In layman's terms, please could someone kindly explain to me what kodaly, dalcroze and suzuki is and how these methods may be better than traditional methods? I have googled them but I'm finding it all very confusing.

We have "tame Kodaly experts" aplenty her, so I couldn't possibly compete with them for an explanation.

I can say a little about Suzuki, though. It's intended for younger children, and is sometimes defined as a "mother-tongue" method. It began with violin and has extended to other instruments including piano, cello and flute. There is a concentration on listening, memory, aural training and matters such as posture, good tone and good intonation, and this is done by teaching entirely by rote for the first couple of years or so, using the same basic repertoire, so that the child knows the sound of the piece he is to learn before starting it. They are not held back by problems of trying to read music. One important factor is that the (or a) parent is in the lesson, often taking part as well, and practises with the child during the week. Group lessons at an appropriate level are usually a factor of this method.

Children using the method in Japan don't start to learn to read music on the violin until they have got past the Vivaldi Concerto in A minor, at which point it comes very quickly and easily (our teacher in Somerset used to start them reading earlier because in this country they would probably be making music with children from other musical disciplines and would probably need the literacy)

In the early stages there are a lot of rhythm games and fun activities - I remember my daughter on a Suzuki course sharing a violin with another child while one did the bowing and the other the left hand on the fingerboard. It's a very multisensory method - lots of looking, listening and movement.

A story I always liked was that Shinichi Suzuki was asked if two of his older students could perform a duo sonata for a radio broadcast. He provided them with the music and left them to look at it and start to learn it. He returned to the house not long afterwards to hear the sound of the music perfectly played, and when he went into the room they were already playing it from memory. He had only been gone a few minutes. "Oh, we've read through it once" they said, "so now we know it"

Would you say that learning Suzuki on piano or violin would be pointless if a child could already read music, play another instrument fairly well and was over the age of 10?

A committed Suzuki teacher might say no, not pointless, since the principles of how the music is learnt would still be there - you learn by listening (and partly by watching) and don't stumble through sight-reading, and the posture and tone are all-importsnt. Plus, the parent is supposed to support the lesson and the practice, thgouh in the later stages I'm sure it's far more hands-off.

However, if my child was "well over" the age of 10, I wouldn't try to go down that route. Many teachers who do teach Suzuki to younger children also use more traditional methods, though, and incorporate the best of Suzuki principles into their work

All I can say is that these three ways of teaching compliment each other. However, I certainly know of one "Kodaly expert" who makes very useful contributions to this forum and I am sure will assist you in that regard. I know her personally and would not describe her as tame (or wild for that matter) but extremely knowledgable in her field.

'He is not a tame lion...but he is good...'

By way of illustration I'll tell you a little of what I've been doing to try to include aspects of all these in my group classes this year. These are for violin and viola students.

The preGrade 1 group play entirely from memory and learn a new simple piece each time we meet. We sing it first and use Kodaly handsigns often. Last time we were doing Row, Row, Row Your Boat. A lot of the kids can play a tune like that by ear anyway after singing it but I also 'teach' it by rote at this point and we repeat until most of them are fluent. We added a 2 beat sway to tie in with the Dalcroze actitvity that we have been doing off and on all year - we have foam footballs that we bounce or roll in pairs while we sing. It's a lot of fun to watch and do! We also often use 'movement' words for rhythms and practise moving to a 'walk' pulse or a 'jogging' pulse round the room, then we copy rhythm patterns with instruments and say the movement words that correspond.

As somebody trained in none of the three, here's my attempt to sum up each of the three methods in a slogan:

Kodaly: "Learning music comes before playing an instrument"

Suzuki: "Learn music as you learn your mother tongue"

Dalcroze: "Music through movement"

Trivial to the point of insulting, I'll plead guilty. However, it's important to recognise how various elements and principles from each of the three approaches have influenced most instrumental teaching. Peripatetic teachers with local authorities are in particular expected to provide an integrated approach to general musicianship rather than simple apprentice-like instrumental instruction.

Teachers benefit from an awareness of Kodaly principles if they need to work with large groups, for example, and Dalcroze-like activites can help develop a rhythmic and harmonic awareness while also being a 'fun' part of a lesson.

You did realise I was quoting, didn't you?

I think the single thing that I have learned from all these approaches is that music is not the black dots on the page - the dots are just a coded way of writing the music down.

So the Suzuki method instils music into the heart of the child - and Suzuki himself was very interested in the idea that music could make humans better people - by immersing them in beautiful renditions of the carefully and brilliantly chosen repertoire. They have a good model of performance to aspire to and the constant listening gives them an accurate internal version of each piece before they play it.

Kodaly asks the child to use their own voice to make music following natural (to our Western ears) intervals - the handsigns work like magic for many because they give a physical gesture to each sound and another big physical clue with the intervals between sounds. These are great for learners who are not automatically clued-into pitch relationships.

Dalcroze is a lot of fun, yes, I think I am only touching the edges of it but when I am brave and I get the kids to do more fluffy stuff like phrasing with chiffon scarves I see (even the big boys!) exploring musical sensitivity in a wonderful way. I need to do more of it! Anyone done a Dalcroze course??

I started but didn't finish.
I did one term but chose not to continue.
One reason was that I really couldn't face what would be another 5 weeks of dance class. For me that element was too much. The effort to coordinate the movement meant that it didn't really do what it was meant to though i do see the value of it. The other thing was that I didn't fully realise that it would start to demand similar time and effort as learning another instrument and I was at the point where I was getting more serious about a second instrument already.

I think that's a real shame; from everything I've seen and read, Dalcroze shouldn't be dance - that's not the aim. Of course, the actual physical movement element is just one part of it too, but I am aware that some courses and workshops focus very heavily on this.

Maybe not strictly dance but it felt like it. lots of steps to coordinate and I think it was about half of each term.

It's what would put me off that too: my insides are curling up in embarrassment at the very idea of doing the Dalcroze stuff: and before anyone says, you have to try it (usually followed by, "you'd love it, it's such fun" ) - I've done similar before and feel awkward and stupid in a way I don't if hiding behind my instruments. What I don't get is why my feeling like this upsets and offends those who are advocates of these forms of learning - all I'm pointing out is that it isn't for everyone. Kodaly, in particular the signing, would have the same effect on me - and of Suzuki I'm really only aware of its use for very young children, and not sure how what is done there can be adapted to suit older people: it's said of the very early stages that a small tot will begin by sitting under the piano whilst an older pupil plays, learning by hearing....but a kid of ten might well not fit under the piano quite as well....(and would get bored).

I don't think it should offend anyone Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and you're quite right in saying that they aren't for everyone. I don't have any experience of Suzuki, but having seen Kodaly and Dalcroze in action, I do find something very special in them. I don't however teach in an environment where there's much interest in improving general musicianship skills which means in my own teaching, I can only drop a few things in here and there based on some of the underlying principles.

Some factions do get offended by any suggestion that their methods might not be universally applicable...though in fact, since the fora show time and again, everyone's set of aptitudes is not the same . I've just happened to observe it in relation to previous criticisms voiced on here.

I can only comment on my own experience of starting to learn the violin using the Suzuki method. A friend's mother, who was a professional violinist, heard that I was learning with a Suzuki teacher and tried to warn my mother off it as a way of learning. I was later taught by three of the most distinguished teachers in London, which culminated in my being rejected from the RAM, RCM, and RNCM. Whether or not my starting to learn with a Suzuki teacher had anything to do with my eventual failure as a musician I have no idea. I suppose had I started out being taught by a member of the Endellion Quartet I might either have developed better technique or been told from the outset that I would never be playing with the Royal Concertgebouw Orchestra and that I should give up any hope of playing the violin rather than waste the next ten years working away at an instrument I would never really be able to play. I wouldn't say that I hold a grudge against my former Suzuki teacher, but I wonder how things might have turned out had I had better teaching and/or guidance.

Suzuki is all about playing well, with good intonation, good posture, good aural sensitivity, and good tone. I can't see how being taught these at the early stage can in itself mean you didn't have good guidance. There's no intrinsic difference between Suzuki technique or musicianship and any other - having siad that, I know that Suzuki was fairly insistent on a low bow-arm, even on the G string, but it obviously worked for him, whereas we had a boy who got a scholarship to a school where they said he had to have his lessons there, and they taught him a high elbow technique. However, I know there are many aspects or technique on all instruments in which skilled and experienced teachers don't agree. If you were taught be three disctinguished teachers, didn't any of them tell you there was anything wrong with your technique when you started with them? I would have thought that at least one of them would have recognised something which wasn't right.

Our teacher had many children who got into the National Children's Orchestra in primary school. I would have thought that was an indication that there was nothing much wrong with the way they were being taught. The only thing, as far as I culd tell, that you didn't get from Suzuki in the early stages, was music literacy, and when it did happen, in many cases it happened, as our teacher put it, "all of a piece" because the music iteself just made so much sense.

Yes, of course all my teachers did nothing but criticise poor technique. Interestingly enough, the low bow arm was one thing for which I was constantly criticised, though this is the first I have heard of it being associated with Suzuki. Immediately after I left my Suzuki teacher, before I went to study with a professor from Trinity College of Music, I did have a non-Suzuki teacher who I think also achieved very little with me. In fact it was this professor from Trinity who gave me the best advice anyone ever gave me: give up the violin. But with so much invested in the idea of becoming a string player of one sort or another I wasn't content just to give up, and my parents certainly weren't pleased with the idea, so I took up the viola and was taught by a former principal from the Royal Opera House orchestra who thought me good enough to make it professionally, a view confirmed by a professor from the Royal Academy of Music to whom, with my main teacher's permission, I went for additional teaching. In the end, though, the head of strings at the RNCM, a gentleman distinguished for his bluntness of manner, said that he could not understand why anybody had allowed me to pursue something as obviously pointless as having a stab at music at a professional level.

It is quite possible, of course, that my first two violin teachers were simply not very good teachers and that the fact that the first of all was a Suzuki teacher might have nothing at all to do with her not being very good. And it is also quite possible that I was just one of those students who was musically ineducable. I suppose if I have one complaint overall it is that too many of my teachers were too encouraging. As I say, the best thing that any teacher ever did for me, probably, was to tell me that I would never play the violin. I just think it's a shame that one of my earlier teachers didn't say, when far less was invested in the idea of my one day making a career of it, that I was simply not going to get anywhere. It certainly would have saved me a very miserable trip back from Manchester, knowing that my upcoming auditions at the RAM and RCM were similarly futile and that I was only turning up to them as the audition fee was non-refundable. So when I talk about having guidance from teachers I don't just mean technical advice, I mean guidance about my overall career trajectory.

A fundamental piece of advice that every teacher ought to give: don't try to make a living as a professional instrumentalist unless you can't bear the thought of doing anything else.

I may be reading you wrongly but you come across as someone who thinks that it's hardly worthwhile learning an instrument if you aren't going to reach professional standards.
If you loved the violin then I don't think that a teacher telling you you would never play it was very useful at all. You don't have to be conservatoire standard or anywhere near to enjoy playing.

Absolutely. I got additional individualised advice from my teacher: "You'd hate it."

In answer to the OP (apologies for the essay-length reply):

Zoltan Kodaly (1882-1967) was a Hungarian with a traditional musical upbringing. His parents were amateur musicians and he remembered sitting under his mother's grand piano at the age of four, listening to her play Mozart, watching a beautiful sunset. He started composing in his teens and also taught at the Music Academy (later the Liszt Academy) in Budapest. There he was startled to find students who were fluent instrumentalists but who couldn't hear the music in their heads before they played it.

He, along with his contemporary Bela Bartok, travelled the Hungarian countryside collecting folk music.

At that time Hungary was a very oppressed country, heavily influenced by German culture, and had little sense of national identity (I believe that Hungarian was not the official language of the country until 1919).

These influences above made him think deeply about how to bring music, and musical literacy, to his country. He recognised the importance of an early start - 'nine months before the birth of the mother' was his reply to the question, 'When should music education begin?'

He felt passionately that early musical experiences should be of the highest quality (he expressed the opinion that if it had not been something of the calibre of Mozart that he heard his mother playing, he would not have become a musician).

Kodaly realised the intrinsic quality of folk music - he felt that, as it had been honed and polished over centuries, that it was a very pure form of music and that it contained many elements of art music, but in a smaller form. Thus, the experience and study of folk music would lead naturally to a study of art music. He also recognised that the voice was the best instrument through which to experience music first. Not only does everyone have one, but the inner hearing is activated when singing and musical concepts are experienced in quite a different way - singing is an internal skill - YOU make the sound - whereas playing an instrument is an external skill - you make something else make the sound. Anything learned through the singing voice has a different effect from learning it through an external instrument.

He visited the Cheltenham Three Choirs' Festival in the 1920s and was hugely struck by the use of relative solfa in the UK. This had been developed in the 19th century by Sarah Glover and then John Curwen. He realised that this was a powerful tool for the development of pitch awareness and skills, and that the related handsigns provided a kinaesthetic, visual tool for helping to train pitch acuity.

He and his colleagues and students travelled around Europe, collecting and learning about tools such as relative solfa and the rhythm names first developed in 19th century France.

Gradually they developed a collection of folk material and arranged it, and the acquisition of musical skills and knowledge, in a sequential order.

The first 'singing primary school' was set up in Kodaly's home town of Kecskemet in 1950. At one time there were over 200 of these schools - sadly, now, there are about 100. Kodaly wrote many pieces for children's choirs and the standard of choral singing rocketed.

It was in the early 1960s that people started to realise this quiet revolution in music education in Hungary and went to see for themselves. Yehudi Menuhin asked Kodaly to send someone to the UK to teach at his school and Cecilia Vajda (my first teacher) came in the late 1960s.

So - in a nutshell - this approach trains general musicianship using the voice. The approach is multi-sensory (and therefore very powerful and accessible by all types of learners). Kodaly recognised the three stages of learning - unconscious, making conscious and reinforcement. Folk music is used initially - of the indiginous culture to begin with - leading to a study of art music. With children we start with singing games - the folk music of the child - playground games.

Teacher training is considered to be of the utmost importance. Even kindergarten teachers in Hungary have a high level of musical training because it is recognised how important these early stages are. Kodaly said, 'A child will learn anything if there is someone who knows how to teach him.'

Musical literacy is a main aim - the ability to 'see what you hear and hear what you see'.

One of the beauties is that it doesn't matter what age you are, or what stage you are at in your musical development, there is something in the approach for you. Teaching in this way is the most exciting and rewarding thing I have ever done and it's why I'm passionate about it. Watching people develop their musical potential - helping people to do, or understand, something that previously eluded them - is the most satisfying experience.

Music meant very little to me until I stumbled across Kodaly and, over the years, I've lost count of the number of light-bulb moments that I've had. All the things I struggled with now made sense - it's an incredible feeling to succeed at something where previously you have failed.

I currently teach from age 3 to 70+. I have seen the benefits of this work with autistic children, those with learning difficulties including dyslexia and those with English as a second language; with 'privileged' children at a London conservatoire; with children in 'failing' primary schools, with very difficult home lives; and with adults who either want to learn to teach music better, or who want to improve their own musicianship. I teach professional classical musicians, keen amateur instrumentalists and singers, and a member of The Bootleg Beatles, as well as others with a non-classical background. Kodaly is taught at three of the major conservatoires, to undergraduates and post-graduates, in the UK.

It's difficult to express on paper the depth of the approach, but I've had a go.

Kodaly was a deep-thinking, philosophical man much ahead of his time in many ways. He felt strongly that 'music should belong to everyone' and that 'He who begins life with music will have this reflecting on his future like golden sunshine.' It is very easy to see this approach as just solfa, handsigns and rhythm names - but it is more than that - a whole philosophy of life and music.

As Kodaly said, 'Many people are looking for the door to the treasury of music in the wrong places. They keep hammering on the locked gates and pass right by the open door that is accessible to everyone.'

Apologies for the uncharacteristically long post above.

Bagpuss has just pointed out that most people will have died before they get to the end of it.

I read it at work this afternoon... much better than dealing with the review comments on a system design I published 10 days ago which need to be incorporated / rebutted...



I've only heard of Kodaly method and I think at grammar school we might have done some tonic solfa when singing. We used to regularly have a music lesson where we would sing things like sea shanties (including in 6th form) - maybe this was a Liverpool thing with being a port and still having a strong nautical connection? I don't think youngsters do this sor tof thing these days?

Sea shanties would have been a logical source of local folksong, which would tie in with there being some awareness of Kodaly among your teachers at that time.

The ones I teach do! But no, I think in general schools don't do much of this

No apology needed, it was all very interesting.

I have never experienced Kodaly teaching, but I thoroughly approve of its aims.

Great post. Have copied and pasted it for future reference.

What is the correct bibliography format for quoting from a forum?

Errr...I have to say I really don't know. A similar question was asked by one of our Springboard students last week and I was a bit stumped.

Can anyone help?

I think it would depend partly on how you referred to it in the body of the text. If you refer to "Cyrilla" in the text (and I would put Cyrilla in quotation marks) then I would put Cyrilla as the authors name and the whole reference would be something like this:
"Cyrilla". "Kodaly, Suzuki and Dalcroze. " ABRSM Forum. http://www.abrsm.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=50385&hl= 18.04.2012.

If you haven't quoted anything and it's just a bibliography then I might just list it under the title (that is assuming that you are referring to the whole thread).

If you are just referring to one post then I think I would add the post number in just after the thread title.

Brilliant, Roseau, very many thanks!

I'm still alive!! It was very interesting!

I almost copy-pasted it into an e-mail to my sister...

Indeed! I miss our sessions of Kod and chips too...

I do get puzzled though why it keeps being said it's "for all" - universally applicable: it's not. As I've said before, it would make me very embarrassed to take part in such a class, be that Kodaly or Dalcroze, and I do think it's a bit misleading to try selling it as the universal panacea for would-be musicians.

I think that Kodaly and Dalcroze are closer to being universally beneficial when begun at nursery age as I think is what's intended.

Maybe so - but the evangelism on this one seems to be implying otherwise - and I do know adults who happily start on these well beyond kiddie-age, just that I'm not one of them.

Interestingly too, I remember seeing video footage of a nursery which had ladies coming in to do similar with the kids: not all of them were that enthused in this case either.

I don't believe I have ever said that Kodaly (or any other approach) is 'for all' and I don't remember ever referring to the approach as a 'universal panacea for would-be musicians'. If you read my post carefully you will see that Kodaly felt that 'music should belong to everyone', which is not quite the same thing.

My post above was factual information about the approach, which is what the OP requested. Yes, of course I enthuse about it - it changed my life and I have seen it enhance the lives of many others - so it's difficult not to be enthusiastic. Of course there is never 'one size fits all' in any aspect of life or learning.

Any approach is only as good as the practitioner. I have seen some pretty dire 'Kodaly' teaching.

Nor would I wish to dampen enthusiasm. It is however worth remembering that for some, such zeal may well in fact be of-putting: I am not alone in being the sort of person, who on reading effusiveness on anything, is likely to think, hangonamo, there must be a catch: I did use the word "evangelism" in that context very deliberately. Why am I labouring this point? Because if it is really worth that much, it will for one thing sell itself to those who try it (and you do have enough supporters on here to suggest that) but also, overworking it is not going to draw in any others, and may in fact alienate them. I also do tend to get the message of universally applicable from what is written, and wanted to point out that this is what is coming across. I remain to be convinced, and do find statements along the lines of, it ought to be taught in all schools, a bit scary: there are other valid ways of teaching and learning music.

Documented real-life example, please?

Anacrusis, I will say again - I wrote a factual post on this thread in answer to the OP's question. I'm sorry if this came across as 'overworking it' - this was not the intention. She wanted information and I gave it to the best of my ability.

I have also never said that there are not other ways of teaching and learning music, and if I have said that it should be taught in all schools (which I believe it should), I have never meant that to be to the exclusion of other ways of teaching music. I will repeat that I have never said that the approach is 'universally applicable' or something that everyone will get something from. It is just the best way that I have found for developing not only musicianship but also personal skills.

I'm afraid, for all your trying, you will never dampen my zeal or enthusiasm for this approach - sorry.

I apologise if I have 'alienated' readers with any 'evangelism'. It is difficult not to be passionate about something that changes your life and others' lives for the better. Others show enthusiasm for particular instruments, or hobbies, on these forums - is this a problem too? Should I be put off the clarinet because it is barry-clari's passion?? Or knitting because it is Flossie's??

I will continue to answer posts where I feel I have something to offer in this regard. If my posts continue to upset and offend you then please block me so that you do not have to read them. I don't wish to upset anyone - it's not my nature.

This is my last post on this thread.

My experience : it works very well, generally, and best, at least with children en masse, with children you've started on the approach at an early age (age 9 and younger).

There will always be occasional children who don't like/have problems with singing, and for them, the Kodaly approach will be a struggle. But that usually at early years is very much the exception rather than the rule.



You've never heard me playing it yet : it may put you off if you do...

I started music lessons age 4 with the Yamaha group music classes that seem to have a lot in common with these methods - singing was the main form of musical teaching and we did a lot of solfa. I remember really enjoying the classes, and I know that the knowledge "stuck" - even now i still do solfa in my head when I am first hearing something. I don't know the right terminology for what I do but I think it's relative solfa, I can always somehow pick out where the tonic is. By 6 we all knew the basic bits of harmony (I-IV-V-I, types of cadences, etc)

I definitely benefited from learning that young - now to me, reading music is just like reading English. I'm not a professional musician nor do i ever want to be but having that musical literacy does add greatly to my enjoyment of it. If I had children and wanted them to learn music I would definitely think of this as how to start rather than piano lessons, say.

Though I enjoyed the classes when I was little, i don't think I'd enjoy any sort of public singing now. I would feel too exposed and a bit embarrassed to sing in front of people. Please nobody think that I am slagging off the method - I'm not - I'm just not comfortable with singing for people. I do OK in church, say, or in aural tests (though I've never had any when I was an adult). It's only when people are focusing on me singing that I have a problem. Odd, I'm not bothered about playing the piano in front of people. But since I have no requirement to sing in public, and i don't feel that my musicianship needs any special attention at the moment, this is a non-issue for me and I've not bothered to dig deeper into that particular psychological hang-up.

This though is what I mean about the automatically offended response to any criticism: far be it from me to wish to take your enthusiasm away from what you do, and your posts don't offend and upset me, nor do I have any intention of blocking you. What I am doing though, is trying to offer a different opinion from the rather rose-tinted spectacles, miracle-wonder-cure for musical hangups view which tends to be proposed: I can't understand why it is seen as unreasonable to put this across as I do. For me, and for many like me, evangelism from whatever quarter on whatever subject automatically requires further enquiry, not unquestioning acceptance, and it has nothing to do with the person behind it either - I know and am able to be friends with others who also hold views I can't share, and who also put them forth with such dedication: doesn't mean I hold a grudge, or can't get along with them on other levels.

I too am going to be quiet now: spats like this are enervating.

*wonders what happened to the knitting thread*

It got cast off?