[keithb]

Originally Posted by Durero

As far as I know, moveable do solfege is most often taught to singers, or in the context of singing. This is where it is most appropriate because there are no fingerings involved in singing, and the scale structures being sung are consistent from key to key, so moving the syllable do onto the tonic note of each key makes perfect sense.

The only time I've used solfege was when singing (either as part of a choir or in music theory classes in high school)

[ElRay]

Originally Posted by Luan

And saying pa for D# is just stupid IMO since it doesn't has any relationship with the name note.

What do you use for D#? Re-Sharp? Or do you just call it Re and implicitly "know" that it's supposed to be sharpened based on the context?

I'm guessing that Brennink's intent was to keep with the solfege single sylable model ("Re-sharp" isn't as singable as "Pa") and to keep the sounds of the chromatics unique, to avoid confusion. Looking at the Wikipedia article on chromatic syllables, the "standard" seems to be the more confusing route (D is Re and D# is Ri, but Eb is Me and E is Mi). It does makes sense from a "don't change "do-re-mi-fa-so-la-ti-do" and "keep the ah-ay-ee" progression", but it does become a bit unweildy, especially if you have Eb-E (Me-Mi), etc.. In that case Brennink's Pa-Mi is more clear.

Ray

[Durero]

Originally Posted by Luan

And saying pa for D# is just stupid IMO since it doesn't has any relationship with the name note.
But well.

That's the whole point Luan - giving each chromatic note it's own name instead of trying to stretch 7 names to cover 12 notes. It's much simpler and clearer if you take the time to think about it and try it out.