Dear friends of TH-cam: I know generally the best internet advice is "don't read the comments," but I hope EVERYbody reads the comment I'm replying to. I know it says "James Baldwin" but I also happen to know that my mom made it. I want to speak to it because it contains possibilities for everyone. If "piano lessons" are something that students go "away" to for 30 minutes or an hour per week, there is no way for piano/keyboard/music culture to sustain itself. Real and lasting music learning has to be nurtured within the learner. And you'll notice that's why I encourage singing and moving to learn pitch and rhythm. Because your voice and motion are your own and can't be taken away from you. We had lots of music in our house when I was growing up. Whether it was my siblings' records or mom singing and playing piano with me in her lap, or our giant movie theater speakers that I cranked up to 11 when nobody else was home. And that's the background that enabled my personal success with music. "Piano lessons" weren't just something I went to...music went into me and piano lessons were a little part of me learning to bring that music back out to the world. Thanks, Mom! You gave me lots of possibilities that I hope I'm passing on through this channel!
Thank you! It might seem beyond your current level of musical knowledge but I bet you got more from it than you think you did. Thinking of music in this way opens up over time to new, more sophisticated, and more fun ways of expression. As opposed to what's become the norm in music education, which tends to shut down curiosity after a couple years of lessons. If the video has caused you to think about music in a slightly different way based on aural understanding, I will consider it mission accomplished. A more thorough understanding takes weeks, not years like you might think. Remember to click the link in the description if you want a thorough development of the ideas and skills presented here. Or if you're already getting emails from me (which I believe you are), the link at the end of the last one gives more information about my 7-week video harmony course Play and Sing in Harmony, which expands on these ideas much more fully than I can do in a 9-minute video.
This Relative Solfegio works only in countries where they don't use Absolute Solfegio to "absolute-name" their notes. Instead of alphabet and instead of relative solfegio I always suggest and teach numbers (from 1 to 7). At the students' learning time we get to sharps and flats they already got this 1-7 numbers solid in their head and they can sing it well if they want but they dont have to, and in the head thinking of 7 flat is just a moment and possible to do compared to singing out loud "7 flat" for a single note which would creat complications. This works best for pop and jazz where they don't really consider it a modulation (changing the key) when they go from the original key to the relative minor key, or vice versa, relative minor key tonic never becomes I, it always stays vi or VIm or whatever chord symbol is prefered at the country. (as opposed to classical, where changing key from the original major key to the relative minor key makes it necessary to call the minor tonic chord (and note) a I chord (or 1 note). Sorry about my messy comment explanation try, I'm not totally sure about the English musical terms too, but so far using 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 instead of do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti worked for me without an issue.
When singing the 7 note they just sing "Sev" (instead of "Seven") to keep it a single syllable note name. When some of my students came from their music class where they using absolute solfeggio, that makes them saying stuff like "the key of Mi sharp minor", and if I would tell them to forget what their generic-music-singing class teacher told them and teach them relative solfegio, they will come back confused the next time, because even if they know the difference between relative and absolute solfeggio logically, practicing both versions are counter productive as beginners, so i just let them do their absolute solfeggio stuff in their singing class in their school, and I just do the relative numbers stuff on my piano class, so this way these 2 different systems don't interfere in their minds and they don't get confused and be able to practice and learn both systems at the same time simply because of the different note-names they use for the different systems (absolute solfeggio system = do, re, mi ... / relative number system = 1, 2, 3 ...).
If I don't use this relative njmbers system, then for the students it would be confusing, it would be kind of like if we go to a generic music class in school (just singing, clapping, and do, re, mi, maybe some, c, d, e), and then we go to piano class and the teacher tells us we're doing it totally wrong, and then the piano teacher starts to play f# g# a# and sings c d e. To the students who learn absolute solfeggio, Do, Re, Mi is the same unchangable note-name kind of thing that C, D, E for us. Imagine your piano teacher telling you something like: "And now we are going to sing a D major scale." and he starts to sing the correct pitches but he uses these notenames for D major scale: c d e f g a b c.
@@kaisfp You're absolutely right that teaching Moveable Resting Tone solfege to students who already associate those same syllables to fixed piano keys is potentially confusing. However, using numbers presents a different set of problems. For one thing, There's no simple way to express a Tonality with only one number. A key benefit of MRT Solfege is that a Tonality is audiated in only a Resting Tone. So in Major Tonality the RT is DO. LA is the RT for Minor Tonality. Dorian uses an RT of RE. MI for Phyrgian and so on. Also, students are already expected to understand numbers to mean many different things. Music teachers routinely use numbers to explain rhythm, or finger numbers for instrumental technique. Students learn best when labels mean one thing. It can be expected that students will be confused when asked to use numbers for multiple purposes. I think the best solution is just a different set of solfege syllables. My friend Kathy Raymond has devised a set of syllables just for this purpose which you can read about here: oidomusical.com/silabas-tonales-alternativas/
![โรงเรียนตอนตี 2 โคตรหลอน..!! [โรงเรียนไดเม่]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/2MAEMwqVYh8/mqdefault.jpg)
Lots of possibilities! Thanks for sharing!
Dear friends of TH-cam: I know generally the best internet advice is "don't read the comments," but I hope EVERYbody reads the comment I'm replying to. I know it says "James Baldwin" but I also happen to know that my mom made it. I want to speak to it because it contains possibilities for everyone.
If "piano lessons" are something that students go "away" to for 30 minutes or an hour per week, there is no way for piano/keyboard/music culture to sustain itself. Real and lasting music learning has to be nurtured within the learner. And you'll notice that's why I encourage singing and moving to learn pitch and rhythm. Because your voice and motion are your own and can't be taken away from you.
We had lots of music in our house when I was growing up. Whether it was my siblings' records or mom singing and playing piano with me in her lap, or our giant movie theater speakers that I cranked up to 11 when nobody else was home. And that's the background that enabled my personal success with music. "Piano lessons" weren't just something I went to...music went into me and piano lessons were a little part of me learning to bring that music back out to the world.
Thanks, Mom! You gave me lots of possibilities that I hope I'm passing on through this channel!
Very positive, dynamic presentation of important stuff - kinda beyond my level of musical knowledge - he's clearly a good teacher.
Thank you! It might seem beyond your current level of musical knowledge but I bet you got more from it than you think you did. Thinking of music in this way opens up over time to new, more sophisticated, and more fun ways of expression. As opposed to what's become the norm in music education, which tends to shut down curiosity after a couple years of lessons.
If the video has caused you to think about music in a slightly different way based on aural understanding, I will consider it mission accomplished.
A more thorough understanding takes weeks, not years like you might think. Remember to click the link in the description if you want a thorough development of the ideas and skills presented here. Or if you're already getting emails from me (which I believe you are), the link at the end of the last one gives more information about my 7-week video harmony course Play and Sing in Harmony, which expands on these ideas much more fully than I can do in a 9-minute video.
@@MyMusicGenesis I sent it to Peggy - we'll see if she listens.
This Relative Solfegio works only in countries where they don't use Absolute Solfegio to "absolute-name" their notes. Instead of alphabet and instead of relative solfegio I always suggest and teach numbers (from 1 to 7). At the students' learning time we get to sharps and flats they already got this 1-7 numbers solid in their head and they can sing it well if they want but they dont have to, and in the head thinking of 7 flat is just a moment and possible to do compared to singing out loud "7 flat" for a single note which would creat complications. This works best for pop and jazz where they don't really consider it a modulation (changing the key) when they go from the original key to the relative minor key, or vice versa, relative minor key tonic never becomes I, it always stays vi or VIm or whatever chord symbol is prefered at the country. (as opposed to classical, where changing key from the original major key to the relative minor key makes it necessary to call the minor tonic chord (and note) a I chord (or 1 note). Sorry about my messy comment explanation try, I'm not totally sure about the English musical terms too, but so far using 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 instead of do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti worked for me without an issue.
When singing the 7 note they just sing "Sev" (instead of "Seven") to keep it a single syllable note name.
When some of my students came from their music class where they using absolute solfeggio,
that makes them saying stuff like "the key of Mi sharp minor", and if I would tell them to forget what their generic-music-singing class teacher told them and teach them relative solfegio, they will come back confused the next time, because even if they know the difference between relative and absolute solfeggio logically, practicing both versions are counter productive as beginners, so i just let them do their absolute solfeggio stuff in their singing class in their school,
and I just do the relative numbers stuff on my piano class, so this way these 2 different systems don't interfere in their minds and they don't get confused and be able to practice and learn both systems at the same time simply because of the different note-names they use for the different systems (absolute solfeggio system = do, re, mi ... / relative number system = 1, 2, 3 ...).
If I don't use this relative njmbers system, then for the students it would be confusing, it would be kind of like if we go to a generic music class in school (just singing, clapping, and do, re, mi, maybe some, c, d, e), and then we go to piano class and the teacher tells us we're doing it totally wrong, and then the piano teacher starts to play f# g# a# and sings c d e.
To the students who learn absolute solfeggio, Do, Re, Mi is the same unchangable note-name kind of thing that C, D, E for us. Imagine your piano teacher telling you something like: "And now we are going to sing a D major scale." and he starts to sing the correct pitches but he uses these notenames for D major scale: c d e f g a b c.
@@kaisfp You're absolutely right that teaching Moveable Resting Tone solfege to students who already associate those same syllables to fixed piano keys is potentially confusing.
However, using numbers presents a different set of problems. For one thing, There's no simple way to express a Tonality with only one number. A key benefit of MRT Solfege is that a Tonality is audiated in only a Resting Tone. So in Major Tonality the RT is DO. LA is the RT for Minor Tonality. Dorian uses an RT of RE. MI for Phyrgian and so on.
Also, students are already expected to understand numbers to mean many different things. Music teachers routinely use numbers to explain rhythm, or finger numbers for instrumental technique.
Students learn best when labels mean one thing. It can be expected that students will be confused when asked to use numbers for multiple purposes.
I think the best solution is just a different set of solfege syllables. My friend Kathy Raymond has devised a set of syllables just for this purpose which you can read about here: oidomusical.com/silabas-tonales-alternativas/