Early starters Options

[RoseRodent]

Do you have a minimum starting age for your instrument? If so, how did you choose it?

I've noticed that most programmes round here do general musical skills for P1 and P1 (Year R and Y1) but will not take children for instrumental lessons until they are at least 7 and have done the musical skills. Certainly it's useful to have children who have studied rhythm, pulse and notation first, but if a younger child is really keen do we really want to put them off? Youtube is, of course, littered with children practically still in nappies performing technically advanced (but usually soulless) music, and the modern pressure is that early is always better, being ahead of your class is the name of the game. Maybe it's just about different teaching, that the Suzuki method particularly suits young children where perhaps other methods do not. I did the Stringbabies course, but I felt that if someone wanted to send me a tiny child I'd have to warn them to expect slower progress. I think it really just adds extra time, that a child of 9 could reach grade 1 in a year or so, a child of 4 probably more like 2.5 years.

What do you think?

[ExpressYourself]

I take them for piano at age 5 (preferring them to have started yr1 at school. However I've had great success with my own son from 4 but I can be flexible with him.

I use My First Piano Adventures and it is slow. Older children go much faster and I'm not sure yet of the advantages.

Meanwhile for younger children I do musicianship in groups and introduce the piano during these sessions but it's just a fun activity rather than anything else. They love it though and hopefully they will see the benefit when they start learning properly. There's no way of knowing as an individual. You'd have to do some proper large scale research!

Meanwhile for singing I don't have anyone under 11 but I don't see why I couldn't start then tiny as well. Moving from musicianship to simple songs to stuff from books like Singing Express before approaching graded level stuff. But again, starting younger doesn't mean they will overtake the older kids. It's just fun. Singing in groups at school would be as good but not all schools have a good quality music provision.

[pitcher54]

When I started teaching piano in local primary schools the unwritten rule was that instrumental lessons could begin in Year 3, and that still seems to be the norm in my area.

However, one family managed to buck the trend by requesting that each of their four children be allowed to start in Reception. It was not a popular move with the Headmaster at the time, but he reluctantly gave way. All four children proved to be able students.

One child I taught began on her fifth birthday and went on to become an Oxford organ scholar, but two recent five year olds have been much less able, mainly because of difficulties with concentration and both having very short attention spans. Shorter lessons seem to work better for these two kids.

I don't think you can apply rigid rules though, it all comes down to the individual child.

[violincjj]

I think if you start earlier you don't necessarily get to a fixed point sooner but you do get added depth. Hopefully we are all teaching Whole Musicians rather than jumping at grade hoops so this seems to be a good thing to me!

Youngest son had a 1/32 violin and he used to have odd 2 minutes most days with it from age 2. Of course we were singing too and he had a (very!) rich musical environment around him. But the things he learned through having the facility to reproduce music he liked on an instrument he liked from the earliest age were significant. I think his sensitivity to harmony is the thing that surprises me most lately. He's been happy to harmonise off the cuff in string group for ages, now he's able to analyse what is happening and to plan ahead for (funny!) effects. Commented on a song he heard that it had no perfect cadences in, saw a choral piece on a programme and didn't remember it until he heard the first chord. That sort of thing. Start early!

[Hedgehog]

I take each child on their own merits. If I am approached by parents wanting lessons for a 5 year old, I am willing to start but on a 15 minute lesson basis. At present I have an only-just-6 year old who is more than able to cope with the 20 minute beginner lesson that I usually offer but I make sure that the progress at the keyboard is balanced with aural, singing and rhythm work.

Unless the child is extraordinary, progress is usually slower with the younger age group, but you do get the benefit of the total immersion kind of effect that violincjj describes. It really is remarkable how sponge-like the brains of these young children are.

[maggiemay]

I will ' interview' from 5. Many children do not easily interact one-to-one at this age, and only a small percentage actually start lessons at this age. I'm looking for a connection with the child, and an ability to respond to simple instructions. If the child can read it's a bonus - some of the 'baby' theory books can be worked through with very little direction. Those who do start lessons begin with 15 or 20 minutes, and a 'trial period' of a month.

We take it from there. The right age is whatever is the right age for that child. I've had 6 and 7 year olds who were not ready to do an individual lesson, but who might have been fine in a group. I had one 6 year old come to see me who picked up the piano stool and waved it around. I didn't need to say anything - shocked mum took him home there and then.

Unusually I started a not-quite-five earlier this year. She has made a cracking start on 20 minutes per week.

I don't think it's about reaching grades. It's whether the child can benefit from the lessons or not. I do feel that children who start lessons too early or in a way inappropriate for their age (eg with a teaching style or book more suitable for older children ) may be put off enjoying music. In my experience it needs to be pretty precisely tailored for each child.

[Seer_Green]

I accept piano from 7, flute from 8 and singing from 10 - I'm very strict about this now becuase the few times when I've been encouraged to take them earlier it hasn't worked!

[Hubicka]

I teach gymnastics and SO many of the kids there tell me they want to learn violin but their school doesn't let them start till they are a certain age. Or that they have just started violin and really wanted to start earlier.
One violin pupil of mine says "i really wanted to learn violin for ages but they wouldnt let me start till i was 7, another girl got to start earlier before they introduced the new rule and now shes 3 grades ahead of me" I feel quite sorry for her, especially as all I hear each week is how 'amazing' this girl is and how she wants to be that good!
I also teach a 6 year old violin who has been wanting to start lessons in school but they won't let her so she came to me. I'm moving away in a few months and her parents are worried about finding her a new teacher as they won't let her start yet in school.

I would teach anyone from 4 upwards aslong as they were ready, every child is different. Even if for a while the lessons were game/fun orientated, anything to get them into it. I don't really understand the "not before age 7" rule but I assume its something to do with too many people wanting to learn in schools and not enough teachers so they have to make some cut off?

I think if you start earlier you don't necessarily get to a fixed point sooner but you do get added depth.

Yes I agree. In under 5's I wouldn't even be too bothered about including the actual instrument too much or even at all for a while, just immersion into music and thinking musically and rhythmically and having fun with it!

[Seer_Green]

I don't really understand the "not before age 7" rule but I assume its something to do with too many people wanting to learn in schools and not enough teachers so they have to make some cut off?

I don't know why it is in schools, but for me, under 7s are not where my skills lie. I don't really have any experience of that age group either in teaching or a general life sense. Consequently, I would rather concentrate my efforts where my skills are most suited, and this is one of the bonuses of teaching privately.

I suspect that in schools, they probably take the most likely age when people start and set that as the lower limit. Certainly, when I was at school, you couldn't start flute until you were in Year 5.

[Hubicka]

I don't really understand the "not before age 7" rule but I assume its something to do with too many people wanting to learn in schools and not enough teachers so they have to make some cut off?

I don't know why it is in schools, but for me, under 7s are not where my skills lie. I don't really have any experience of that age group either in teaching or a general life sense. Consequently, I would rather concentrate my efforts where my skills are most suited, and this is one of the bonuses of teaching privately.

That's fair enough - you know where your best skills lie and are using them which I think is very wise

This is irrelevant to your point just happen to be posting it on the same message! - I'm lucky to have been with an extremely good county music service, who now have something called the Infants Strings Project. It's mostly about fun, immersion into music, rhythms, games, songs, and getting familiarised with the instruments. As far as I know it's nothing to do with being in a class and learning to play the actual instrument, as they are very young. I think it's a really great idea, and a great way to get them started from an early age without scaring them off or being too difficult!

[RoseRodent]

I think the age rules also relate to the cost of the instruments. The county music service does not want to lend instruments to very small children to be left on the bus, dropped or to hit their little brother with. Some instruments are more suitable for early tuition than others, and my service has a blanket policy of not before P5 (which is age 8-9) just because that's the highest age that any of their instruments is "not recommended before" so nobody can learn a violin just because it would be foolhardy to start the bassoon or tuba at age 5. Some instruments require (at least according to some teachers) a full set of teeth, which also restricts the beginner age.

But I think the main thing, and one which irritates me immensely, is that they test children for musical "aptitude" and that's the age group the tests are written for. I don't really think there is such a thing as aptitude, just being immersed in the right sort of thing from the right age.

It's a shame most instruments are delicate, it would be nice for youngsters to have more access to them. Even if they just got to run wild with pretend representation of instruments that's still useful. The Bontempi and ELC range of fake instruments are quite nice, representations of the real thing but also not the end of the world if they get filled with spaghetti hoops. My daughter has grown up around music, so I think her "aptitude" score will be quite high. It's not because she inherited some amazing gift in the womb, it's just that she has had a recorder since she was born and the place is practically papered in sheet music.

[ExpressYourself]

But I think the main thing, and one which irritates me immensely, is that they test children for musical "aptitude" and that's the age group the tests are written for. I don't really think there is such a thing as aptitude, just being immersed in the right sort of thing from the right age.

So if they don't score highly they can't learn an instrument? Grrrr. Only sport and music work this way. Imagine if maths was the same. If in reception they tested the aptitude of the children and only those who could already understand basic numeracy would be allowed to continue learning maths!

Do they not think that music lessons might improve musical "aptitude". They must think you're born with it! Or not! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

[Aquarelle]

[[quote]quote name='maggiemay' date='Aug 17 2012, 09:56 AM' post='1165371']
I will ' interview' from 5. Many children do not easily interact one-to-one at this age, and only a small percentage actually start lessons at this age. I'm looking for a connection with the child, and an ability to respond to simple instructions. If the child can read it's a bonus - some of the 'baby' theory books can be worked through with very little direction. Those who do start lessons begin with 15 or 20 minutes, and a 'trial period' of a month.

We take it from there. The right age is whatever is the right age for that child. I've had 6 and 7 year olds who were not ready to do an individual lesson, but who might have been fine in a group. I had one 6 year old come to see me who picked up the piano stool and waved it around. I didn't need to say anything - shocked mum took him home there and then.

Unusually I started a not-quite-five earlier this year. She has made a cracking start on 20 minutes per week.

I don't think it's about reaching grades. It's whether the child can benefit from the lessons or not. I do feel that children who start lessons too early or in a way inappropriate for their age (eg with a teaching style or book more suitable for older children ) may be put off enjoying music. In my experience it needs to be pretty precisely tailored for each child.
[/quote][/quote]

This is very similar to my approach. I think Seer Green is right not to take an age group with whom he doesn't feel at ease. I am what was called back in the sixites an "Infant/Junior" trained teacher and I collected experience with the teenage group when working later as HOM in a London comprehensive.
I feel at home with all these age groups and will take on very young children for "adapted" musical activities if it seems right for the child. However, unlike Seeer Green I am a no go person with adults. Just can't do it.
So I think how young or old one takes them is a matter of where one feels comfortable teaching and preciscely which pedagogical skills one has.

[RoseRodent]

But I think the main thing, and one which irritates me immensely, is that they test children for musical "aptitude" and that's the age group the tests are written for. I don't really think there is such a thing as aptitude, just being immersed in the right sort of thing from the right age.

So if they don't score highly they can't learn an instrument? Grrrr. Only sport and music work this way. Imagine if maths was the same. If in reception they tested the aptitude of the children and only those who could already understand basic numeracy would be allowed to continue learning maths!

Do they not think that music lessons might improve musical "aptitude". They must think you're born with it! Or not! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

Exactly my feelings on it. That's how I got an instrument and that's why it was violin. Scores above 65% got to learn an instrument. From 65-75 were offered woodwind (deemed capable enough so long as a note was produced by having the correct fingers down) then 75-85% got brass lessons (considered to need to recognise that a note was correct or incorrect as one valve position can make several notes) and 85% and above got strings, as you have to make your own notes out of nowhere. I had the "aptitude" from learning recorder, spending many happy hours with the school keyboard and singing in choir. And listening to bucket loads of classical music at home.

Art frequently works this way too. Every other lesson involved learning something, art lessons were where you produced art. If you could already draw then you drew, if you could not draw then you cringed and did what you could. The notion that pencil control, looking for the light, different types of art shapes, breaking an object down into those shapes, that any of that was a teachable skill was lost on the art department. Then again, I went to a "good" school, which ironically often attracts the worst teachers because the students are very much self-sufficient. They are all good readers, highly literate, able to follow written information and answer the questions, so most "lessons" were Harry Potter style, there are the questions on the board, open your books and do the lesson while I officiate that you do not talk.

[Louise H]

But I think the main thing, and one which irritates me immensely, is that they test children for musical "aptitude" and that's the age group the tests are written for. I don't really think there is such a thing as aptitude, just being immersed in the right sort of thing from the right age.

So if they don't score highly they can't learn an instrument? Grrrr. Only sport and music work this way. Imagine if maths was the same. If in reception they tested the aptitude of the children and only those who could already understand basic numeracy would be allowed to continue learning maths!

Do they not think that music lessons might improve musical "aptitude". They must think you're born with it! Or not! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif)

My nephew in Scotland fell into this category. He had an aptitude test to decide whether he could learn an instrument probably a couple of years ago now, so probably when he was in P5. He didn't get through, therefore he wasn't allowed to learn an instrument. I gather the test involved listening/clapping rhythms and maybe some singing back but I don't know the details. This was for learning violin only - no other instrument was on offer at his school. I have no idea what kind of music education he had in primary school before this or whether there was any kind of preparation for them in order to do the aptitude test...