur their motivation and to promote pitch training by incorporating another sense (visual). Can you see the irony that these approaches are not so far from each other?
Please, do not understand me wrong: I was impressed with what kids can achieve with LM! But if to determine notes by their name with Solfeggio we build the bridge from syllables to pitch and to place on Grand Staff. Therefore, when to grow into this stage color coding more logical to be for score ‘explanation’ (lines, spaces and their connection with piano keys)
For what it's worth, we do enjoy your program and I hope that a new version comes out soon that allows users to customize and input their own songs. That is really what I am looking for right now.
The goal of Soft Mozart is to teach you how to read music and to be able to play your favorite pieces using sheet music. But we are working on improvements
I think you might be of the same mind as Brillkids, and this conversation should probably move to a different thread as this is about Tamsyn’s product - not the best way to teach music. (Hint for a moderator.) Little Musician chose to use a fixed do and the colors are tied to singing solfege. It is this training of the voice and ear that Little Musician happens to be very good at doing. Philip can now name all notes on the grand staff from low A to high B - with or without colors or SM icons. He has been trained in both - and he can do it with 100% accuracy. He can also name with 90% accuracy chords: do,mi, so; fa, la do; ti, re, so; do,fa, la; mi,so,do; so,do,mi; and re, so, ti - with or without icons and colors. Even with the colors or icons he will mess up the order sometimes.
HINT: Tamsyn - your cards with one missing note gave me the idea to put two notes of a chord on the staff and have him place the third note and sing it. He loves this game. When he gets it right he throws himself backwards and says, “Ahh - we got it!” Gotta love those magnets!
Philip’s Suzuki teacher uses a movable do - that is what she was taught. Her thoughts on it were merely that it is dependent on what school he plans on attending and what system they use. She has a Masters from the University of Tennesee and other credential work from UNI. She felt it was probably 50/50 on the fixed vs. movable debate here in the states. Philip’s current ambitions are really in conducting. He wants to play violin - and does well, but he spends hours everyday practicing with his “batona” and listening to orchestra music - or conducting his mother. "Now loud, now soft. Now fast, now slow, " as he waves a straw at me. His teacher did tell me that if he wants to conduct he might get away with just violin, but he needs to play piano as well.
Breaking away from the Solfege Train thread. Thank you Sonya for your last comment. We can moderate ourselves when we get the proper prodding. I re-read the last music thread, and I admit I was at fault to bring in points of SoftMozart’s article that was totally non-relevant, and that’s what started getting the debate out of hand. Sorry everyone, especially Hellene! I hope you see this.
@ Hellene: So here we are in a new thread. We’re all friends now, and my less-heated husband has pointed out to me that he doesn’t think I understood “eye focus in consideration with music notation” question you offered. I think he’s right. I do think I have a good idea of where I want to go with teaching my children sight-reading. Your reference to Alice in Wonderland has me confused, so I invite you to explain what you mean by it.
What a wonderful idea! Thank you very much for starting this thread!
Here is what I meant by referring to Alice in Wonderland :
I compare teaching (not just music - teaching in general) to medicine. When we go to a doctor with a problem, we have to pass certain tests to know, what is wrong with us. Doctors have to graduate school, to learn everything about our bodies, our physiology, chemistry etc, pass many exams, work as intern to be able to heal us and to give us correct medicine or suggestions.
We - teachers - have a lot to do with our students minds. Music teachers also have a lot to do with students’ minds, but on the top of that with their physiology, psychology, neurology and many other features. Unfortunately, in music schools around the globe none of these subjects ever been considered seriously.
But without such knowledge our work is like doctor’s treatment in Medieval times. You provide phlebotomy and some patience will get better, some will get worse and some will past away.
My point is: teaching can’t be ‘philosophy’ any longer. It has to be based on specific knowledge about our own bodies and our own minds. Despite all the differences we all are built very much the same way. We hear and see things to our certain limits, our neurons have certain ways of connections, our motor skills are being developed in conjunction with many parameters.
If to take this important basic knowledge to consideration, every ‘method’ can be easily specified and measured. This kind of knowledge empower us to KNOW, where we want to go and where we want to be with our students from the very first lesson and in what direction first steps should be made
I split off the topic from the original thread and then saw you guys also started a similar topic, as well. So, I merged them all together here for the sake of efficiency. I apologize it if caused anyone confusion, just keeping the boards tidy.
Thank you, TMT. The board is indeed much more tidy now. We appreciate your moderating efforts. :yes:
@SoftMozart. That makes sense. It was just a little out of context for me. I am also wondering what you mean by “eye focus in consideration with music notation”. I’m guessing (correct me if I’m wrong) it refers to gaining the ability to quickly “take in” the different notes, as your video suggests. Many musicians get stuck and overwhelmed when they see all of the notes. The picture of a boxing glove coming out of the piano is appropriately placed, and it made my husband laugh. lol I admit that rotating the staff so it’s vertical, with a computer program that gives instant feedback, is ingenious.
I don’t think I’m like the naive Alice, not knowing that this is the ultimate goal. SoftMozart may be a fantastic way to get there, like flying a plane. It could be argued that way I mentioned of getting there, with practice and with time, could is more time consuming, like driving there by car, but I did, nevertheless have a destination in mind. Learning to recognize patterns like triads and chord conversions, as well as finding the patterns in music, could upgrade us to a high-speed train. I would be asking our favorite Cheshire cat how to get to a specific location. I’ve looked a lot at your materials, especially this week, and I like the way you address this need to quickly take it all in. My husband watched your video and said, “THAT’S EXACTLY WHAT I STRUGGLE WITH!!”
@ Everyone, has anyone heard of “Simply Music”? A lot of homeschoolers in my community are ranting and raving over this method. None of them are from the Early Learning camp. The premise of Simply Music is that we learn to talk before we learn to read (not in our home! lol), so we should teach our students to play before before they learn how to read. Students learn to play a few songs without sheet music, gain confidence of PLAYING music, and with that confidence, the need for learning to read music is created. I’m not saying that I subscribe to this method, but I can’t deny that it has helped a lot of people, and is probably superior to traditional lessons. I applied this principle with my piano students by teaching them simple songs like chopsticks and Heart and Soul, because, let’s face it, everybody plays those songs, and they wanted to be able to play what everyone else was playing, to “speak” the cool lingo, so to speak. I know a few Jazz pianists that can’t read music, but follow lead chart notation well, which was enough for them to get by in the band, and these two I have in mind played exceptionally well. To be in the advanced band in college, however, he needed to know how to read music, and after one semester of lessons, he had picked it up. Is that argument akin to saying that an 8-year-old will pick up reading eventually, probably yes. It’s a logical fallacy, and I’m not saying that we should leave it to chance. Certainly not, I’m teaching my kids to read music! My only point is that there is more than one way to become an accomplished pianist. For this reason, I’m teaching my children to read lead sheet notation as well. I don’t think Simply Music is a Lead Sheet method, that’s just how I envision myself applying the idea of playing the piano without reading a lot of black notes, with my children. I loved playing Jazz piano when I was in college, and it’s an entirely different animal compared to classical music. Sadly, I’m very rusty with both methods now. That’s what happens when you don’t practice.
I was following the discussion here, but did not had a chance to participate, as we just had our third baby few days ago :yes:
But it is very interesting you’ve mentioned about playing music first and learning to read music later.
My husband plays music professionally, he played in bands, on TV, for video productions, etc
He is incredible guitar player and vocalist, he is nit just able to play any melody (regardless of how complex I t is) after hearing it once, but he is able to join in playing lead guitar in a band, improvising, etc, even if he neve played with them before. He started playing when he was 6 years old, and performed on national TV when he was 11 and up.
An incredible thing is - he never learned to read music, not until teaching our LOs with LMs :biggrin: , he is enjoying teaching with LMs, and feels it is the perfect start for kids music education and development.
He also feels from his personal experience that the approach you have described in Simply Music is more natural one and makes it easier for the kids, rather then the one of having to teach children read music before they can perform anything at all.
On the opposite side of spectrum - I finished music school, was able to read basically any piece of music, but I can nt play anything if I do not have music sheet in front of me ( or if I have not practiced or memorized certain piece) and I definitely can’t improvise
So obviously my husband and I are two direct opposites as far as music concerns, and personally I think there should be sme kind f a happy medium there. So having LMs as fun, easy effective Way to give my young children basics of music theory, and providing them with lots of opportunities for improvising and trying their musical ear and imagination is my plan at this point. I am not interested in limiting them to learning just one music instrument, but rather train their music ear, appreciation and understanding and letting them to chose instrument later…
Just thought to chime in with my little comment
Kindly forgive me for typost - doing it with my left hand while holding our new LO
What an interesting contrast between you and your husband. I was like you all through high school, and luckily my piano teacher gave me a very good overview of music theory that prepared me very well for theory in college- that was my easy A course thanks to her. The only reason why I learned to improvise and do Jazz is because my family moved and I went with them and attended a small university that was desperate for a pianist for their jazz ensembles. I would never have looked into it except the professor heard about me, sought me out, and offered me a scholarship if I would take a crash course. Between the private lessons he gave me and the two jazz ensembles, I picked up a lot that semester. I was incredibly lucky to have that experience (although I’m not sure I believe in luck. :)). I worked really hard that semester to gain that skill. Later I took jazz improvisation and was in the lesser of two jazz ensembles at a bigger university where I got my degree. I only bring that up to point out that learning to improvise and read lead-sheet is a skill that can be learned later, it’s never too late!
. 
There are no ‘little fish’ in the sea of creation. Big ideas come in small packages.
I re-read the last music thread, and I admit I was at fault to bring in points of SoftMozart’s article that was totally non-relevant, and that’s what started getting the debate out of hand. Sorry everyone, especially Hellene! I hope you see this.