The research question
With this research I wanted to test two hypotheses:
A) A) Are absolute note names necessary[1] in sight singing, when reading pitch notation on the stave relatively? Mental process: one sees ‘do’ (a name that indicates a function) and thinks ‘F’ (indicating a pitch).
Hypothetical answer: no
A B) are relative note names necessary in sight singing, when reading pitch notation on the stave ‘absolute’? Mental process: one sees ‘F’ (a name that indicates a pitch) and thinks ‘do’ (indicating a function).
Hypothetical answer: yes
Reading staff notation ‘absolute’ with clef and key signature: a note in a certain position on the stave gets a unique pitch name. Thereby all the notes in the different positions on the stave get a unique pitch name. All pitches on the stave can have at least seven different functions, depending on the key signature. The relative name (function) can be connected to the absolute pitch name through theoretical knowledge of scales and musical context.
A conclusion based on earlier literature study:
“…in the development of the aural understanding of pitch notation it is insufficient to learn fixed (absolute) names for visual symbols to realise the sound without the use of an instrument, because the musical meaning cannot be included in the names if the same names will have a different meaning in another musical (aural) context. Relative note names that are based on the relations of sounds in a musical context provide a connection between sound and name: the name is the sound. Relations between notes are expressed by their names and are understood by their musical meaning. Relative note names are therefore a necessary pedagogical and didactical tool to learn to understand pitch in staff notation aurally.” [1]
The relation between sound, meaning and naming (labelling) must be developed before notation and reading (and sight singing) are involved in the learning process. This is a precondition for all reading (and writing). Musical understanding is not learned from music notation. Edwin Gordon explains the process of how only audiation can lead to music reading and writing in his book ‘Learning sequences in Music’.[2] In my research I found many illustrations proving Gordon’s theories to be true. The following citations explain some of the key elements of his Music Learning Theory:
“When we read, our experience with objects, thoughts, and ideas give meaning to words. Letters, with very few exceptions, do not symbolize meaningful objects, thoughts, or ideas. Pitch letter-names and time-value names are the alphabet of music.”[3]
“When music notation did come into common use, it was not intended as a way to teach or tell musicians what notes to sing or play, but rather ostensibly to remind them of what they already knew through audiation of prior performance.”[4]
“It is imperative aural/oral and verbal association levels of learning be taught separately. Audiation of content and context at the aural/oral level needs to be developed before students are introduced to solfege at the verbal association level. At the aural/oral level, students begin to audiate and give internal meaning to content, for example, tonal and rhythm patterns, and context in terms of tonality and meter. At the verbal association level, in addition to carrying forth audiation and internal meaning, external meaning is introduced by superimposing solfege names on familiar sounding pitches and durations as well as giving names to tonalities and meters. Names are associated with audiated sounds, not the other way around. Unless internal meaning is solidified, external meaning becomes difficult and perplexing to students.”[5]
“In terms of music learning theory, consider signs as sounds of pitches and durations we hear and symbols as written notes we see as representations of those sounds. In other words, signs present and symbols represent. Signs are audiated; they are not meant to be read. […] Verbal associations, such as tonal syllables and rhythm syllables, are considered signs because they are combined with sound of pitches in tonal patterns and sound of durations in rhythm patterns. Signs, such as verbal associations, connect logically with music whereas symbols need not have any logical relation to signs they represent. When students give names to sounds they audiate at the verbal association level, sounds (pitches and durations) and names (verbal associations) in a tonality or meter seem inseparable, combining into one sign.”[6]
“If students cannot audiate syllables, reading syllables is irrational. Likewise, if students have not demonstrated ability to audiate using verbal association, they find it difficult and wearisome to read standard notation and will probably not learn notational audiation.”[7]
“ At the Symbolic association level students are taught to read and write familiar tonal patterns and rhythm patterns in familiar and unfamiliar order in familiar tonalities and familiar meters they learned to audiate and label at the aural/oral and verbal association levels of learning.”[8]
“In symbolic association students learn to read entire patterns. That is, individual pitches and durations are not given consideration. Unfortunately, when students are not taught how to audiate, they tend to force an alphabet on music notation, focusing on individual pitch letter-names and individual time value-names instead of series of durations. They depend on decoding notation because they cannot audiate. For students who can audiate, notation becomes a picture of what they are audiating.”[9]
“Students learn to read and write music notation at the symbolic association level by associating symbols with syllables and sounds of patterns they represent. This process is called notational audiation.”[10]
“When students audiate as they read and write notation, they continually reflect on and explain notation to themselves in terms of sound.”[11]
This research is set up to investigate which form and approach of pitch reading in staff notation triggers the hopefully earlier developed skills of aural understanding and imagination in the most effective way.
What's in a name?
The relation between pitch notation, note names and sight singing
in different forms of pitch notation
and in different ways of approaching pitch notation.
Reading staff notation ‘relative’ with for example do-clefs: a note in a certain position on the stave gest a unique function name. Thereby all the notes in the different positions on the stave get a unique function name. All functions on the stave can have at least seven different pitch names, depending on a chosen pitch for do. The absolute name (pitch) can be connected to the relative note name through theoretical knowledge of scales