Solfege - why don't I just sing the numbers?

Question

When practicing singing, I found myself naturally singing the number of the Key instead of the Solfege. So for example singing London Bridges Falling Down was

    5   6  5   4  3  4  5 . . .
    vs
    Sol La Sol Fa Mi Fa Sol

In this I show both the Solfege and the numbers to make it clear what I'm asking.

So, Is there a benefit to using the Solfege names vs just singing the numbers?

I didn't find anything on MT&P (Stack Exchange Music Theory & Practice), but did find this on Redit:

https://www.reddit.com/r/musictheory/comments/6kxflo/why_dont_i_just_sing_numbers_instead_of_solfege/

Several answers were given, the one I liked was:

For me, solfege syllables make it easier to hear/sing flats and sharps. E.g., "do - re - me" instead of "do - re - mi" for minor versus major third. If you're doing numbers you'd have to sing the same syllable for the major versus minor pitch and it's harder to make that association / differentiate between the two. Unless you're differentiating somehow?

I'm asking the question here since this is where I go for answers to music questions. :-)

Answer 1

Regarding "Is there a benefit to using the Solfege names vs just singing the numbers?":

There is: the solfege note names are monosyllabic, while the numbers aren't always. If you need to respect flattened or sharpened scale degrees, the numbers definitely stop being monosyllabic. Try singing "seven" instead of "ti". Try singing "flat three" instead of "me".

Answer 2

Solfege syllables are, in a sense, arbitrary. One can sing "do-ri-mi" or "1-2-3" or "a-b-c" or, really, anything else that helps one keep track of the musical information, be that note name (as in a "fixed" system) or note function (as in a "moveable" system). Some systems (specifically Curwen and Kodály [Wikipedia]) use hand signs. The Indian classical solfege system (Sargam) can also be adapted to Western scales.

Solfege why don't I just sing the numbers?

No reason. Go ahead and sing numbers, with the caveat that "do-re-mi" is more common, making it potentially easier to use in discussions with other musicians. On the other hand, anyone familiar with scale degrees will have no trouble with numbers.

Answer 3

The solfege notename syllables are arbitrary gibberish. They have been chosen as notenames because they are singable, monosyllabic with a variation of leading consonants and different ending vowels.

Numbers don't have those qualities, and even the monosyllabic numbers tend to have end consonants and/or diphthongs that complicate articulation emulating instruments with a percussive note start and sustained pitched vowel.

You could design your own system with those qualities (singing exercises may cycle through da, me, ni, po, tu, la, be or something like that irrespective of pitch, for example) but why bother?

Answer 4

The name 'ut' stopped being used for a good reason - it was hardly a sustainable name to be sung for longer notes. (Although I guess it could have been sung 'uuuut'). Seems like one Giovanni Batista Doni in 17C felt 'ut' wasn't too singable. And that idea took off well.

Thus all the solfege names are now usable for those longer notes, which is an advantage over singing numbers.

Singing numbers will obviously work, but as a poor neighbour to the well-known way of representing notes - solfege.

Answer 5

Numbers are fine. I use numbers when singing non-diatonic scales, because I don't know the solfege for them. One major advantage to solfege over numbers is the variety of monosyllabic vowel sounds.

Different vowels sound brighter or darker because they shape the second formant (i.e. your mouth). This can (and does) throw the ear; often we mistake brightness for sharpness and darkness for flatness. Even in experienced singers (though it may only affect the note to a few cents).

Solfege helps train us to sing notes on different vowel sounds so we don't make those mistakes.