This post is a translation of posts in Spanish on the subject of alternative tonal syllables, for those readers interested in the subject but who do not read Spanish. This is a longer article that goes deeper into the subject than a previous post which is a brief introductory summary. For anyone interested in more information on the use of these syllables in countries where fixed Do is the norm, feel free to contact me.
What are alternative tonal syllables?
Tonal syllables are a valuable tool for developing the musical ear by training relative pitch with understanding of tonal relationships. However, in countries like Spain, France, Portugal and many others, the traditional Do-Re-Mi syllables (used in Music Learning Theory as tonal syllables), are “occupied” naming notes. Like many other educators, when I became acquainted with MLT I was anxious to apply Gordon’s ideas with my students (all of them accustomed to using fixed Do syllables as note names) but to use movable Do for tonal syllables would only cause confusion. Out of respect for the local culture, I ruled out requiring my students to learn new note names (that is, the letters used in Anglo-Saxon and Germanic countries) and also discarded using numbers as scale degrees, for reasons Gordon explains very well in his book Learning Sequences in Music. I needed different syllables that would not cause confusion, and not able to find them anywhere, I decided to create them.
It was a very simple idea, but creating the syllables turned out to be more complicated than it seemed at first. I set myself a number of requirements – not all of which, to be honest, was I able to fulfill to my complete satisfaction – but the syllables I finally decided to use and which I explain here have proven to work perfectly. These requirements were:
• They should be comfortable and easy to pronounce in the language(s) to be used.
• They should not conflict with the traditional syllables Do, Re, Mi…
• They should not conflict with Gordon’s rhythmic syllables.
• When combined they should not form undesirable meanings
• They should be easy to remember for teachers
• They should be easy to modify in a coherent way when needed for chromatic syllables.
These new tonal syllables are TO-KE-NI-SA-LO-NA-TI, with LE as the leading tone in harmonic minor (for written examples of tonal patterns with these syllables see the previously mentioned post). They work just like the traditional syllables where Do is the tonic in major and La is the tonic in minor. In this case TO is the tonic of the major mode and NA is the tonic of the minor (for a few audio examples of tonal patterns with these syllables, see this post).
As you can see, the vowels of the traditional syllables are maintained, changing the consonant for another phonetically similar one, inasmuch as it was possible. In theory, any syllable could be used – these are simply the ones I finally decided on. However, in my opinion, any syllables used should meet the requirements I have mentioned above.
These alternative tonal syllables have been tested with students and have given highly positive results: the students learn them easily and enjoy singing them, and the teachers memorize them easily due to their similarity to the original tonal syllables.
At the same time I was developing the syllables I was very interested in using the method based on MLT Music Moves for Piano by Marilyn Lowe, but ran up against the same problem: like all MLT materials, it uses movable Do and letter names for notes. Seeing that there was a lot of interest among other piano teachers in having a Spanish translation of this book, I contacted Marilyn about my idea of creating alternative tonal syllables, to which she reacted very positively and initially agreed that the book translation should be done with the new syllables (later, for various reasons, the translation has not been published). At that time this possibility gave me more encouragement to continue.
Why alternative tonal syllables?
During this period I was working at a school where a good number of teachers – precisely the ones dedicated to the younger children and group music classes – had absolute pitch and were not comfortable with movable Do nor with using letters as note names. Thus, at least as far as working with tonal patterns is concerned, asking them to apply MLT was not feasible. In my own case, my piano and flute students were all over 6 years old, already musically “accultured” in the fixed Do system, and applying MLT would have meant requiring them to learn note names foreign to their culture and use the fixed Do syllables in a foreign way. Being from the United States, sensitive to the issue of cultural colonization, I did not want to give the impression of imposing my own musical culture: seeing that it had never crossed my mind to require them to speak English in my classes, neither would I make them learn a foreign music system.
As a matter of fact I have had parents ask me to teach in English (a sneaky way to save money on private English classes). However, I have always refused because I consider it beneficial for students to learn music in their own language: after all, music is a very basic human “language” even though it cannot be classified as a language per se. If in their own language the names of the notes are Do, Re, Mi…, I was not going to tell them that the note names are actually letters, nor teach them that Do-Re-Mi means one thing in music lessons and something else outside.
Finally, it seemed inevitable that if all I needed in order to use the MLT approach with my students was a different series of tone syllables, I was going to have to create them.
Why not just use movable Do?
The truth is that I could have ended my explanation for creating the new tonal syllables in the previous paragraph, if it were not for one thing. To my surprise, an idea that seemed obvious to me (that is, that if the fixed Do system does not have tonal syllables, all we have to do is create them) did not please some people whose opinions I respected and valued. In their opinion the main problem is the fixed Do system itself, and they prefer to discard it completely in favor of movable Do and letters for note names. It is true that those who so far have opted for applying MLT in non-Anglo Saxon or Germanic countries have done it by adopting this system (so far it has been the only way) and we must recognize their efforts and thank them for their dedication.
Some of these people are of the opinion that since Guido D’Arezzo’s syllables were originally tonal syllables, countries of Latin culture should go back to using them in this way, despite the fact that four centuries have passed since the syllables were converted to note names in those countries. These same people often believe that the movable Do system is the most widespread and are against dividing in two what could become a universal musical system.
I would like to address these views contrary to the use of alternative tonal syllables and express why I believe they are unwarranted.
Four hundred years ago, Spanish, English and German were spoken very differently than they are today. You only have to read Don Quixote to realize that some words have even changed their meaning completely. Is there any reason to go back to their original meaning? In Spanish, Portuguese, French, Italian, Catalan, Galician, and many other languages, the names of the notes have been Do, Re, Mi… for centuries. In the world today (except for Asian countries, for lack of data) there are approximately 1,366,638,000 inhabitants of countries where these syllables serve as note names. Are we going to try to convince everyone who studies or teaches music in these countries to change their meaning?
If the movable Do system were in the majority, this might be conceivable (albeit with reservations). But it turns out that the inhabitants of countries where movable Do is used are only about 692,540,000, which is only about half of the number of those who use fixed Do. Wouldn’t it be more profitable for the spread of Gordon’s ideas to give this great majority an alternative that would make it easier for them to use MLT?
If up until now tonal syllables have not been used in fixed Do countries it is most likely due to formal musical education starting at a later age when numbers as scale degrees sufficed to verbalize what students had already absorbed auditively from their musical surroundings. It is with the advent of musical education at an early age and the desire to develop students’ audiation to a maximum as soon as possible that the use of numbers becomes cumbersome and the need for tonal syllables becomes evident. I see no disadvantage in using fixed Do for note names – in fact I would even say there is an advantage: they are better than letters for singing (not for sight singing in the traditional way, prioritizing the absolute ear, but simply to sing a note when it is out of tonal context). Gordon himself acknowledges in Learning Sequences in Music (p. 66, 2012 edition) that the fixed Do syllables, although they cannot be used to educate the musical ear, can be useful in reading at an advanced level, when the student has already acquired sufficient theoretical knowledge.
It is true that there is much valuable teaching material written in both English and German and other languages of movable Do countries. But even if we adopt their system in fixed Do countries, we will still need to know their languages in order to take advantage of the materials. What currently prevents us from taking advantage of these materials is not fixed Do note names but a lack of training in the use of a movable tonic. Once the latter is solved (offering the alternative tonal syllables as a tool), everything would be reduced to determining which materials we want to translate (it is important to keep in mind that not all use the same system as MLT). The problem is not the notes names but having prioritized absolute pitch to the total detriment of audiation.
I was trained musically within the movable Do system and have no problem with it, but for many people (more than a billion!), including my students, it is a foreign system. It is true that for educators in fixed Do countries, choosing either option requires effort. In the case of the new syllables, however, the effort is minimal: the syllables must be learned and practiced, but this is simply learning a new concept, expanding one’s knowledge. On the other hand, adopting movable Do requires radically changing the meaning of a concept (the Do syllables as note names) assimilated since childhood and shared with the cultural environment, similar to suddenly changing the meanings of everyday objects (say, “tree” now means “cat”, and “cat” now means “bird”). It is confusing and difficult to assimilate for many. In contrast, learning new tonal syllables is as easy as learning new vocabulary in one’s own language. These new tonal syllables offer an alternative to all those teachers who, although interested in Gordon’s ideas, have preferred not to use the MLT approach with their students because of these issues.
Needless to say these opinions made me reflect on whether I should go ahead with my idea. However, after much thought I decided that I should, because I know that there are many people who will never apply Gordon’s ideas if they are required to adopt the movable Do system and change their note names. By giving them an alternative they will be more likely to try MLT, which will be beneficial to music education in general and to the spread of MLT in particular. We may not all have the same note names, but we do share a musical system that is easily translatable.
Some teachers in fixed Do countries will not want to put an effort into learning the new tonal syllables (although it has been shown that they are easily learned) and will continue to teach in the traditional way, perhaps using numbers despite the drawbacks of using them with young children. Others will want to apply Gordon’s ideas but will prefer movable Do because it is the traditional system in many European countries whose frequently perceived aura of musical superiority may be attractive. Anyway, each teacher will use the method with which he/she feels more comfortable. What I do wonder is:
• Do we have the right to require educators interested in MLT but trained in the fixed Do system to adopt a foreign system, when there is an easier alternative?
• Is it worth creating confusion for students between what they learn in music class and what they experience in their cultural environment?
• Is it necessary to discard one’s own tradition, when there is an easy and effective alternative?
• Is it consistent with the desire to spread Edwin Gordon’s ideas, to require those interested to adopt a particular system, when there is an alternative that may be easier for them and that will help to apply MLT’s ideas in many places around the world?
To these four questions my answer is no; that is why I have decided to share these tonal syllables with hopes that educators in fixed-Do countries will find them useful.
The new tonal syllables I propose and the movable Do system with La as the tonic of the minor are exactly the same concepts. MLT enthusiasts who use movable Do should not be concerned about the alternative tonal syllables any more than they are about other enthusiasts speaking Spanish, French, Italian, Portuguese and many other languages. The syllables are nothing more than the translation of a movable tonic system into another form usable by the more than one billion people who use fixed Do syllables as note names, thus making it possible for MLT to spread around the world. If there is one thing that all of us who are interested in MLT have in common, it is the belief that the more educators who are encouraged to apply Gordon’s ideas, the better. I believe this is one way to achieve that.
Movable Do or alternative tonal syllables? Considerations for teachers
I imagine that most music teachers would agree that the earlier the musical ear is educated, the better, and that although absolute pitch is useful, it is relative pitch that allows us to understand musical syntax and therefore it should be developed. However, when it comes to choosing a didactic tool to help us work on relative pitch with our students, we are faced with different alternatives that are not always easy to assess in terms of their suitability. Often the decision we make about which one to use does not reflect what is most beneficial for the student but rather what works best for us as teachers. In other cases, it reveals a misconception about the efficacy of one or another alternative because we are not familiar with the stages of child development. If we music educators were better informed about the psychology of learning and gave total priority to what is best for the student, our decision about which alternative to choose when approaching the education of the relative ear could be quite different.
This decision should not be subject to our own acquired customs or habits without first reflecting on them in case something needs to be changed. Furthermore, it should be based on the strongest and most current educational theories – which obliges us to be well informed about the latest in music pedagogy (where Edwin Gordon’s Theory of Musical Learning should not be missing). We should be guided by a deep respect for the student and his environment, above our own comfort or preferences and the possible influences of our own musical education, which often has been very different from the one we want to offer – or may have been based on an educational system foreign to the country where we are, in which case (if we want to apply this methodology) we should adapt it to the student and not the other way around. And above all, we should not hesitate to venture down new paths if they will allow us to better reach our goal while preserving the most important thing: efficient, effective and respectful learning for the student.
I think it is important to raise questions that are not always taken into consideration: if we want to improve music education we must identify the factors that favor or hinder the learning of our students, both in general and in the specific case of the development of the musical ear. And not only identify them but also make an effort to apply this knowledge in our teaching, without letting ourselves be overcome by inertia and the comfort of continuing the way we are. The tools we choose should be suitable for all stages of the student’s psychological development – they should not demand non-existent abilities from the child. Nor should they demand an extra effort of adaptation that slows down learning and shows little respect for the learner. They should be adaptable to the students’ language as one added element, and they should not creating conflicts with other methods that students may encounter throughout their musical studies. And at a broader level I think it is important not to contribute to perpetuating cultural inferiority complexes with respect to other countries.
There are basically three tool options for the development of audiation in its tonal aspect: numbers, movable Do, and alternative tonal syllables. As for numbers, Gordon’s MLT rules out their use for this purpose considering them unsuitable for the early stages of child development, and therefore I refer the interested reader to Gordon’s writings on the subject and will not go into this issue here. There remain then the tonal syllables in their two versions mentioned above. Movable Do syllables are the best known because they are the ones used in the Anglo-Saxon and Germanic world. The alternative tonal syllables that I propose in this blog are the other option for students and teachers accustomed to fixed Do. It is the option that, after years of using it with my students in Spain, I consider the most efficient, effective and respectful with the students and their cultural environment. However, being relatively new, less known, and not having attached the often perceived aura of musical superiority of the Anglo-Germanic world, a good number of teachers choose to use movable Do, either for lack of knowledge of this alternative or by personal preference, despite the disadvantages it presents to students raised in the musical culture of fixed Do.
C is E-flat, A is C (Do is Mi bemol, La is Do)
The most obvious drawback of using movable Do in fixed Do countries, well known to many music teachers, is the fact that it names a concept (scale degrees) with words (i.e. syllables) that already exist for another totally opposite concept (absolute note names). Even for experienced musicians it causes confusion; however, there are teachers who try to combine movable Do with the fixed Do and often claim that their students have no problems with it, that they “get it”. I don’t doubt that this is true for many students, but there are those who don’t get it so easily. There is no problem while working aurally, until the student begins to study an instrument and needs to refer to absolute notes. The confusion reaches its peak when the student starts to read, which is when the teacher tries to move on with explanations that slow down the learning process.
Do we have the right to make musical learning difficult, even for a single student, because of a totally avoidable confusion? Shouldn’t we, as teachers, facilitate musical learning for every student equally, regardless of his or her ability to navigate a linguistic confusion? Isn’t it our job to speed up learning as much as possible instead of waiting for the student to “get it”? If we are guided by the most elementary concept of learning – refer to each thing by its own name – the answer is clear.
Faced with this situation, many opt for another way of incorporating movable Do without causing so much confusion, giving rise, however, to other drawbacks.
Two systems: one in the music classroom, one outside the classroom
Some teachers circumnavigate the confusion of movable Do by teaching different note names, that is, using the letters of the Anglo-Germanic system – a system alien to the student’s musical culture. Many of these teachers are colleagues and friends whom I greatly respect and admire for their dedication to MLT and for their enormous contribution to the growth of the Gordon methodology in Spain and other countries, and I am grateful to have had the opportunity to meet them and work with them. However, I do not agree with using with our students the same tool used in the Anglo-Germanic system. It is true that students who start this way at an early age adapt perfectly and receive all the advantages of learning with tone syllables, which is wonderful. But if we look deeper we will see the situation in which we place these students: in the classroom (usually a music school) they learn with one system while at school – and in the whole society – they will have to adapt to another, calling the notes by other names (precisely the ones they use for tonal syllables). If later on they change music schools or place of residence, they will be required to adapt to another system, something understandable when moving to another country but not with simply a change of city or teacher.
The situation is the other way around for those who start their musical studies later: they have to unlearn the native system they have learned at school based on fixed Do (present, I repeat, in the whole society) and learn not only new note names (letters) but a totally new concept for what have always been note names for them. I consider this an unnecessary imposition on students and not conducive to seamless learning.
The justification often given by those who opt for this route is, once again, that students “adapt without problems”. Of course they do: children end up adapting to whatever they are confronted with, some better than others.
But is it really necessary? What is the reason for this compulsory adaptation effort? Why do we have to cause them this discomfort? What are the advantages? I am told that this prepares them for when they travel to countries that use movable Do. Here I disagree: at the level at which one moves musically when one moves to another country, the syllables are hardly used – they are a didactic tool for the first years of learning. What is essential is not to have one system or another but to have a well-trained relative ear. Besides, who says they are going to travel to Germany, England, or the United States (where, by the way, not everyone teaches movable Do?) Why not Russia, Italy, France, and hundreds of others – in fact, most of them?
They also tell me that with movable Do you can take advantage of books and materials based on it, but they forget that these books are in English or German and would still have to be translated. Translating eight more syllables is not a problem.
The alternative tonal syllables avoid all this confusion and effort of adaptation on the part of the student and provide the fixed Do system with the tool it lacked to develop audiation, making it unnecessary to import the Anglo-Germanic system. Out of respect for their culture, I think it is important to allow students to be trained as complete musicians within their native system instead of teaching a foreign system that conflicts with the local one.
A subliminal message
It is not only that it conflicts with the native system. I think that many teachers are unaware of the message they are conveying to the student when they tell them that it is in their best interest to adopt the Anglo-Germanic system (even if we don’t tell them, they end up knowing that the system is from a different country). Of course I have nothing against this system (I grew up with it!) but by rejecting the use of the native fixed Do we are disregarding centuries of history full of musical education, musicians and their music, not only in Spain, France, Italy, and Portugal but in all the countries of the world where fixed Do is used. We are sending the message that they do it better abroad (the same refrain that is often heard in many other areas). Even if partially true in some aspects up to recent years (since conservatories here and in other countries have traditionally given priority to absolute pitch to the detriment of the relative pitch) wouldn’t it be better to leave that era behind, forget the inferiority complex and dedicate ourselves to remedy the lack of tonal syllables in the native system?
Singing the names of the absolute notes out of tonal context can be very useful and for that the syllables Do-Re-Mi… are sonorous and aesthetic, not like letters. All that is needed to complement fixed Do are syllables to sing the tonal relationships of the scale degrees. It’s easy: alternative tonal syllables.
There are teachers who, seeing the disadvantages of movable Do, resort to numbers or abandon any attempt to educate their students’ musical ear, ignoring that there is another alternative suitable for any stage of learning, which does not cause confusion of any kind, is easy to learn, does not require an effort of adaptation by the student, adapts to their language and respects their musical culture simply by adding one more element to their vocabulary. This alternative is to use the alternative tonal syllables. What do they require? Simply an effort to learn them on the part of the teacher. Eight syllables: TO-KE-NI-SA-LO-NA-TI and LE as the leading tone in harmonic minor. Assuming that the goal is, as I said at the beginning, to provide efficient, effective and respectful learning for the student, is the effort of learning eight syllables too much to ask for the sake of our students?
