I am a fairly new piano teacher and I've got a crisis! I've got a 4 year old coming for her first lesson next week. Is this too young? Any tip on teaching someone so young would be great.

Emma X

Crikey thats young isnt it! I have had several 6 year olds but never younger. I would just keep the lesson fairly brief - 20 mins maximum. I probably wouldnt bother introducing any notation but just introduce them to the piano, get them playing around and experiencing the kinds of sounds it can make (high, low etc), maybe make up a little story that you can add musical sound effects to - or maybe choose some animals eg elephants/ birds, make up a little bit of music and then see if the chidl can make up their own animal music?
Just a few ideas, but I think you want to keep the emphasis on it being fun! Good luck!

I would say that 4 years old seems incredibly young to teach - they won't really have even started school yet.

David

Four year-olds should ideally be learning music AWAY from an instrument first...

I taught a 5 year old for about 2 months but never anyone younger than that. I think Alfreds music for little mozarts would be good to use with someone of that age group, if you can get hold of it. I think its aimed at 4 to 6 year olds. Its in a storybook format and uses characters like Beethoven Bear and Mozart Mouse. There are stuffed toys available of all the characters in the series to use in lessons.
It starts in pre staff notation. The first pieces are on black keys only. Later in book 1 some note names are taught but the names are written in the note heads. The staff is introduced in book 2. Playing both hands together is taught near the end of book 3. Theres 4 books in the series.Theres also colouring books and flashcards and other things available to go with the series.
Unfortunately, I wasnt able to get these the time I had to teach a 5 year old. I used another book that I think introduced too much too quickly for the child to understand and he ended up confused and didnt get much from it.Only thing with music for little mozarts is that it might be kinda hard to introduce reading from the staff, but I suppose flashcards would help.Anyways, heres a link to the website if you want more information....
http://www.alfred.com

I teach alot of four year olds, and am getting quite experienced with them... it IS possible although not all children this age are ready. I always explain to the parents before we start that their child may be on of the not ready yet ones, and if they are, then I ask them to try again in six months time. It's all to do with concentration, not ability inteliigence or reading skills. If you can't get them to concentrate for half a minute at a time then it's not going to work yet, so do let the parents know this.

I actually do start them on basic notation immediately, and they DO handle it as long as you go about it very very slowly. The main thing to remember with very young kids is that if you've got 3 activities planned, spin it into 9 or ten by switching continually. Ant they move incredibly slowly. Keep the practise music short.... four bars maximum. If your next task for them is longer than this, then split it into two and give them four bars a week, rather than have them struggle on 8 for a fortnight.

The best supplementary books I've ever come across are Alfred Prep Course Level A "Ear Training and Activity" and "Listens and Creates" Level A (Jane Smisor Bastien, part of the "Very Young Pianist" series. Make sure you have copious quantities of crayons handy! and huge quantities of cheap stickers....... My four year olds often go out of their lessons with ten or fifteen stickers proudly displayed on their jumpers!

One more thing.... teaching four year olds is incredibly rewarding, and the students I've got who started that young look so natural on the piano and have the most amazing sound for children their age. Plus, if you CAN do it, you've cornered yourself a massive niche in the teaching market!

I'm not knocking anyone who does teach 4 year-olds but I think in general I agree with Cyrilla. I admire anyone who can teach children that young but judging my the number of pupils who come to me at 6 (at school) and 7 or 8 at home who have no sense of pulse or pitch I think children should first attend music classes for a year or so to develop these essentials. Knowing how to read the notes and the time values is only OK if there's a strongly developed inner hearing to 'hang' these academic concepts on to. In the past music in schools was far stronger than today, so there was less of a problem but these days music in schools has been seriously and unforgivably neglected with a knock-on effect on instrumental learning (for just one example). Of course there may not be anyone offering such classes in the area but I think it's definitely something to be encouraged if at all possible.

But the plus side younger children do seem to have a more natural posture and hand shape than older starters...............

Lynne makes a good point here - I rarely start children as young as 4, but even at 5 or 6 (occasionally 7!) the concentration isn't necessarily there, or a child is just incapable of sitting in one place for two minutes at a time - ok one might reasonably assume if a child is in full-time school ... !

I agree strongly with ChocolateDog's point about a child's inner ear - children come to me not knowing what I mean when I talk about high sounds and low sounds, long sounds and short sounds etc, and yes, it's not that unusual for them to have almost no sense of pulse either! Shaky pitch I have dealt with throughout my teaching years - but inability to tap a (fairly) regular beat is something I find very odd and a much more recent phenomenon.

[quote=maggiemay,Sep 10 2005, 12:30 PM]
[quote]

and yes, it's not that unusual for them to have almost no sense of pulse either! Shaky pitch I have dealt with throughout my teaching years - but inability to tap a (fairly) regular beat is something I find very odd and a much more recent phenomenon.

[/quote]


I had an adult beginner with absolutely no sense of pulse....

I tend to side with Lynne here.

Yes,some 4 year olds are too young and I have shared the same experience that Lynne has.But what about the the little ones born in the September compared to the June babies,for example? There can be a massive difference.

I started a boy last year aged 4...born in the September...and he is making excellent progress and has a 45 minute lesson. However,I break it up and include games etc. But I emphasise to parents right at the start ( who are always present in the lesson) that examinations etc are NOT the issue here,rather making the language and performance of music fun.

As for developing pulse,I dance round the room with them.They love it and think I'm mad.But it's such good fun.

I also work at the alphabet...only to G...and then ask them to learn it backwards in chunks and in song.

Personally I think 4 is a little too young. Some of my students who start at 6 sometimes find it hard to concentrate for 20 minutes.

If I were starting a 4 year old, I guess I'd start her on 20 minutes, mix theory puzzles, aural games as well as piano work. Some of the Bastien books are designed for 4 - 5year olds. I don't use them but I met 'Mrs Bastien' a few years ago and she let us see some of them. I think it was called 'Piano Party' or something.

Why not develop them at the same time as learning the piano?

I agree, most children that age don't have an inherent sense of pulse or rhythm, but they are more than capable of learning it, and it very quickly becomes extremely ingrained in them.

Back on the subject of teaching this age though, although I agree that some kids aren't ready, I also think that some teachers just aren't able to do it.... it takes a very different teaching style for the younger ones, but I say it again.... it CAN be done, and my students are living proof of that.

sorry to post twice, just re-read your post maggiemay, and one thing intrigued me....


You've been teaching far longer than me from what I can gather, can you explain this one?

Well - my impression is that when I was first teaching, and possibly up to about 10-15 years ago, the children I taught mostly had a fair sense of rhythm which seemed to be part of their internal make-up. Maybe I'm just remembering the best through rose-tinted specs - but I don't think so! I have a feeling this was helped along by school music sessions (and earlier ones at playgroup and kindergarten possibly) and that most children could "bang a drum" in time even if pitching a note was often much less sure.

The children I meet now seem to need substantially more help in establishing a regular beat, often for quite a long time. Maybe it's school music - or lack of it in some places. Maybe..... I don't know. Many children don't seem to know any nursery rhymes - ok they may be old fashioned - but what have we replaced them with?

I'd be interested to hear if anyone else has found a similar thing. I wonder if it's partly cultural and varies from place to place.

Ideally, children should have one or two years of pre-instrumental training prior to learning an instrument. This training should then continue alongside the instrumental lessons (I'm trying to avoid the K word here but you know what I mean! )

You are all so right when you deplore the lack of understanding of basic musical skills and concepts in children (and adults) of all ages.

So few primary teachers have any decent training in music at college so they rely either on the school employing a specialist (becoming rarer) or they buy in some horrible published scheme like Music Express(sadly becoming more common)...whichever it is, it usually boils down to QUALITY music education in schools being a very patchy affair.

It's my life's work to keep trying to do something about this as it breaks my heart to see children leaving school thinking either that they are no good at music or that music is not something that they are interested in...

Back to the teaching of four year-olds...I've said this before, but you really do need some idea of child development and how children learn at different ages. You would not approach reading or maths or science with a 4 year-old in the same way as you would with a 6 or 7 year old, as they perceive the world in different ways and consequently learn differently too. If you've ever tried some of Piaget's activities with children you will know what I mean.

So - I'm quite sure you CAN teach a 4 year-old to play the piano - but your methods - and goals - are going to be totally different from those used with 7 year-olds.

And please do lots AWAY from the piano too! If you can form a small group of similar-aged children there are so many games and musical activities that you can do with them that will help to develop their understanding of many musical concepts.

Best of luck!

Cunningly avoided Cyrilla!!!!

But K word aside, I still think you're wrong: I just can't understand why previous lessons are needed, why all the necessary skills cannot be taught at the time of conception of learning. And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, and at the greater risk of bringing back the K-word argument, none of my students have prior non-instrumental lessons and they all seem to grasp basics of pitch and pulse easily.



very true and this is the most important thing to remember. It's not the same ball-game at all.



Although on this point I'm more convinced that all a teacher needs is a high level of communicability and an even higher level of empathy with the mind of a child. I don't think I ever used any child development ideas, more that I continually watch a child's skills, learning speed and mental/emotional state.

Whether, or not, in an ideal world children should have one or two years of pre-instrumental training prior to learning an instrument is irrelevant to Lynne's position. The fact is that she finds herself successfully teaching 4 year olds without this background. In taking on pupils lacking this background, she is in the same position as most of us.

You are a better man than me, Lynne. I would be terrified of breaking them.

Steve

I think the problem with jumping into learning an instrument is that a pupil will just play what they see. Developing the musical sense away from an instrument will help pupils rely more on inner hearing - they will first hear the note they see and then play it, which means it will be immediately apparent if they have played the wrong key, as it sounds wrong. Otherwise it is a 'head' knowledge only. I would love to start pre-piano classes for younger ones, as I think although it may be possible to develop both together, progress on an instrument is likely to be faster if the foundations have been put in place first. I have to admit I have had pupils come to me at aged 8 having started piano with another teacher aged 5 (pupil, not the teacher!!!) and at age 10 be exactly the same standard as other pupils who start with me at age 8!

Thank you!



Looks down in alarm. My, that was a quick operation






Why? Personally I teach them to listen to what they play

But can they sing what they see as well, as that is the way to really internalize and 'hear' what they see.

(Don't worry about Steve's comment! - I started back at the same school after a break abroad for 2 years only to be called Mr. S.C. on my file and staff-room pigeonhole as the piano teacher I replaced left at really short notice and they hadn't had time to sort things out properly! In fact the music staff had great fun winding up a particular pupil by telling him that Mr. S.C. had had a few changes over the holidays, but there was really nothing to worry about and everyone had to be really understanding!!! )

Of course they can't, they're four years old and they're learning piano!

With time, then yes, they do learn to pitch internally, but why do they have to learn this first, why not use their instrumental learning to TEACH them?

Ok, I was very wary of getting into this debate again, but it looks like I'm in it now, so here goes.....

I successfully teach four year olds to play the piano. It's slow going, they can't do everything at once, including sightsinging, but they learn to play, they learn to listen, within a year they ALL (without exception) have a tone and sound that is quite simply stunning. They can all read music, and they can all memorise. They can all manage the aural tests, they all listen (and have the ability to listen critically) to both their playing and other people's. They can all hear wrong notes, variations in pitch, differences in rhythm, tempo, toning, articulation.

But I guess I must be doing something terribly wrong, because they didn't learn to sing for two years first.


Sigh

I teach piano to 4 year olds but most of them have usually done at least a 1/2 term at school, they can sit for short periods of time. I have always been fascinated at how they learn at this age. In fact sometimes the 4 year olds are better than the 7 year old at remember what they need to do.

I try and adapt the music to each individual child I use John Thompson Book1 or Ten Fingers depending on the child, along with Improve your Sight Reading Prep. The children are all very keen to clap the rhythms.

I have found that the 4 year old children that I took on last year who benefitted from my preschool music club progressed alot quicker. They are now preparing for grade 1 and have mastered alot more than those that had no previous music experience. There sight reading skills and singing is alot better too.

Good luck with your new pupil.... everyone has to start somewhere with the little ones. You have be very patient though. Some weeks they will achieve alot some weeks they will not show much interest, it may take some time for the child to get to know you and what is expected of them.

Just out of interest why does the parent want the child to start so early and is it the childs choice to learn piano? I often find that parents want the child to play the piano but the little one hasnt really got a clue what a piano is, let alone want to play one. In this instance I suggest it may be better for the child to have some preschool music classes.... this usually leads goes 2 ways... they jump at the offer of encouraging their child along this route for a term or they suggest that they tried that route and their child really needs to start the piano soon as they are really musical.

Saying that I taught my children when they were nearly 5 and they are all playing really well. The only hurdle I have come across is the grade 5 theory. I have always talked about the pieces and the theory side of their music. They understand most of the questions and can answer you but how do you get 8/9 year olds to write the answers neatly.

Oh, ouch, lynne and Steve...you are both clearly better men than I!


*Goes off to stack shelves in Sainsbury's*

Actually, so have I, especially when you watch those tiny little fingers skipping over the notes with such deftness and precision and yet these are the same fingers that aren't allowed to hold a hot cup of tea in case they spill it




yes, I would agree with you here, but these are children who started music at an age that couldn't possibly have handled an instrument, presumably three year olds. And three is too young even for me!




Also very true, and general life has alot of bearing on the little ones, any tiredness or stress and they totally lose concentration.

I have never seen what is wrong with using instrumental lessons to teach musical skills. In 30 years as a professional teacher, I had not come across any other way until I joined these forums. To me, teaching the piano and teaching music were synonymous. Others here appear to make a distinction that does not exist.

I learned to pitch internally, to sight-sing (the same thing, really), to score read, to compose away from the piano by learnng to play the piano. Everything else flowed from there.

Not sure why it should be different for 4 year olds.

Steve

I often find it is the same as my parents reasons for enrolling me - there was a piano available and I couldn't be dragged away from it.

Steve

seems very bizarre that there is a need to point that out......



so did I, and I seem to have done ok.

The most common ones I hear are either : the child has a sister/brother/cousin/friend etc who learns and they want to aswell, or the child wants to learn something and the piano is the first instrument the parent thought of.

Apparently I asked to learn when I was five but I have no clue why so that doesn't help really

At the end of the day people are going to do what they think is best and according to their own experience.

For me, one of the main things is that when an instrument is being learned, either by us or our pupils, then we are making something else make the sounds. An instrument is only an inanimate object. It is useless and ceases to be of any value until it is operated by a person. I am sure we have all heard people play one instrument or another without any kind of musicianship. They may be technically proficient but not always musically so. Equally, there are brilliant musicians who are not technically proficient. Cortot was a brilliant pianist but his reputation for the many errors that could be heard in his playing preceded him and yet people always wanted to hear him.

No doubt people can learn through the instrument. My musicianship skills have only really developed in the past two years since I discovered Kodaly (I refuse to refer to it as the 'K' word........his name is Kodaly and he is and should be respected and revered throughout the music world whether people agree with it or find it useful or not).

The fact is that different people learn in different ways and there are a multitude of people adults and children alike who I have encountered that struggle, have struggled and lots who have given up because they just didn't get it. I mean the theoretical and aural side. If nothing else, children absolutely love the singing and game side of this form of education. That is a fact. If there are teachers out there who can encourage their pupils to learn everything through the instrument and work with a disciplined practice regime and it is successful then fine. However, they do not know what they miss. Of course not everybody can do a Kodaly class or find someone to run it but it saddens me when I read such negative comments that are sometimes made by supposedly good teachers. Sure you are good teachers but there seems to be a lack of open-mindedness on these forums by some people.

If you do not want to embrace or learn about the idea then that is fine of course but for those of us who teach the Kodaly approach and know through experience what it does in terms of providing a firm foundation of musical skills that are personal because the voice has been used have an awful lot to offer if others have the ears to hear and want to listen. It simply makes music completely personal first, transfered onto the instrument later and you have a far better musician.

I have to challenge the view that a four year old's aural skills are sufficiently developed having learnt only through the piano. If you had three of your youngsters together for example would they be able to perform some form of music making together but performing different tasks (at the same time)? Maybe one clapping a rhythm, one doing the pulse and one singing or if not singing, playing a melody on the piano. This would be done in time with each other?

I don't know if they would or not and perhaps you can tell me but my youngsters who are learning Kodaly can. The point here is that they have learned to listen internally and more importantly to work alongside each other not only performing their own task but being completely aware of what the others are doing.

I don't want to start a competition about who can do what or who is better......I am simply trying to illustrate what the Kodaly approach can offer and what can be produced which I think is far greater than simply working with the instrument from scratch. This is just my experience and it works.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree. My only other point is that I speak from my own past bad experiences trying to teach 5 year-olds who clearly had no parental support at home and who couldn't read practice instructions for themselves and obviously had parents who hadn't put in any 'musical time' with them prior to learning. You're lucky if you have parents who are willing to sit down with them and guide them in practice. One little girl I had plaintively said that mummy and daddy were always away, and nanny wouldn't help her. She stopped lessons soon afterwards. Which is why I promised myself I would never take them so young again. I used the very young alfred and bastien courses with them with all the activity books, but it ended up that one of them just wanted to play the games and do the colouring in and didn't actually want to play the piano in her lessons, which has made me think that music classes generally are a better way forward. So sorry. The only thing that might make me change my mind is if I ever have children of my own, but in that case I know I will have played a lot of rhythm and musical games with them from infancy onwards so hopefullt by the time they show an interest in the piano it will be with the foundations already laid.
Sorry if we've clashed over this - good luck with teaching your 4 year olds. I shall let you know if I ever change my mind, but I doubt it!! (If I do I give you full permission to say ' I told you so!!!')

Hammerklavier, finding different solutions, methods and practices and then describing them is not narrow minded.

Holding and expressing different points of view is not being narrow minded.

Nobody reading your contributions and those of others could seriously doubt that Kodaly has much to offer those children able to take advantage of him.

He is still irrelevant to the overwhelming majority of teachers throughout the world.

Why?

Geography.

Most of us do not live within sensible driving, let alone hailing, distance of a K course.

I have never taught K trained pupils.

There is no K available to me or my pupils.

Even if there was K available, the nearest centre would be 20 miles away. Not many of my new pupils would have been through it. I cannot imagine that many would take any notice of my advice to take their children to one even if it existed.

I cannot speak for others, only myself. I do not disrespect K. Mind, I do not respect him either. I have no feelings either way. He is irrelevant to me.

Geography.

Steve

That is the same reason I will not take on a boy younger than 8 or girl younger than 7 unless their parents both can and will help. In my experience, the harm caused by premature starting heavily outweighs the value to the occasional individual who can cope.

That is possibly more down to my personality; apart from anything else, I do not actually like small children.

Lynne clearly does and has found methods that work.

Hey, Lynne, perhaps there is a money-spinner here somewhere

Steve

Well I got my post at a music conservatoire on the basis that I was more than happy to take on the four-year-old intake

I don't live anywhere near a Kodaly course. I had to save really hard to be able to manage the summer school & the airfares.And in a week I learned an enormous amount, & would love to be able to do more on a regular basis (I can'tfrom N.Ireland).
BUT I'm going to use the start I have now got. I have managed to get funding from the local primary school to run an afterschool group - initially for the 6-7y.o. Longterm my aim is to make sure that Kodaly is available to the 4 y.o & upwards at the school.
As to how I find the money for more Kodaly learning for me I don't know. I am under no illusions - all I have done so far is scrape at the surface but it has made me determined that if I can play a small part in making "music available to all children" then I will.
If you really want to do something then often you can find a way.....

That is brilliant, Andy. The kids will gain much from you.

Wouldn't consider moving to Misterton, England would you?

Steve

Depends how you are taught - I was taught a lot of singing, hearing intervals & tunes (being able to hear them in my head, though it was never given a name, and hearing them externally (identifying them) as well as being able to reproduce them), sing/clap tunes before we played them, etc etc, right from the start (I was 7 not 4, but still) on the violin, and could do that pretty early on. I have always had a good sense of relative pitch from that early training, and although I can't always get my fingers to do what I want them to do, never had a problem knowing I had hit a wrong key or that my finger wasn't in the right place on the fingerboard. Being able to correct it is another story, but certainly I had from an early stage been developing those aural skills whilst learning to play.


I don't doubt that Kodaly offers a lot in this sense, my only gripe is that it's not the only way that does, as some (not all) seem to want to claim.

I have never taken a Kodaly lesson in my life (and don't get me wrong, I'd love to if I had the money and got to do some nearby) but yes I can (and have long been able to) do all the things you describe - and could from pretty early on. No I didn't start at 4, I started at 7, but I had no previous musical input and started straight away on instrumental lessons. My violin skills are not as good as they could be due to sheer lack of manual dexterity and skill, but musically we learned from an early stage to clap rhythms, to then clap different rhythms from each other (I forget if it was my violin teacher or one of her relatives, but they even published a rhythm bank book to be used for that purpose among others), I know that I can and have been able to for years "hear internally" although I hadn't heard the term which I forget that K method uses before I joined this forum, when I did chamber music, from duets when I started to learn piano (I don't remember whether we did them on the violin though certainly we learned to played along with an accompaniment and I distinctly recall listening to the accompaniments when I had only learned the notes for open strings and first finger, and being able to listen to the piano whilst keeping my part - we had some brilliant pieces with complex piano parts that made the simple violin part sound fab, and they were brilliant when we were very elementary! I rather suspect now that half the point of the fab piano part was that the violinist WOULD listen because they'd want to!!) to string quartets later on in the scheme of things I never had a problem listening to and following along with others' parts whilst playing my own, or singing a part and listening to the other parts to blend when I started singing in choirs, and in things like orchestras etc... All this I learned whilst also being taught to play the violin! Probably if I had started music lessons at 5 and then the violin at 7 I would have been in a better position, but I certainly learned the music side of things as well as the instrument-playing as I went along. I know I'm fortunate in that respect - a lot of people don't. I also know that it is not THAT rare though, or doesn't seem to be among my musical friends, to be taught well by non-Kodaly method.

I have nothing against Kodaly, and it's absolutely clear that it has huge benefits, but it isn't the only way to produce well rounded musicians who are also skillful players! I know people who prove it.

But you were obviously taught in a good way - one which implemented Kodaly principles, from what I can gather. I think the problem is that too few teachers teach in that way. I'm now having to do a re-think about my own teaching following the Glasgow Kodaly course, and it's helped me to see a possible reason for the complete lack of any sense of pulse or pitch awareness in a lot of the pupils I take on. I suppose one of the differences for pianists is the temptation to not bother listening as all you have to do is press a key to make a sound - compared to some other instruments. Yes you've got to hit the right key, but so many new pupils can't seem to grasp fundamental higher/lower pitch and can regularly play absolute garbage thinking it's OK! And if I don't teach kids until they are 6/7/8 years old they might benefit greatly in the meantime from a music class - which would mean that the 2 years on my waiting list wouldn't be wasted, and in fact, would help greatly once there was a slot for them on my piano timetable. Your teacher sounds great - it's the kind of teaching I'd like to do more - but so many kids these days don't want to open their mouths to sing - even though they can talk the proverbial hind legs (and front legs too in some cases!) off a donkey!

*nods* not arguing that it didn't involve the same principles as Kodaly - I mean that it wasn't Kodaly, but it used the same underlying principles, and it worked. Kodaly is by all accounts great, but it's not the only method that works, and not the only method that uses the underlying principles that make Kodaly work

Mmmm - and I have a feeling my early musical training was much the same. I found that I could sight-sing, (rather than having been specifically helped to find the intervals in a systematic way), but I don't think my sight-singing suffered - perhaps I discovered it a little bit later, say at age 9 or so.

I think in my case the only identifiable difference resulting from the way I was taught versus the Kodaly method is that I am not able to actually teach using Kodaly (well the odd bit, but not the whole thing in any kind of integral way, which is not enough as I know well by now! ) as I was not taught using that method.

As far as I can see though, that's the only difference - what I absorbed seems to have amounted to the same thing - much as yours seems to have done, Sarah, (although by all accounts your aural training as a child was excellent and probably better thought-out than was mine) so perhaps it's the fact of having the system to pass on that makes the real difference in some cases.

I think that definitely helps! In that sense my learning was a little haphazard (for a few of the books I learned from at the very beginning, we were learning from photostat copies of the books that were in the process of being written! We weren't total guinea pigs though - the books were more the concrete version of how she'd been teaching already, I think.) - some of the ways I was taught I can look back and say "oh yes, that worked, this is why, and I can use it", other things I just absorbed and looking back I can't see quite how to get it across myself - I guess that's not so much haphazrd in terms of teaching, so much as me looking back over 20 years and not remembering details! The aural training was probably the biggest boon I have from those early lessons, and the more I read on here the more I realise how rare that seems to be and how lucky I am!

That's one huge bonus with Kodaly I think, if you have the time/money to get yourself trained up, that it has a structure and way of doing things that you can fall back on, and know that you're not going to be missing anything vital, because it's very well thought out and put together to help people get the most out of learning music.

Like I've said many times, I have nothing against Kodaly - it sounds fascinating and the results speak for themselves. But without the resources to be in a position to use it myself, I can more easily use other equally effective methods that I *know*.

Thanks for the advice eveyone! My first lesson with this pupil is tomorrow and ive got lots of ideas now. I'll let you know how it goes! x

BUT - 'Kodaly' is actually a blanket term which INCORPORATES these 'other methods' that you speak of!

In a nutshell it is a bringing together of all the best teaching techniques with the best pedagogical practice - in order to facilitate Kodaly's dream of 'music (is) for everyone.'

Yes, of course there are techniques and methods which people always think of in terms of 'Kodaly' (eg solfa) but each teacher teaches differently and is free to use all sorts of games and activities.

Yes, Maggie and Sarah, you're absolutely right about there being a structure which is one of the most excellent things about the approach. 'From the simple to the complex in a logical sequence' - and that's where the training comes in, really. As with anything, simply having learned something in a particular way oneself is not really enough to then be able to go and teach it (although I suspect there are a fair number of teachers who do this!) without further training.

Chocolatedog - I think the idea of forming a musicianship group for the children on your waiting list, so that they are learning music skills and understanding while they are waiting for piano lessons, is a fab idea - good luck with it!!

Let's spark a bit of controversy: could you then use that to prioritise your waiting list, giving priority to those showing promising musicianship?

Or to be slightly less controversial those who are hard working, good attenders, and have well-behaved parents .

Hmmmm..... .......actually, it's when you teach musicianship that the abilities of the children become blindingly clear - so then maybe chocolatedog will just have a better idea of each child's aptitude in learning an instrument before they start...

Any ideas on how to set one up Cyrilla? And how long each session should be? And how much I should feasibly be looking to cover in each session? And how long to spend on each song/activity? I've got Lucinda's books, but I've no real idea on how to organise a lesson plan or even how to plan a longer term of lessons. (And I've ordered Colourkeys and Cecilia Vajda book 2, so should be interesting to see what's on those!)

I actually tried something like this a couple of years ago in an effort to do something constructive for a burgeoning waiting list ...

2 sisters were on the waiting list for school lessons and they ..erm .. declined to mention this (they didn't do any homework so I doubt if I'd have offered them a place anyway, I wish X High-school prep dept good luck!), X found it too far to come, Y's mum didn't read letters, missed sessions and kept getting dates mixed up, and a fifth showed promise and got a place - only to give up a couple of terms later because of family problems. Great idea - and perhaps useful in a way if only in sorting out a whole heap of potential non-starters all in one go!

Well today was the dreaded lesson with my 4 year old pupil. I was amazed! We started off with the general layout of the keyboard, and high and low notes, and then we did some clapping of a steady rhythm (which could do with some practising!). We had a 20 minute lesson as she couldnt have concentrated any longer, and I was amazed that after it she could tell me which notes on the keyboard were Cs and Ds, and which notes were 1 beat and 2 beat!

Think I might have been pushing a little too hard towards the end of the lesson, but looking forward to next week now.

excellent! well done! glad it went well! Just keep it fairly simple until you become more familiar with the child and then see how far you can push their development. But keep repeating certain elements because they may well forget! Im having a problem with a young one (about 7 i think) who learnt by reading fingerings and now she is getting annoyed because i wont write them all in. I mean, 3 notes going up the stave in a row just LOOKS like three notes going up in a row,yet she wont read it like that.....its a tricky one but I have a lot of patience!!

What about 2 separate 15 minute lessons a week instead of one long one?

Just a thought - I have no intention of joining you and Lynne teaching this age group

Steve