Hellene,
There IS a way to disagree without being disagreeable. I had solfege through Don’s work for 4 years, along with Kodaly, and looked at “fixed do” solutions when I sang in a choir in Sao Paulo, Brazil, and felt, and still feel, that it has the same strengths and weaknesses of music notation. In other words, if you leave out the sharps and flats (white keys) it is a simple place to start, but as soon as you begin to sing in other keys with sharps and flats, or modulate, you begin to find the limits of the system, and the confusion begins, in other words, it leads you right into the bushes where people get lost. Also, in the US, solfege names (do, re, mi) are not the primary way to describe the musical alphabet, and we did start here, not in Europe, so we started with what was familiar here. Her question was if we would be supporting solfege in our game, and perhaps I gave a larger than necessary explanation of the challenges of using ANY system of note naming, which is at the heart of the simplicity of our system. We simply don’t address it at first. We teach them music. Not the “grammar” of music, or even the names of the notes. Music. Sounds they can play instantly and perfectly. We don’t have to teach them the colors, they know that. Only later do we introduce the note names, notation, finger numbers, etc. Why “note names”? Again, starting in the US we went with the convention here. Just as I can learn the solfege names in a sitting, so can people learn the alphabet system. What I don’t have is any sacred attachment to nomenclature, nor am I in any way a musical snob about the “correct” descriptions. These are conventions, like languages, and are either useful or not, clarifying or not. When it comes to music, I am not an aristocrat, I am a peasant with great love and appreciation of music. I am also Irish descent, and we are an irreverent bunch.
The examples in the posts above point to the dizzying array of “names” or ways to describe a scale or note, (and they cite at least 6 total approaches to solfege alone), and we learned them all interchangeably working with Don, because he treated them as spokes of the wheel of the song, the more ways you “knew” the song the better you knew it. Different angles and viewpoints on the same piece of music, some more common, others more clear, all shedding some light on the relationships or tying you back to conventional terms and language. That repetition through variation is at the heart of our programs approach, one variation we left out was the use of solfege, because of the kinds of frankly silly postures some people take on “which” solfege is correct, and we felt it would only confuse at this stage, and least within the game. Our program leverages song very well, but it is not a professional solfege training tool, and we again treat it like a tool, not a be all end all solution, so add as much solfege as you wish, but these are the questions and challenges you will find on that path. These are the kinds of extras we intend to introduce to users through our teleconference bonuses, where they can ask questions live on things that we understand but are outside the scope of the game and the coursework.
I did look at your article and suggest it as a resource to anyone wanting to learn more about solfege, as I would recommend the Wikipedia link I supplied. (I find your comment about the “Dark Ages” funny because that was when solfege started, but I digress. . .)
Once again, I suggest that you share your knowledge and approach in as positive a light as you can, and let it speak on its own merits rather than attack something because it is “not yours” or “different”, and assume that is is therefore inferior. It is “different” but that is its appeal, it breaks new ground and defrosts some of the frigid attitudes and practices that have kept us bound for too long.
For example, a different response to my post might have been . . .
"Chris,
I found your posts on solfege very interesting, My experience is that you CAN introduce it very easily, and here are the ways to do that, and the positive effects I found with using that approach . . … Here is how we use it with SoftMozart, etc., etc., etc."[/i]
In this way you can contribute, instead of demean, be an expert and teacher, instead of , well, whatever this is.
We just disagree on some things, and frankly are in alignment on a lot more than not. Your characterizing our disagreements of approach as somehow dangerous, selfish, greedy, smooth talking are not fair or true. I think our disagreements are INTERESTING and STIMULATING, and we should be passionate, but not mean. Once again, I invite you to speak passionately, clearly, deeply about what you have, and if we discuss different approaches, lets do it with respect and appreciation of someone else who is trying to bring music to the world.
Thanks again,
Chris
Let’s try to keep our forum a happy place to be in and a great place to learn from, free of intolerance, prejudice, and close-mindedness.