Early starters Options

[Sunrise]

If I take a young child (under 8) for violin lessons I make sure I have heard it from their lips (not their parents) that they REALLY want to learn it. It's so physical, and can be quite uncomfortable at the beginning, and experience shows that if they are not completely desperate to learn then 9 times out of 10 they give up a few months in.

I can't believe I have SEVEN new violin starters for September, ranging from 5 y olds to 11....excited!!

[owainsutton]

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.

This is definitely a typical approach for school-based lessons. There's numerous reasons for it, including it being an age at which all the children can be expected to sit still and listen for more than a moment!

More prosaic is the common situation where group lessons on other instruments are subsidised by the school, with only part of the cost being passed on to the parents. There's necessarily a fixed number of slots determined by how much the school can afford, and by starting them only in the later primary years ensures more children actually get access to this opportunity.

Once upon a time, I was terrified of dealing with six-year-olds. Now, with more experience, I'm happy to take on any children of school age, provided they and their parents understand all that's involved. Perhaps now I've reached a more typical avuncular age makes the three-way relationship in lessons with parents present more approachable for all involved, too...

I view pre-school music teaching (instrumental or not) as a specialism in its own right, but then again, maybe I've just not (yet) had the right experience. I do feel that role requires a certain personality, though, one which can't be taught.

Regarding selection: in my first week of a full-time peri job, one primary school provided me with a room containing a couple of dozen children ranging from years 3 to 6, and just assumed I was going to test and audition them for the available lessons. I simply took the older ones (for the reason mentioned above), but in retrospect I wish I'd done it via names-in-a-hat, to emphasise the concept of equal access!

[Splog]

I usually teach from about 7, as I was taught that round about then the singing mechanism is sufficiently well developed. I like them to be able to read well, as I start sightreading right away. I am about to start teaching a six year old, but I have a feeling that much of that will be singing games.

My daughter was desperate to learn the flute, and she was obviously musical, but the teacher explained to me that until she was in about year 3 her arms simply would not be long enough. (She also did ballet from before her second birthday, and wanted to do the classic ballet pose with arms arched and meeting above the head, but the teacher pointed out that baby arms are too short to reach. Poor thing.)

When I first learned trombone, at about age 9, only those thought sufficiently intelligent to be able to miss lessons were offered instrumental tuition. We were given an aural test, and only those who passed were allowed to continue. Despite the unfairness of it all, I consider myself very lucky, as it was all free - including theory lessons to grade 5. (Incidentally, due to short arms, I couldn't play all the positions for a few years.)

[owainsutton]

I usually teach from about 7, as I was taught that round about then the singing mechanism is sufficiently well developed. I like them to be able to read well, as I start sightreading right away. I am about to start teaching a six year old, but I have a feeling that much of that will be singing games.

Games are fun! They can be singing, clapping, walking/marching/skipping, but they're never irrelevant. They can touch on improvisation (*reversing* the clapped rhythm to make an answer can be a start).

Regarding singing, the minor third is the interval Kodaly focussed on with the youngest children, because they're able to vocalise the interval (if not the specific pitches) with ease. That is very relevant for the teaching of major and minor tonality, and therefore connects well to the piano and the violins.

[Splog]

Thanks for the suggestions Owain. He is a bit young for what I normally do, and has a very short attention span, but he can pitch match and is an excellent mimic.

[ExpressYourself]

I have a couple of 5 and 6 year olds who can sight read on piano really well. For singing the Go for Bronze scheme is an excellent sight reading resource. I'm planning to start the confident younger ones on that soon but it's worked wonders for my our singers.

[Aquarelle]

My daughter was desperate to learn the flute, and she was obviously musical, but the teacher explained to me that until she was in about year 3 her arms simply would not be long enough.

This no longer applies if you use the Apprentice Flute which is very reasonably priced and has a curved head and isn't long enough to play low C but will do all the other notes needed by a beginner. I have found it works very well for one of my pupils who is a small for her age but very hard working nine year old. It may well not have been on the markent when your daughter wanted to learn.

[Tixylix]

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.

My school did musical aptitude tests for violin in year 3 (age 7-8), they said this was because they had about 25 people wanting to learn and only 5 places/school instruments. They may or may not have had the same for other instruments depending on demand, but your instrument wasn't decided on your score - maybe if you didn't get into violin they offered you something else but I passed the violin test so I don't know. Maybe they thought it seemed more legitimate to offer some kind of test and give the places to the top 5 scorers than just pick names out of a hat or take the first 5 who returned the forms or something. Most of my junior school's methods and principles made very little sense and music was no exception.

We had a group of 5 and were taught from the Team Strings book which our teacher said was the only book we would need as it would last us for all 4 years of junior school. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blink.gif) We did not use the bow at all for the first year. That teacher retired at the start of year 6 and the new one was horrified when we told her this and immediately started us on a new book, though she complained a lot that we were the least successful group in adjusting to her teaching methods (which makes sense as we'd been with the previous teacher the longest, but she got very irate about it).

[windy]

I don't start woodwind players until they have their permanent teeth at the front. I have found many times over the years that they get frustrated by the inevitable lack of progress/going backwards/hurty mouth that happens when their teeth fall out, and they tend to stop practising, which is a precursor to giving up.

I also find that many children under the age of permanent teeth are not physically big enough to hold an instrument correctly and then get into the 'right hand under the side keys' (clarinet) and 'right palm resting on the flute' habits which are SOOOO hard to break. If I taught in an area where the parents could afford a lightweight instrument to start on and then change to a full orchestral instrument then I might not have so many problems - but even a curved head flute is very heavy, and the Clarineo type clarinets don't seem to have really taken off as there is zilch resale market once the child has finished with them.

I have tried offering musicianship-type lessons until the front teeth come through but the difficulty is persuading parents of the value of these... they seem to think that it should be much cheaper/free as 'it's not really like proper teaching, is it?'

[RoseRodent]

If I taught in an area where the parents could afford a lightweight instrument to start on and then change to a full orchestral instrument then I might not have so many problems - but even a curved head flute is very heavy, and the Clarineo type clarinets don't seem to have really taken off as there is zilch resale market once the child has finished with them.

Maybe you could get into reselling them yourself? My viola teacher used to sell instruments as a side arm of her teaching, she knew exactly who needed a step-up instrument so she'd take our old student instruments to sell to the intermediate students and their beginner instruments would be sold back to her. The Nuvo J-flute is really light, you'd only need to get a few into circulation and you could sell them to potential students. They are going for about ?100 at the moment and you should be able to resell them for about ?45, you just need someone to be the first to make that purchase so you can buy it back at ?40.

I just bought a Clarineo myself as my 6 year old daughter is in love with the clarinet, and I paid ?45 for it second hand. I was surprised not to see more of them for sale, I don't think it's a lack of a second hand market as much as a lack of instruments being put up for sale! Or people being too greedy about what they want for them considering the current new price. I certainly had a siginficant bidding war for the one I bought. I assumed that if there really were people buying them as a first step to a real clarinet there would be a bouyant second hand market for them, but it seems most people appear to buy them instead of a clarinet, older adults who would like to play but can't support a heavy instrument or people who just give up.

[Aquarelle]

- but even a curved head flute is very heavy, and the Clarineo type clarinets don't seem to have really taken off as there is zilch resale market once the child has finished with them.

The Apprentice Flute is not heavy. I have a small nine year old (eight when she started) who tires very easily on account of illness but she manages very well indeed on her Apprentice flute.