The Instigator
kfigueroa
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
RationalMadman
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

There is no philosphy behind solfege over numbers.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 12/28/2012 Category: Arts
Updated: 4 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 883 times Debate No: 28721
Debate Rounds (5)
Comments (1)
Votes (0)

 

kfigueroa

Pro

I am being forced to learn solfege for sight reading from my music teacher, and I see no reason behind it. I am fluent at sight reading without solfege, but my teacher insists solfege is better. He says that it is important to recognize the distance relative to the pitches, and I told him that I already do, I just know them by intervals instead of solfege. I feel as though it is unimportant to learn solfege, and that it is a waste of time I could be spending working on other musical things. My teacher went to college for the Kodaly concept yet is unable to explain to me why it is relevant to me. If at all possible, can you please answer the question- Why Solfege?
RationalMadman

Con

Solfege is the system of syllables traditionally used to help students learn the notes of the major and minor scales: Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, Ti . There are two approaches to solfege, theFixed-Do system in which Do is always the note C, and Moveable-Do, in which Do is always the first note of the major scale - whatever scale that happens to be.

Quite simply, there is no more efficient way to learn/teach music.

Debate Round No. 1
kfigueroa

Pro

Why thank you, I know what solfege is, and I know fixed-do from moveable-do. What I said, was that I see no point in learning solfege as I am already fluent at sightreading, and can easily recognize and evaluate intervals by looking at the notes on the staff. As I already learned the number system, I see no reason to learn a new system that is less (or maybe as) affective as the one I know alreday.
RationalMadman

Con

How on Earth is one to know if method A is more effect than method B unless they have learnt and practised both to their peak? Everything, especially tried and tested educational methods of teaching, are worth a try before one can EVER claim "I don't need this I'm too good for it"
Debate Round No. 2
kfigueroa

Pro

I have not claimed that I am too good for solfege (whether it be fixed or moveable). All I ask for is the philosophy behind it, as I am the type of person that is unable to do something unless I have a reason and an understanding of it.
RationalMadman

Con

RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 3
kfigueroa

Pro

kfigueroa forfeited this round.
RationalMadman

Con

It's important because there is no teaching method as structured.
Debate Round No. 4
kfigueroa

Pro

I completely and utterly disagree. The method that I learned was extremely effective. I learned how to sight read through learning intervals and pitch differences based upon those intervals. While learning this method, I also learned quite a lot of music theory, history, and other important things. Along with this, I was taught this method while simultaneously being taught how to read music. I have also found that it was much faster for me to learn sight reading through this method than it has been through solfege. I have been working on solfege for over a year, and it only took me a matter of months to learn through intervals. So what is the philosophy behind solfege that makes it better than the interval method?
RationalMadman

Con

RationalMadman forfeited this round.
Debate Round No. 5
1 comment has been posted on this debate.
Posted by Ore_Ele 4 years ago
Ore_Ele
This might be better as an open forum question, rather than a debate.
No votes have been placed for this debate.