Solfege versus normal note names (do, re, mi v. C, D, E)

Question

At a recent gig in France, someone asked me for a 'mi bemol' to pitch some singers. Had to consider for a moment, then realised they wanted Eb. (French system uses fixed do). A hand signal would have done, but it seems they don't use that either! It seems the musos here are quite versed in that speak, and prefer it to what most of the Western world uses - real note names. I wonder if one system has any advantages over another, or is it just what one has got used to? On a personal note, movable do has more going for it. But that's not the issue.

In response to the first answer, and subsequent comments - Which actually is more widely used - fixed do, or note names? It's obvious from the question that I assumed, perhaps erroneously, the latter.

Answer 1

First, beware of ethnocentrism. I disagree with your characterization of "real note names". Mi bemol is a real note name, just in a different language. Solfege is used as note names in Italian, Portuguese, Spanish, French, Romanian, Greek, Russian, Mongolian, Flemish, Persian, Arabic, Hebrew, Ukrainian, Bulgarian and Turkish. (See History of Note Names for more on this.) Both systems are well over 1000 years old, so there is plenty of history to point to for proponents of both systems.

As to advantages, I don't think that any purported advantages or disadvantages have had much real impact on these systems. Just like the different alphabets in use today, they evolved at different historical times and places, and much of what has been carried down is anachronistic.

If we were to create a new musical notation system today, 'A' would almost certainly be placed where 'C' is today, intervals would begin counting from 0 instead of 1, and time signatures would be notated differently, perhaps more akin to Carl Orff's method. We maintain what we have because these systems are painstakingly learned, and there is little motivation by those who have learned them to change anything once they can finally use the systems fluently. This is akin to grammar. Systems maintain or change, but not always for obvious reasons, not always at obvious times, and not always in the most advantageous ways.

Answer 2

I invite you to think about going from C, D, E to do, re, mi (fixed do) as nothing more than a translation. In essence there's no difference between the two, except words, and as such there is no (dis)advantage to either.

What complicates matters from an anglosaxon viewpoint is that in their sytem the words 'do', 're', 'mi',... have a different meaning as movable do syllables, which is something entirely different. The cultures using the solfege syllables in a 'fixed do'-system refer to the notes with their scale degree when their relative position in their scale is important, either by tonic, submediant, mediant, ... or as 1, 2, 3,...

So see it as a translation:

Anglosaxon -> Latin

C, D, E,... -> do, re, mi...

do, re, mi,... -> 1, 2, 3,...