I just got a talented 9 year old piano student. He is a transfer from another teacher. He had been using the Suzuki curriculum (never heard of it). Apparently, the book comes with CD. So whoever is going to learn pieces from the book could listen to the CD. And trust me, this boy has a really good ear. A completely perfect pitch! He could play the piece with the exact right hand and left hand! But of course, without expression because he didn't even know what cresc. is stand for.

Can you imagine that?

So, his mom wanted me to teach him to play piano, but her son even don't know which note is middle C! His mom was aware with her son's situation. And she wanted me to teach him reading notes also.

I had taught him once last week. I let him play, but only Hanon to improve his technique. I didn't ask him to read the notes one by one because I just simply him to play. The other book is Burgmuller. I hadn't let him play that. I said, if you can read the note by yourself, you may play. So 15 minutes of Hanon and the rest is theory, including note reading, rhythm, etc.

Do you have any suggestion for me? I'm afraid he will be bored by playing Hanon only. But I don't want to play the piece for him, then he just imitate me.

Thanks.

Ernie

The Suzuki method is very focused on listening a great deal to pieces you are going to learn before hand, and on imitating a teacher's playing. It is really good for building aural awareness and aural memory, develops strong memorising skills in general, and because children are often taught in small groups, can be wonderful for ensemble playing. Please don't dismiss it out of hand, it has very real strengths. That said it is clearly very different from the way you have been teaching up to now so you need a plan! Can you perhaps talk to the parents and establish their reasons for changing? Did they want to find a Suzuki teacher but were unable to in your area, or are they disillusioned with the aproach themselves? How much can you find out about incorporating some aspects of the Suzuki method into your own teaching, so it is not too much of a wrench for the child? Remember he may well have to step back a bit in his playing to learn notation, which he may find depressing, so could you try teaching a number of pieces in ways he is accustomed to?

(By the way it is a shame this pupil was not able to imitate a crescendo, perhaps it was not demonstrated properly or enough times to them - you might like to see if they can do it from your own playing. From the little I have seen of children taught this way some are able to do quite wonderful things with phrasing and expression all through imitation.)

All the best!

I think you need to be careful here not to crush his enthusiasm for the music with the necessity to be able to read it.

How about splitting the lesson into sections, spend a portion of the time on sight reading (you will have to go back to basic with this) setting very specific reading goals for homework each week. A portion of the time on technical skills, then the rest on musical things, either new repertoire and/or improvising skills. To keep his enthusiasm it is important that he continues to play things that he enjoys along side other more technical requirements.

good luck

D xx

It might help to work on two levels at once here to keep interest.
Let him learn some things in the way he has done so far. It's a good skill he has there so try not to dismiss it.
At the same time explain that if he wants to learn to read music so that he can play things without having listened first then it will mean playing some simpler things too for a while to develope this skill.
You may find that he will pick this up quite quickly with the right approach. I don't think he'a too young for you to start with a basic tour of how notation works. You can explain how the stave works as a ladder on which the notes move by step form line to space. For a pianist it's like a map of how you move from note to note.
It's possible that you can start with a tutor that begins with 5 notes in each hand, separately at first then togetherto get him used to reading simple intervals. You can build note naming around this.
I've had to use a similar approach with a previously self taught student who had learned to play by following a computer guide which showed which notes to play. As long as the student really wants to learn to read notation and you manage some sort of balance it can work out ok in a fairly short space of time.

I have no experience of pupils previously taught by the Suzuki method, but I have had one or two who could play really well at about Grade 4 or 5 level, but with no reading ability, because of a combination of dyslexia and an excellent ear. It's a very difficult task to bring their reading up to a standard that matches their playing, and I never really managed it. The problem is that what they can read sounds so simplistic compared to what they can play by rote and by ear, so they don't put the time into learning to read. (And it's obviously a more soul-destroying task for a dyslexic than for others as well.) The only thing that I found worked a little bit was giving them familiar stuff which wasn't so familiar that they could pick out every note by ear without making some effort in the reading department. Wanting to play 'the middle bit' of Fur Elise as well as the opening section was a winner for a while with one - until he got hold of a cd and came back with it perfect - expression, articulation, the lot - and feeling really proud of himself. But still unable to read a Grade One piece without great effort. What about trying someChristmas music with yours? He'll know the melodies, but show him how much better it will sound if he takes the time to work out the bass clef notes as well? Obviously he'll have to learn these, or have something stuck to his piano, so he can work them out as he goes along. Going right back to basics can just destroy a child like this. However good the Suzuki methos is, to take things to this level without teaching any reading at all is wrong, I feel, as the pupil will hit a brick wall at some stage or another and be likely to throw the head up and pack it all in.

Thanks for the replies! Thanks God I'm not the only one who got students like this.

I just couldn't understand the Suzuki method. I am pretty amazed with my student's hearing. But the rest...it made me so sad

The idea of to be able to play classical piano pieces is to be able to read the notes by yourself, isn't it?

I mean, if others who are taking pop piano lesson is to learn songs that they ever heard of. If classical, it's different. We are often handed with pieces we never heard of.

We had our second lesson this evening. He played Hanon with completely bad hand position. Like I predicted, he was too lazy to practice the technique and for him, it's boring. I completely understand that. So, I taught him Arabesque today because like some of you said, I shouldn't make him discourage to learn piano. So I played Arabesque once and he lighten up

He had ever heard his old piano teacher playing this piece and he kind of recognize it. I taught him the first part by imitating me. I gave him a homework by learning the second part at home by himself. (crossing finger) I hope he did his homework next week.

That might depend on how much teaching you've done on note and rhythm reading if you are expecting him to read it.
From what you've said I'd have imagined him to still be needing fairly basic things to work out himself for a while yet even if he has done hins homework. There's often rather a large gap between knowing these thing in theory and understanding them well enough to apply them.

Exactly - it might need to be a case of carrot and stick, let him do some by ear - but also make him sightread albeit much easier repertoire.

Do Suzuki publish a note-reading book for the piano? I acquired one for my daughter for the cello and found it very helpful. (She is learning in France where theory is taught separately and most instrument teachers think it is not their job to teach pupils how to read music). The cello book has pitch on the left hand page and rhythm on the right. All the pitch work is in crotchets and all the rhythm work on one open string. I worked through it systematically with my daughter and by the end of the book she had become a competent sight-reader at her level (around grade 3). The book is very progressive and my daughter found the first pages very easy so to start with she did four or five pages in one session, as things got harder she sometimes spent a couple of sessions on one page.

I think the teacher was trained to teach music in Suzuki method. I'm not saying that the method is not good. My student's hearing is superb. It meant he had learned something from the method, isn't it?

The music school where I teach also used Suzuki books for the violin. I haven't discuss this matter with the teacher. Do all Suzuki's students can't read music sheet? I'm curious. Maybe I should take violin class to find out more. (Personally, I'm thinking to start learning violin. My goal is playing Canon in D for my friends. They love that piece so much )

Actually my daughter hasn't been taught with the Suzuki method and has supposedly been reading music right from the start but the problem was that her theory class was concentrating on learning the treble clef and her cello music (obviously) was in the bass clef so my daughter was relying very heavily on finger numbers to "read" the music. I am convinced that being able to sight-read is important and was looking for someway of helping her. Her teacher had nothing to do with the Suzuki note-reading book (in fact after a couple of months her teacher noticed how good her sight-reading had become and wondered what had happened), I spent five to ten minutes a day working on the book with her, the rest of her practice time and her lessons were devoted to ""proper" pieces.

What I'm trying to say is, that if you adopt a systematic approach and do a little every day, then progress in reading music can be fast. I think, however, that you should present it at as such (ie by saying "These are exercices purely designed to help you learn to read music") and that they should be used in parallel with pieces of the level he usually plays at. The only difficulty here is that your pupil would need someone at home who is able to check whether the pupil is actually playing the right notes/rhythm in these exercices; the idea is not that the pupil practices the same exercice all week but that he sight-reads as many new exercices as possible.

I know this is an oldish thread. I don't come on this forum often.

My son learnt via the Suzuki method for about 2-3 years, then we decided that I would continue to teach him (teacher moved.....difficult to get to). I've also taught a few other ex-Suzuki students when another Suzuki teacher gave up the 'job'.

Yes, they do learn to read music in the Suzuki system, but it's secondary. Rather like how we first learn to speak, then a few years later we learn to read.

My son reached about a Grade three playing standard before he was taught where middle C was. I found it fascinating, but I can understand 'traditional' teachers being shocked

He reached about Grade 7 standard when he was 11, and by then could read as well as my other grade 7 students, and boy, don't I envy his ability to learn things by heart so quickly. Just a couple of play throughs and he's got it. He also has a good ear and can work out tunes without the music much quicker than most.

Another thing was the high level of technical training he had with the Suzuki method. As no lesson time was needed learning notation, and pieces were played over and over again, there was plenty of time to work on how he should hold and move his hands, posture, getting a good tone etc.

Watching his lessons, and those of the teachers other Suzuki students was a great learning opportunity for me. I was amazed at how able these children were. 3-4 year olds playing little Bach pieces with great technique. They weren't even allowed to go onto book 2 unless they could play the whole of book 1 (which is far from easy), by heart effortlessly.

I do believe that if you take on a Suzuki child, you need to really look into the system and understand it. The pros and cons. It's not like taking a child from Thompsons to Piano Time. It's almost like another subject completely (in the early stages anyway).

I also believe that when it comes to teaching a Suzuki child to read music, you have to be extra vigilant. As they are so aurally strong with good memory skills, they just don't get the practice in reading notation that others get. For example. The average non-Suzuki child gets a new piece, works out the notes, keeps their eyes on the music for at least the first few times of playing (if not forever). They are constantly reinforcing the note reading part.

An ex-Suzuki player will learn to read the notes through, maybe just the once, and they will then rely on their memory and aural skills the second time around. It's easy to think that they are good note readers until you catch them out by asking them to go from bar 34

And of course, the playing is much further on than the the reading. As they usually start so young, I like to think that they are ahead with the playing, rather than behind with the reading It's tough for them to have to go back to the simple tunes when their playing is so far advanced. After all, they hardly ever do really simple tunes even at the start (once they've moved past the million Twinkle songs anyway)

What I did to help them with the transition from Suzuki to traditional was to continue to hear them play their Suzuki pieces, but spend the other half of the lesson working through my normal method books. The Suzuki pieces are lovely. It's a shame to abandon them completely.

When I worked on the method books of my chosing, I moved them fast. So it was 3-4 pieces minimum a week....usually more. I may have needed to pull out loads of other methods so it wasn't getting too hard too quick, but the idea was that they were continually having new pieces to read and the pieces being changed as soon as they showed signs of memorizing.

We still had a piece or two that they would learn close to perfection, which they automatically memorized, but a fair bit of time was spent just sight reading fun pieces.

All my ex-Suzuki students now read well and have also managed to keep their aural and memory skills thanks to their early training.

I must admit to really enjoying taking on these kids, though I would always encourage them to stay with the Suzuki method if possible had they started with it. If they can't for various reasons, they are a joy to teach if you teach them with an understanding of their method. For one thing, they don't get to do anything modern. They go crazy when I give them their first jazzy pieces and a Christmas carol Also there is usually very good support from the parent as the parent learns how to teach their child the Suzuki pieces from the start. It's a partnership between teacher, parent and student.

sorry it's long. Hope there's something there to help.

Brilliant post, Louise, thank you!

I'm fascinated by the Suzuki method. Any method that encourages kids to enjoy music can't be bad.

Traditional teaching at a young an age can be very off-putting in the long run - as I found to my cost when I was younger. I'm all for music groups etc that are taught in a 'fun' environment whilst still instilling the basic foundations for musical training. And I'm very impressed with the quality of private teachers out there nowadays (sadly lacking in my time) who manage to teach in a style that's suitable for young kids - my 7 year old loves her music (piano and violin) lessons and wants to be a music teacher when she grows up! She also enjoyed both her grade 1 exams (That was fun! When can I do grade 2? ) which also says something about examiners nowadays as well!

It's important to maintain enthusiasm above all else. In whatever line of work, I'm sure we are all familiar with the talented but bored/lazy pupil vs the less talented but focussed pupil - and we all know who gets the results at the end of the day.

I agree with Cyrilla - lovely post, Louise!