Solfeg and Fixed Do

Jim Cohen · From: Philadelphia, PA

My son started his college class in 'Aural Theory' yesterday and they are going to work with the 'Fixed Do' system. As I understand it, that means, for example, that an 'F' will always be called 'Fa', even when it's functioning as the 3rd, minor 3rd, flat 7th, or whatever. Obviously, this is a big departure from the 'Nashville Number System' which is a 'Movable Do' system. Movable Do has the clear advantage of preserving the pitch's function (and its implications for intonation, e.g., slightly flattening your 3rds, etc.), but I don't really see what benefits 'Fixed Do' gives that makes up for this loss. Can anyone enlighten me on that?

Thanks,
JC

Dave Burr · From: League City, TX

Jim, Here is some info from www.fixeddo.com ~ The page I linked is the "what is fixed do?" page... As one would guess, you have to buy the book to find out! Laughing

http://www.fixeddo.com/fixeddo.html

It seems as if it may be a method by which students are taught to relate a note or pitch to a word much as we relate different colors to a word. ie. Once you relate the color Smile

to the word "yellow", you always know that the color Smile

is "yellow" (providing you're not color blind). Same goes for the word "Fa" representing the note "F" ~ Once you relate the note "F" with the word "Fa"... etc, etc, etc.

I can also see some similarities between "fixed do" and the Stamps Baxter "shape note" sight reading method I was taught as a child at my church. (see the link below)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_note#Four-shape_vs._seven-shape_systems

Qualification: I have zero certifications on the subject matter, so I may be way off base ~ but, it does "sound" logical. Razz

Respectfully,
David Burr

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

I think this page explains it fairly well: http://www.jomarpress.com/nagel/articles/Solfeg.html

Also found this Berklee forum thread interesting: http://www.berkleemusic.com/discuss/message?forum_id=13334&message_id=2723244

This fits with what I've read - that movable-do is more commonly used in jazz and popular forms which are frequently transposed, while fixed-do is more common in classical or atonal music where pieces are always played in the same key or where the key center is not so clear.

To show my obvious bias, it seems to me that if each note in the scale is absolutely determined, regardless of function, then only equal temperment is supported precisely. I can see the value in being able to recognize notes absolutely. But since function can change the exact frequency of a non-equal-tempered note, this sound like a sort of approximation. In other words, unless ET is enforced, one needs to be able to identify a range of frequencies around each absolutely-determined note.

I found the fixed-do site Dave B. linked interesting because the emphasis was on sight-singing, which I always thought was heavily JI biased. When one modulates in a justly intonated setting, the pitches of the various notes change slightly. Maybe I'm missing something. Confused

Jim Kennedy · From: Brentwood California, USA

I always thought note names were absolute, as is the corresponding frequency or pitch. I always use a keyboard as a reference, focusing on middle C--C4 on the keyboard. You look at a keyboard and it's right there in black and white. I have always used do re mi, 1 2 3 interchangeably when referring to major scales. I've always referenced any other scale to the major scale. It just seemed easy for me to understand. Always made it easy for fretted instruments. Pick a note and do the whole step half step thing.

I always thought chordal instruments--piano,organ, fretted strings, psteel used tempered tuning to offset changes in string length and diameter verses absolute pitch. Particularly fretted instruments--you can't get perfect intonation for evey note. I always thought that was why ochestras always tuned to the first violin--to assure corect ptich across the board. If do is always C, the what is C#?? How do you deal with accidentals--do# ??
_________________
ShoBud Pro 1, 75 Tele, 85 Yamaha SA 2000, Fender Cybertwin,

David Doggett · Posted 5 Sep 2007 8:19 pm

Dave’s first link seems to explain the two Solfeg systems of fixed-do and relative-do thoroughly. The fixed-do system seems to be identical to the standard use of the note names (A B C, etc.). The relative-do system seems to be identical to our use of numbers for scale degrees. Thus, either system would have no more (or less) problems with Just Intonation (JI) scales than we have with the note names or the number system. In fact, with the non-chromatic labelling of either Solfeg system, the same Solfeg name is used for the note and it’s sharp (or flat I guess in flat keys). What’s a few cents difference for JI compared to 100 cents difference for a sharp or flat? With chromatic labelling, they use a different vowel ending to denote the sharp or flat. But again, that would create no more (or less) problems with JI scales than the standard note names and sharp and flat symbols. So it really all just depends on whether you want to use an absolute system, or a relative one, and has nothing to do with Just Intonation versus Equal Temper.

Jim K., you seem to have a slight misunderstanding of the Equal Tempered (ET) scale of fixed-pitch instruments such as keyboards, and the Just Intonation (JI) of the harmonized overtone scale used by variable-pitch instruments such as horns, fretless strings, and vocalists. Fixed-pitch instruments tune ET not because they play chords, but because they can’t vary the pitch, and so must choose a compromise temper that works tolerably with the scales of all keys.

Variable-pitch instruments are free to play a true JI scale in any key, so they have no absolute pitch for any note. While all the instruments may tune to A=440 as a reference, variable-pitched instruments can use a different A pitch depending on its function in the scale. Horns do it with their lips. Vocalists do it with their vocal chords. While a violin’s A string can only play A=440 open, an A can be fingered on the adjacent string a 5th removed up the fretboard, where a suitable JI pitch other than A=440 can be used. For example, as the 3rd in the key of F that would be A=437. So there is no absolute pitch for any note for variable pitch instruments and voices.

Because pedal steel is a fretless instrument, true JI scales and chords can be played in any key. For this reason most pedal steel players tune to JI intervals, or to some compromise between JI and ET. In fact, pedal steel is one of the only “chordal” instruments that can use JI. Of course there is a vocal minority that believes pedal steels should be tuned ET. It is a matter of personal choice among steelers.

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

Jim K - since you're new here, I'll just suggest you do a forum search for "JI vs ET", "Equal Temperment", "Just Intonation" or some such search terms.

In fact, many steel players deviate from an equal-tempered scale, in the direction of just intonation, where open strings and pedal/lever changes are tuned to harmonic ratios of each other. I think it's safe to say that many steel players prefer the sound of major and minor triads when the note frequencies are harmonically related as in just intonation.

The steel guitar is not, in general, a fixed-pitch instrument like a piano. The bar may be placed in front or behind the fret markers. In this way, it is possible to play typical chords in tune in different keys even when the tuning is not evenly tempered. This is impossible on a just-intonated piano or guitar - something close to equal temperment is a better compromise, IMO.

I don't say this to argue for or against JI or ET - in fact, that can be a pretty controversial topic around here. But I think it's clear that not all musicians use the equal tempered scale or anything close to it. For such musicians, the exact frequency of a E note may be slightly different for different keys, because the function of the E note is different. This goes against the idea of a perfectly fixed, absolute pitch for any scale note, in my mind.

These are, for the most part, small deviations from the equal-tempered notes. But it does introduce another level of complexity when looking at things from an absolute note point of view, again in my mind.

Dave - just saw your post. It struck me that one of the issues in fixed-do was the identification of absolute tones by ear - if that has nothing to it, I'll go in the corner with Emily Litella. Wink

But if that's the case, my point was that away from equal temperment, the exact frequency of a E note, for example, is slightly different depending on the function of the note.

For example, if you're playing a JI-tuned steel and your E note is the major third of a C chord, like at the 8th fret no pedals/levers, then the pitch is slightly different than if the E is the perfect fifth of the 1st-inversion A chord, like at the 8th fret A+F. As we know, a JI player needs to move the bar forward of the fret a bit for the latter move.

In defense of my view on this - I offer two sections from Nagel's text:

David Doggett · Posted 6 Sep 2007 10:07 am

Well, this is getting pretty esoteric. But what the heck, that never stopped us from wasting time here and irritating folks who like things simple. Dave, I understand your point, but it seems to be a nuance that is beyond the basic concept and normal use of Fixed-Do or Relative-Do. Just from reading those links, it seems for either system, when they say Me, and it is the 3rd of the scale of the key in use, they simply mean to play or sing the note you have closest to that JI pitch. If you are playing an ET instrument, you play your ET note. If you are singing or playing a variable-pitch instrument, you sing or play the appropriate JI pitch (unless you are trying to match an accompanying ET instrument). It's all Me. They don't seem to be taking sides in the ET/JI conflict. When they speak of Fixed-Do being an absolute pitch system, they seem to mean that the same Solfeg name is always used with the same standard letter note, regardless of key. They don't seem to be meaning "absolute" in reference to ET/JI. At least ET and JI are not mentioned in those links. Maybe if you buy the book there is discussion of that problem.

Frankly, other than tradition, I fail to see the point of either Solfeg system. If you want an absolute system, we already have it with the letters. If you want a relative system, we already have that with the numbers. I guess the Solfeg names sound better in that Sound of Music song than singing the numbers would. Rolling Eyes

Jim Cohen · From: Philadelphia, PA

Yah, can you imagine Julie Andrews getting a big hit offa: "One, two, three, a female three..."

Dave Mudgett · From: Central Pennsylvania and Gallatin, Tennessee

I didn't say they were making a distinction between intonation methods. My point is - doesn't there need to be one?

For example, he's arguing that it's better to use fixed-do when operating the instrument, and variable-do for perceiving how various tones function. How do you separate these two functions when you're playing a variable-pitch instrument or singing? To me, this treats playing notes, more or less, as an open-loop (no feedback) mechanical process and not as a listening-feedback type of process. I don't see that as esoteric - to me it underscores two significantly different ways to look at playing music. Not better or worse, but very different.

I suppose if things are very arranged, and an ensemble practices over and over until any intonation issues are completely second-nature across the ensemble, this might not be an issue at all in performance. I guess that's just a completely different world than the one I live in.

All times are GMT - 8 Hours	Jump to: