# Solfeggio, intervals or Solmization for Medieval-Renaissance part singing?



## Goddess Yuja Wang

Hello.
Lately, I've been enjoying singing along different voice parts from the YouTube video-scores of my favourite Early-Music masters.

I'd like to ask anyone with experience in singing or theory about the correct and most informative way of doing it (as in something that informs me not only about the pitches, but also about their _true_ _relation_ to each other; about the counterpoint, with its resulting vertical structures, etc).

Say you're an Alto and want to sight-sing or learn your part from the score. How do you go about it?
Do you read purely by intervals? Or do you prefer to use solfeggio with movable _Do_? Would you ever use good-old Solmization?

*I've tried the 3 methods, but they all seem to have issues*… Doing it by intervals doesn't give me any useful information at all. So far I prefer movable-Do by far; it really works nicely, except for this problem I'm not sure how to approach… I show you a typical example of this in the video-score linked below…

Let's focus on the Alto and Bass parts of the example and ignore the text for now.
The bass begins in regular Hypoionian and ends the piece in Ionian. From measures 32 to 39 (1:08), during the duets, I see and hear a clear "shift" to (E) Phrygian via Soft Tenorizans (on the 3rd degree of the main mode). Right after, you feel a clear shift back to Ionian.

So, should I read that section as 1) *Do-mi-fa-sol-sol-la-sol-fa-mi* (_Do_ relative to the Finalis of the mode of the piece), or as 2)_ *Le-do-ra-me-me-fa-me-ra-do*_ (shift the _Do_ relative to the "mode of the moment", wherever it may fall, which is more like the way it really sounds) ???

This determines how one hears, feels and analyses the music, so I want to make sure I train myself to do it correctly.
The former feels awkward because the syllables don't match what I hear (it's hard to wrap my head around seeing and hearing Phrygian but singing it with Ionian syllables), while the latter does reflect what I hear and see but seems technically incorrect and artificial (I doubt this is how the masters wrote and understood their own music)…

Same deal with measures 111 to 133 (3:55). Those phrases cadence on G, then on E, and then back to the Finalis, C. When it cadences on G , should I hear and sing the Cantizans in the bass as _Fi-Sol_ or as _Ti-Do_?
The latter way requires going from the cadence in question back to whatever moment we chose switching the Do makes most sense (i.e., at the beginning of the phrase -certainly by the Antepenultima). It works, but it feels a little arbitrary and anachronic.

What do you think?








I read On the Modes, but Zarlino doesn't say anything about this. Based on my understanding, I'd say he'd go for Solmization (which has the same issue as #1 above but even worse). If he had to use modern solfeggio, he'd probably go for #1 too, since that's how they viewed their modal technique.

So, how would pro singers approach this music correctly for a deeper technical understanding when learning parts from the score?
Would you approach it differently when sight-singing vs when analysing it?

And most importantly, *how do you hear in your mind* sections like in the above example? (always feeling the "gravity pull" towards the Finalis of the mode of the piece VS feeling it towards the "tonic" of the mode of the current phrase, like "diatonic modulations", even if they are not really so).

Thank you for any insight.


----------



## BabyGiraffe

You are living in 21st century, it is OK to understand the old theory, but prefer to use the one method that works for you! We are talking here about art, not some rigid mathematical theory or whatever.
I personally like only fixed do solfege.


----------



## Goddess Yuja Wang

I know which century I live in. What do _"rigid mathematical theories"_ have to do with the OP, anyway?

So that's it? Just do _"whatever works for me"_ dismissive? I wonder how I didn't come up with all that on my own...

I was looking forward to have a nice technical discussion with experienced singers or with knowledgable members, so I (we?) could learn something useful. I was under the impression this was precisely the place to do that...

Perhaps it's better to just stick to those beloved "Mozart VS Beethoven" kind of topics/polls instead


----------



## Festus

Well, well, well! Let's not give up the ghost after only 1 post
and
honey attracts a lot more than vinegar!


----------



## EdwardBast

I don't sing modal music of this kind on a regular basis, but I have in the past done it by intervals. For me anything more is unnecessary complication. Analysis I would treat as separate endeavor for a different purpose.


----------



## SanAntone

During the Medieval period singing was taught using the hexachords system or solmization (see Guido of Arezzo), which you seem to be familiar with. Singers were trained to hear these intervals and then shift the hexachord up a fourth when needed.

The other issue is _musica ficta_, i.e. adjusting a note either up or down in order to avoid a dissonance. Usually this meant altering the note by a half-step prior to a cadence. In modern scores an accidental is placed above the note in the score. During the period no accidentals were written in the manuscript except very late and only sparingly.

There are several good books on this subject and if you are serious about learning the HIP method of singing Medieval or Renaissance music it would be worth your while.


----------



## Xenophiliu

While I use moveable Do, I generally do not shift Do for modes. I always use La-based minor and Sol-based mixolydian for example. 

For sight-reading, if there is a major section of music that veers far away from the original tonic, I will pivot the solfège syllables to avoid over-complication, but based on your song example, I don't think it is really needed.

Harmonic realization and musical functionality are not synonymous with solfège for me, although I understand those concepts just fine. That being the case, I guess I use solfège intervallically rather than functionally, although it can easily work both ways.

For background, I tend to follow the current sight-reading methodology of Dr. Carol Krueger and John Armstrong, but adapt their ideas for my own uses, as I find there is no one-size-fits-all for sight reading. Even between those two, there are disagreements in best practices.


----------

