Strategies for Solfege Study
This section will serve as a guide primarily for students who are enrolled in Solfege classes with Larry Scripp, for whom I was a Teaching Assistant at New England Conservatory. I’m including some help for each of the main areas of Solfège study: Melody reading, rhythm decoding, practice methods, and note reading by pattern.
In Solfege 4, the exercises we learned are much more complicated than simple major/minor melodies. Sometimes, the key signature would have little to do with the example at hand. Students in Solfege 4 encountered modal melodies (with either the basic key signature with accidentals, a different key signature with lots of accidentals, or no key signature at all), interval-based melodies (Rueff etudes), or melodies that switched keys every two or three bars (Dannhauser, books III and IV).
This example is from Leonard Bernstein’s Symphony no. 2, “The Age of Anxiety.” (Taken from the Contemporary Melodies Course Packet, page 42). Here, there is no printed key signature, but the melody (Voice 1) doesn’t look like it’s in C Major or A minor, either. So, the question arises, “What key do I warm up in?”
Ok, for those people familiar with their modes, the answer is Phrygian (think: Major scale, starting on its 3rd scale degree), but of course, not everybody has their modes memorized, let alone performance-ready. So the next step, I think, is to identify a conceptual frameset from which to work.
I try to find two notes in the example from where the melody seems to be rooted, which sometimes simply means, “which two notes appear the most,” but not always, especially if the two most often occurring notes are close in interval. In this example, however, the two notes I chose are E and B, a perfect fifth apart. Then, with my two chosen notes, I take a look at what other notes are frequent, try to decide which (if any) I would leave out when first reading through the melody, and consequently devise a warm-up.
The notes I most often leave out of a read-through are the ones that aren’t diatonic to the scale/mode/tonality I’ve warmed up in. Luckily, there are hardly any non-diatonic notes in this melody. I look at the melody especially for half-steps, for places where a note might act as a leading tone to the one following it. Here, both the E and the B act as leading tones, in a way. E is often followed by F-natural, and B is often followed by C-natural. All the other notes that occur (G, A, D) are in whole step relations. By assembling a scale from the notes … E, F-natural, G, A, B, C, D, E, I see that I have an E natural minor scale, without the F#; my warm up can be based around E natural minor, as long as I’m sure to flat the second scale degree.
This sort of method works fine, as long as there aren’t too many accidentals in the melody. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. But what happens if there are accidentals in the melody, and not just accidentals of one kind (sharps or flats), but both kinds?
This was the first intervallic etude studied in class. The real focus, however, is not simply on intervals, but actually on referential tuning. The key here is not necessarily even in the warm-up, but actually on figuring out what notes are tuning to what. Enharmonically, a G-flat and a F-sharp may be written the same way, depending on the composer’s inclination, but sonically, the two notes can (and will) sound very differently. The F-sharp will sound often sound as a leading tone to G, thus raising it slightly. The G-flat, on the other hand, will sound closer to F than it does to G, because it is the flatted 2nd scale degree (Neapolitan scale degree) of F-major/minor. I tend to think to myself that when I’m ascending, the scale will be brighter, and when I’m descending it will sound darker, to aid in the intonation. (An aside: String players think of this concept as expressive intonation. Cellist Pablo Casals explored this idea thoroughly, as did violinist Joseph Szigeti.)
Larry stresses three criteria for pattern reading in music: Continuity, Exclusivity, and Proximity. Here I’ll give a short demonstration of how one would mark patterns based on these criteria; the circles around the noteheads in the example above represent such pattern reading. The patterns that will be discussed here are visual ones; even someone with little
or no musical training could be easily taught to mark patterns.
Starting on the second notehead, the first pattern is based on thirds, both ascending and descending. Patterns can be continuous, regardless of direction. I consider the first notehead to be its own “pattern,” because it does not connect intervallically with the thirds pattern that follows it. The next two groups are both thirds as well, but are not considered
to be part of the same group (or even as part of the second group) because of the major second that separate them. I tend to mark groupings that transverse across note beams, rather than marking groups that fall under the same beaming; for me, my eye will automatically read beamed notes as groups, so I like to mark patterns separate from that.
“I thought I was on singing on track, but when I checked with the piano, I found myself to be a half-step sharp/flat.”
In most cases, I’ve found that people (myself included) tend to be on the flat side, rather than the sharp side. From a psychological standpoint, I think this occurs because if the performer loses energy or concentration when singing; the melody becomes bland and loses its focus, expressive intonation, rhythmic articulation, etc. From a physical standpoint, Dr. Scripp has told me that (especially for non-singers, like myself) the performer needs to start each syllable with a little more aspiration; more air and energy will help give life to the syllable and brightness to the phrase. Quite often, I’ll make small suggestions to the performer to help him/her keep his/her focus on the Solfege task clear: “Try singing your half-steps and whole-steps with a little more integrity, to keep them clear,” is one that I find I have to say frequently.
“Ack! Triplets and duplets in the same measure? What do I do???”
Ok, calm down. There are really only two kinds of rhythms in the world, those based around twos, and those based around threes. Composer/conductor Gunther Schuller suggests that the difference be remembered this way: Duple meters/rhythms are stately, feel fairly stable and static, as in a march. Triple meters/rhythms, however are the opposite; they flow, like water in a river. Even in slow tempos, they feel like they are slightly moving ahead, such as in one of Strauss’s (Johann, not Richard) waltzes. Both duple and triple meters/rhythms can have dance-like feels, however.
Mathematically, the difference between a triplet and a duplet lies in the second tuplet of each.The musical answer, then is that in order to make clear which is a duplet and which is a triplet, one has to make some sort of articulational distinction. The common tendency is to hurry a triplet group, and slow down a four sixteenth-note group. In class, Dr. Scripp suggested that we think of triplets as broader figures, as if there were a tenuto marking underneath the second note in the triplet rhythm, thus lengthening it (and the note following it) so much that it couldn’t possibly be misconceived as a duplet figure. In response to the other concern, of the four sixteenth-note group, the answer would be to slightly accent, and place, the second sixteenth-note.
In class, Stop Method is used mostly during note-reading exercises (such as in Dandelot) that involve awkward (such as baritone, mezzo-soprano, or alto) or multiple clef changes. In all practicality, however, Stop Method can be used even when one is practicing on his/her instrument. In fact, all the techniques I shared over the course of the semester can be applied to one’s personal practice routine.
B. Go-Ahead Method
Go-Ahead Method is the antithesis of Stop Method. Whereas Stop Method advocates the performer to stop as much as is needed, Go-Ahead Method pushes the performer to run right through whatever is heckling him/her.
C. Some Misconceptions about Stop and Go-Ahead Methods
Some people argue that Stop Method doesn’t teach you to read ahead, and that that is the merit of Go-Ahead Method. Actually, this thought is contrary to what Stop Method actually does; because the performer needs to stop before s/he makes a mistake, s/he MUST read ahead. Similarly, Go-Ahead Method doesn’t necessarily make one perform at any less of a standard than someone who performs using Stop Method: The performer who uses Go-Ahead Method doesn’t need to go-ahead at lightening-fast speeds; tortoise speeds are fine, as long as s/he goes-ahead.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.