I was told by a couple of new pupils today that in their previous (primary) school, their violin peri had done some Kodaly stuff with them, only to be told to stop doing it by the head of music there!!!

I was absolutely horrified!!!! I've been using bits and pieces of Kodaly with most of my pupils since doing the Summer School, with fantastic results. One of my home pupils today sang a whole piece in solfah and then played it beautifully on ther violin. She then suggested that she learns all her new pieces that way! I was going to suggest it anyway but she got there first! She said it makes the music make so much more sense to her, and that she's "hearing it in her head" now before playing it - wonderful!!! Naturally she's now playing perfectly in tune...

And then you hear about Heads of Music who forbid their peris from using it - presumably because it's getting in the way of the children learning the mechanics of the violin or something - heaven only knows what this guy must have been thinking. Aaaarrrghh.....

Has anybody else heard of anything like this?

A despairing Violinia

i understand that..... i once got a horrible music director in school as well... i think students should learn the way that help them the most....

QUOTE (Violinia @ Sep 23 2004, 08:43 PM)

I was told by a couple of new pupils today that in their previous (primary) school, their violin peri had done some Kodaly stuff with them, only to be told to stop doing it by the head of music there!!!

On the face of it that is ludicrous, but (with some imagination) one could think of reasons. Do you trust your pupils to know that the violin peri was competent in Kodaly method? Maybe the head of music was already teaching it and didn't want them to get instruction that might conflict.

In a nutshell, what is the Kodaly method, that it can get these good results? Interested in a sentence or two just to give me a reminder.

Violinia - it is possible that the teacher was not integrating the Kodaly work well into the lesson. Maybe the kids went home and told their parents they were doing singing in their violin lesson and the parents thought "hang on, I'm paying for violin lessons". Then the parents may have complained to the head of music. If so, then you might need to be careful yourself how you present it to them - parents don't always believe that the teacher knows best.

Farleyteacher, you're probably right, and for this reason I'm treading carefully when introducing Kodaly skills to my pupils, and making sure they understand why they're doing it, immediately getting them to relate what they've just sung to the violin.

However, from what these kids told me, it sounds like this Head just stopped the guy teaching Kodaly to his pupils without properly researching why the teacher was doing it in the first place. It sounds like a failure of communication between the Head and the peri and possibly the parents (if they complained, which I doubt because the kids told me they were enjoying it).

Anyway in the end the kids lost out, and in the Head's case, the road to ###### etc....

Seems to me it should be compulsory for all Heads of Music to be trained in Kodaly methods, so they'd then be supportive when their peris teach it, rather than destructive. Knowing what I now know about it it seems quite mad that it isn't a part of every music degree course...

Hey-ho...

Violinia

Are you using the Essential String Method books by Sheila Nelson?

These are great and use singing and solfa signing in a well-laid out way that works really well. I say in the first lessons what a fab book it is because we get to learn all our tunes by singing them first. BUT it is clearly a violin method book so the parents are happy and mostly do their homework with the kids so they can sing and sign too...

QUOTE (Violinia @ Sep 24 2004, 09:38 PM)

Seems to me it should be compulsory for all Heads of Music to be trained in Kodaly methods, so they'd then be supportive when their peris teach it, rather than destructive.

I can't disagree with that: every manager needs to be able to evaluate his/her staff, even if they do some things better than s/he can (which is very common)...

QUOTE

Knowing what I now know about it it seems quite mad that it isn't a part of every music degree course...

... but I would like to know why you think this. What musical skill would Kodaly method teach that all music graduates need and would not get from a degree course that lacked it?

QUOTE (DomRUK @ Sep 24 2004, 11:55 AM)

In a nutshell, what is the Kodaly method, that it can get these good results?

It's musicianship training through singing - in a nutshell!!

i wished i had learned this method.....

Me too.

QUOTE

... but I would like to know why you think this. What musical skill would Kodaly method teach that all music graduates need and would not get from a degree course that lacked it?

Ahem. I went to the Kodaly Summer School this year and encountered countless music graduates who told me they learnt more musicianship in a week than they'd learnt in their entire three years at university, or even at music college.

Violinia

QUOTE (Violinia @ Sep 26 2004, 10:19 PM)

Ahem.  I went to the Kodaly Summer School this year and encountered countless music graduates who told me they learnt more musicianship in a week than they'd learnt in their entire three years at university, or even at music college.

I believe you totally, but I am still interested in the answer to my question.

Thanks for the info (re Kodaly in a nutshell). I went to google and looked at http://home.earthlink.net/~debrajet/Kodaly.html which gave an overview. So it's basic music theory taught through singing, using tonic sol-fah.

I've found in teaching sight singing that using number 1 to 7 rather than adding new names of 'doh' etc. works fine, and relates more to other aspects of music theory (such as chords, position of semitones in scales) that they have learnt or will learn later.

However, by whatever method, learning the character of each note of the major and minor scales is invaluable.

Now, here's another bit of often missed music theory - even in top level harmony books. The chords in a key (major or minor) - there are 7 of course, on the seven notes of the scale. BUT how many people are taught to recognize that the three major and the three minor chords are related and similar in function in music (in pairs)? That is, for example in the major, there are chords 1,4 and 5 which are major (tonic, subdominant and dominant) - but the three minor chords are not just three other random chords (2, 3 and 6) which have functions of their own (i.e. 6 to learn, plus chord 7) - rather, the three minor chords are each related in function to their relative majors (6 to 1 = Am to C - "home" type / 3 to 5 = Em to G - "tension at the dominant so wants to resolve" type / 2 to 4 = Dm to F - "part way between home and dominant" type). Proof of the pudding is that in music you'll often find that (particularly when composing) if you want an alternative chord to the one you are writing, try its relative major/minor. This was such a simplifying thing to me when I first learnt it, so that harmonizing Bach Chorales etc. became SO much easier. Also, the chord 7 is Dominant in function, i.e. it's like chord 5 - the notes of the diminished chord (B,D,F in C major) are the top three notes of a Dominant 7th chord (which has G as its root).

All this reduced harmony in many ways to:
T and Tr............Tonic and Tonic relative ( C and Am if in C major)
S and Sr............Subdominant and Subdominant relative ( F and Dm)
D and Dr............Dominant and Dominant relative (G and Em, and Bdim is related too)

Basically the same applies for the minor - but Am is Tonic, and C is Tonic relative, and there are some added factors, like chord 5 can be major or minor.

Hope that is useful in organizing harmony for others too. I've heard the system called FUNCTIONAL HARMONY. I'll put some of this as a new thread in case there's more interest in seeing this.

QUOTE (DomRUK @ Sep 27 2004, 12:23 PM)

I've found in teaching sight singing that using number 1 to 7 rather than adding new names of 'doh' etc. works fine, and relates more to other aspects of music theory (such as chords, position of semitones in scales) that they have learnt or will learn later.

If you use the 'number system' to teach sight-singing, what do you use when the piece is minor?

QUOTE

If you use the 'number system' to teach sight-singing, what do you use when the piece is minor?

Same as for intervals:

("1 to 7" is used for the major scale)

In minor: 3 become "m3" which is short for 'minor 3' - but you sing just "m" BEFORE the number.
6 and 7 are either 6 or m6, 7 or m7, i.e.:
Harmonic minor scale = 1 2 m3 4 5 m6 7 1
Melodic minor scale = 1 2 m3 4 5 6 7 1 m7 m6 5 4 m3 2 1
This is EXACTLY the same system as is used for labelling intervals in theory books, which people learn at grade 2/3 theory onwards (for minor).

All notes of chromatic scale =
1 m2 2 m3 3 4 aug4 (or dim5) 5 m6 6 m7 7 1

Notice there are always at most two syllables: the prefix and the number - except for 7 which has two syllables in itself.

Hope that helps to explain.

***P.S. ON OCT 28TH: I'VE NOW CHANGED MY MIND TO ALWAYS USING A MOVEABLE 1 FROM THE RELATIVE MAJOR, SO THE MINOR SCALE RUNS FROM 6 UPWARDS, DUE TO THIS DISCUSSION. ALSO, I NOW ALWAYS USE SHARP AND FLAT (e.g. #6 AND b6 ) INSTEAD OF THE "MINOR" "m6" EXPLAINED ABOVE - MINOR WORKS IN THEORY, BUT IS NOT SO INTUITIVE. SEE MY POST OF OCT 28TH FOR THE REFINED SYSTEM AS I NOW USE IT.

Your numbers system sounds a lot more complicated than solfah. Anyway, Kodaly uses relative solfah, not tonic solfah. Relative solfah means the tonic isn't always doh. (Amazing but true.) If the piece of music concerned is in a minor key, the tonic becomes la - the tonic of the relative minor. (It was a revelation to me too!)

Therefore a tune like "Greensleeves" would go:

la
doh re mi fa mi
re ti so la ti
doh la la soh la
ti soh mi

Explaining the harmonic scale then becomes easy because all you need to do is raise soh by a semitone (it becomes si). For the melodic minor scale all you do is raise fa (to fi) and soh (to si) on the way up, and on the way down it's just plain "la soh fa mi re doh ti la"!

By singing in solfah the student quickly internalises the sound of doh-mi, fa-la and soh-ti (always a major third) and la-doh, ti-re, and mi-soh (always a minor third). Then doh-soh, re-la, mi-ti, fa-doh (perfect fifths) and doh-fa, re-soh, mi-la, soh-doh (pefect fourths)....etc etc.

I agree there are other ways to learn intervals - I learnt them in another way myself (my mother had a ladder system which she learnt in Vienna and passed on to me apparently) - but solfah is an excellent teaching system and I'm not sure anyone has found a better one.

Violinia

Interesting about "relative sol-fah" - that works in other areas of music theory too.

I just like the number system because it saves learning new words, for which one would need to learn the numbers BEHIND them to realize that fa is one above mi - whereas "4 is one above 3" is already known. Having used the number system a while I find it very simple and quick, and it saves an extra layer of learning (the words) being added on top. Having said that, I appreciate that in memorizing things, sometimes adding detail makes it easier to remember.

QUOTE (Violinia @ Sep 28 2004, 12:11 PM)

Your numbers system sounds a lot more complicated than solfah.

I agree!

I think singing in solfa is much more musical than using numbers, too - it is more of a 'musical language' and less of a 'drill'!

Plus, having established that a moveable tonic (relative solfah) is the best way, don't you think it would be a bit weird to sing "Greensleeves" like this:

6
12343
27567
16656
7536
12343
27567
1765#4#5#
6

Robotic!

Violinia

QUOTE (kenm @ Sep 25 2004, 07:11 PM)

What musical skill would Kodaly method teach that all music graduates need and would not get from a degree course that lacked it?

I do not have a music degree but I have taught many people who do. It would seem that it is aural training in general that is not taught well on degree courses. As a friend of mine once put it, 'I KNOW all this, but I can't DO it!'

Kodaly training develops the ability to 'see what you hear and hear what you see'.

Sight-singing, dictation, memory training, co-ordination, the development of two-part and harmonic hearing, intervals, chords, scales, modes...being trained in all of these, I have found that with my Kodaly Advanced Musicianship Diploma, I can DO many things which many of my degree-laden students cannot.

QUOTE (Cyrilla @ Sep 29 2004, 06:03 PM)

I do not have a music degree but I have taught many people who do.   It would seem that it is aural training in general that is not taught well on degree courses.   As a friend of mine once put it, 'I KNOW all this, but I can't DO it!' Kodaly training develops the ability to 'see what you hear and hear what you see'. Sight-singing, dictation, memory training, co-ordination, the development of two-part and harmonic hearing, intervals, chords, scales, modes...being trained in all of these, I have found that with my Kodaly Advanced Musicianship Diploma, I can DO many things which many of my degree-laden students cannot.

I thought all this was pretty well taught on my degree course (Reading, 1994-8) and the aural exam had a very good test in it that required you to mark on a score where what you heard differed from what you saw: excellent preparation for a conductor. However, many of my fellow students disliked the work and feared the exam. A lot of them went on to do a PGCE and enter teaching, and I thought our aural training had much of what they would need there (they were not taught conducting, which I thought was a pity). I suppose you might argue that if they were not inspired, then the teaching was deficient, but I thought it was probably more to do with a mismatch between what they were expected to know when they arrived and what their school and instrumental or singing teachers had taught them.

I forgot to add to the above list - conducting is part of Kodaly courses!

Your course sounds as if it was good for you but clearly not for some of your contemporaries - so could it be seen as 'lacking' in this regard?

Did your degree course cover all of the aspects I mentioned above?? You originally asked what skills would a Kodaly course cover that a degree course might lack - as I said, I can't really answer that as I don't have a music degree, so all I could do to reply was state aspects which I know Kodaly training does cover.

Perhaps any music graduates who felt their course did not teach certain aspects well would like to help out with comments?

QUOTE

Therefore a tune like "Greensleeves" would go: la doh re mi fa mi re ti so la ti doh la la soh la ti soh mi

I'm afraid to me THIS seems like a foreign language - and which direction do I go from each note to get to the next: there's a new language to gradually learn to remember where each note is.

No, I'm afraid I like my numbers, and it's so accessible for my singing pupils when learning sight-reading, as they can quickly do a bit of numbers, then go back to the song's words - with minimal explanation or background language learning.

In the minor I have sometimes used a moveable "1" (using the relative major's "1") and this does indeed work very well.

QUOTE

to sing "Greensleeves" like this: 6 12343 27567 16656 7536

actually has a certain grace and meaning (to me) and does not seem robotic. (Well, I'm teasing a bit with the "a certain grace", but it is like a plain white backdrop to the picture the notes themselves paint - it is a "nothing" that doesn't get in the way of the music.

In teaching the numbers, I get the pupil to imagine the numbers in a vertical line going up (1 to 7, 1 to 7 etc.) rather than horizontal. When they're singing, I've found it useful with some pupils to "point out" the notes with my hand (as if conducting their placement), up and down the ladder of their positions, even though this is much less needed at first than I guess it is with sol-fah.

Whereas sol-fah needs a lot of learning of the order of doh, mi, re etc. up the scale (sorry, I did it deliberately wrong, as you are all so used to the correct order I guess!), I have found the one aspect I need to be sure they focus on (which otherwise is lacking) is that each note number has a character as well as a position. The character aspect is one aspect which I am happy to admit that sol-fah promotes quite easily, despite its otherwise long learning curve - I have taught you my numbers system in a moment, but I certainly could not sing in sol-fah!

I'm pressing the point a bit, but I do wonder what would happen if all the knowledge and process of the Kodaly system was applied to numbers....might it be just as rich in facilitating, but at the same time more accessible?

Sorry, I love my numbers, as I guess you love your sol-fah.

P.S. I was interested that when Greensleeves was written out in numbers, they used #s (sharps) with my numbers. I have used this often, instead of my more "music theory logical" minor "m6, m7" and "dim5" system. As you can tell, I have experimented with different ideas! It does seem both easier to say "flat 7" (or "sharp 6") than the "m" of "m7", and also seems more intuitive, as sharps and flats are used so much in music.

QUOTE (Cyrilla @ Sep 29 2004, 10:14 PM)

I forgot to add to the above list - conducting is part of Kodaly courses!

That certainly gives it the edge.

QUOTE

Your course sounds as if it was good for you but clearly not for some of your contemporaries - so could it be seen as 'lacking' in this regard?

Yes, I think that's true. Aural training was not the only area in which I thought that was the case, but I don't think I would criticise my lecturers because of this. There were two causes that contributed to the mismatch, IMO: students being inadequately prepared by their schools, possibly because they took an A-level from the wrong board; and students lacking sufficient self-discipline to make the transition to the less supervised university environment (though Reading was appreciably more nannyish than Cambridge, where I read Engineering 50 years ago).

QUOTE

Did your degree course cover all of the aspects I mentioned above??

As I recall, yes (but not the conducting that you just mentioned).

QUOTE

You originally asked what skills would a Kodaly course cover that a degree course might lack - as I said, I can't really answer that as I don't have a music degree, so all I could do to reply was state aspects which I know Kodaly training does cover.

Well, the Universities differ. E.g. a local musician I met went to Bangor and was trained in conducting as part of the music degree there.

QUOTE

Perhaps any music graduates who felt their course did not teach certain aspects well would like to help out with comments?

I would be very interested in that too, particularly if anyone can tell me their experience of the SYnthia and CALMA packages that are or were used for musical awareness training at Huddersfield.

QUOTE (DomRUK @ Sep 30 2004, 11:22 AM)

I have taught you my numbers system in a moment, but I certainly could not sing in sol-fah!

Er - no, I haven't learned your numbers system in a moment, actually!

You make the point that solfa seems like a foreign language to you - that's only because you haven't learned to 'speak' it. Earlier I said it IS a musical language.

Solfa teachers also use a 'vertical' representation of the pitches and of course also a development of your 'pointing out' of the notes with your hand - Kodaly adapted the Curwen handsigns and they are a tremendous tool, both for developing the spatial awareness of the gaps between pitches and for kinaesthetic learning. They are also used for sight-reading and intonation work.

Sorry, yes, I DO love my solfa! I just ADORE singing in solfa - the music just makes so much more sense, the intonation is better and I'm just IN the music...

I really think the vast majority of Kodaly teachers and students would throw up their hands in horror at the thought of using numbers! To me numbers are so sterile and would not be a 'rich' way of learning at all. Accessible??? Solfa is only perceived as inaccessible by those who haven't learn to speak this, the most natural musical language of them all....

Sorry, I guess we must just agree to differ on this.

But if you really wanted to find out the benefits of solfa and how it really works, there's always next year's Summer School!

Thanks for the invite to the Summer School (doing other things, but thank you).

I've found this a stimulating and useful discussion. Many thanks.

Also, Dom, with your numbers thing, how do you explain to them that the 3 in a minor key is different (ie nearer the 2) to the 3 in a major key? Wouldn't it make more sense to use 6 as 1 in a minor key, as they do with relative solfah?

Violinia

Indeed, what I said on 30th September, is what this discussion has helped me clarify:

QUOTE

In the minor I have sometimes used a moveable "1" (using the relative major's "1") and this does indeed work very well.

...and this is what I will now ALWAYS do, rather than just as one of two ways.

To clarify where I've got to now:

I use:

Major: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,1

Minor: 6,7,1,2,3,4,#5,6.

...and for any chromatic notes, I use an adjustment of sharp or flat, e.g. b3 and #6 etc. [I've changed my mind from the "minor" m6 I used to sometimes use - and which I posted on the first page].