Um...embojet, I don't want to put a damper on your enthusiasm as obviously the lesson went really well but if she can't clap a steady pulse (I presume you meant pulse rather than rhythm?) then why teach her what one and two beat notes LOOK like before she can perform regular beats??

Sorry, just a thought...I come from the 'sound before symbol' school...

Cyrilla, this is a typical example of what I referred to recently, when I accused you of sniping away from the sidelines without offering anything anything useful in return.

Here, you adopt a smugly superior position, criticising the effort of a fellow teacher, as if you actually had this superiority.

OK, so given embojet is not K trained and is dealing with this 4 year old now, and you appear to feel that embojet was misguided, what should embojet have done?

Not generally, but specifically now, in the specific instance that you are criticizing?

Steve

In the light of Cyrilla's unhelpful intervention, I feel moved to say this.

Well done embojet. I think that is absolutely brilliant. I have taught the piano for more than 30 years and not achieved anything like this.

Carry on your fantastic work.

Steve

Sounds like you two have hit it off. As for the steady rhythm,get the pupil dancing round the room.They will love it.

All my best wishes for your future lessons with the pupil.

I like the suggestion of dancing round the room - bigger motor movements help a child feel the pulse more easily than small motor movements like just moving fingers. I've used dancing before with older pupils to illustrate the dance movements - one pupil on leaving school particularly remembered the lesson I danced round the room to show the stately elegance of a minuet!! (Yes, Steve, another genial nutcase!!! )

I've used dancing and marching to help young (and not so young!) students distinguish between a Waltz and a March. Add me to the list of mad teachers!

I've tried marching - you would have thought that all young kids knew how to march! Not so one of my pupils once - I don't know what she was doing but it looked more like a horse pawing the ground or a dog scratching the ground up or something! Maybe it was The Ministry of Silly Walks official march!!

I've just read this whole debate and have two comments to make.

1. Cyrilla is not condescending - believe me, I've met and spent time with her her, and have also observed her teaching very young children; what occurs is miraculous.

2. The children who likely to succeed in becoming genuinely musical players on their chosen instrument, and are apparently learning music only through their instrument, are very likely to have had prior experience of singing with a parent who can sing in tune and has encouraged them to sing.

3. The converse of this is that children who don't or can't sing in tune, and then go on to learn an instrument, may have problems hearing the music in their head. Being able to hear the music in your head as you play is an essential factor in true musicianship rather than musical technicianship.

Conclusion: children who are taught by whatever means to hear and understand music in their head, either through Kodaly training or through a musical parent singing to and with them, are far more likely to play musically when they take up an instrument.

Violinia

First of all, very well, done embojet You sound like you had a good experience on the first lesson, and your student sounds like she had fun too, a wonderful start! I hope you two can continue working this well together.



Yes, it did, so why not leave it there?

Ok, I was going to leave this thread as it seemed to be just getting into another heated argument about Kodaly/non-Kodaly, but Cyrilla, you really do need to start accepting that there are other ways of teaching except yours.

Embojet is obviously miles ahead of many of the teachers I have come across..... she cares about her students enough to go hunting for advice, she knows children well enough to understand that teaching this age group is a whole different kettle of fish, and by all accounts she had a good start to her first lesson with her student.

So WHY do you feel the need to instantly say that she is obviously, in your opinion, doing it wrong?

I have now gone beyond the idea that I have to justify my teaching methods on this forum...quite frankly I can see my own students doing well and that is enough for me to know that it is working. But I do have the foresight to know and understand that there are as many different ways of teaching as there are teachers, and just because embojet doesn't teach your way does NOT mean that she is doing it wrong by any stretch of the imagination.


If embojet's new student cannot yet clap a steady pulse, I'm sure she will teach her how to,. as I do with all my students, and as do the thousands upon thousands of teachers out there who teach note reading and playing alongside listening and understanding.

Alternative ways of teaching a student listening.....

1) Playing alongside a student
2) Demonstrating for a student
3) Duetting with a student
4) Using one of the many aural training books available for young children, which they all, without exception, both love and learn from.
5) Encouraging memorisation
6) Encouraging singing
7) Encouraging composition
8) By asking from the moment they set hands on the piano for good tone control..... no child can do that without listening.
9) By getting a student to spot wrong notes by playing the correct version and asking them which note sounded different.... also works with rhythm
10) By NEVER allowing a student to play anything without a good sense of pulse, simply by holding them in by playing, clapping, singing, counting, alongside them while they play, it's amazing how quickly they pick it up.

All of which teach a student to listen WHILE they learn to read and play.




And children who don't, can quickly learn, and end up just as good a musician as children who are.

Can you tell me what you use in this category, Lynne?

I was going to suggest marching to help with pulse, but someone got there before me! Banging out the pulse on a drum might also help!

I don't have any private pupils as young as 4, but at one of my schools I am expected to take recorder players from Year 1 (age 5) and although progress is slow, they manage just fine. A few years ago I worked at a music centre on Saturday mornings, teaching a Junior Music Club, with a group of about 10 kids aged from 4 up to 9. We did a lot of singing with actions, marching and dancing, learned to play percussion instruments, which most of them did well and in time, and they also all played the recorder or the flute. One or two of them had special needs and couldn't read music very well, but ALL of them could play a variety of tunes on both the xylophone and their wind instrument, and accompany the singing with drums etc. I'd done a music degree and primary PGCE, and besides some babysitting and Sunday school teaching, that was the extent of my experience with small children at the time. But the group was popular and the children remarkably successful. What I think I'm really trying to say is that there's not one foolproof way of getting children to play in time, or become fantastic musicians. Our imagination, creativity and common sense can be more than enough if we really get to know each child and keep things interesting and varied.

Hi andante,

I mentioned the two I use somewhere at the beginning of this post .......



Hope this helps, and I mean it about the crayons lol

I'm sure there are others out there, but I found thesse two and I stuck with them.

Ah, thanks Lynne. I probably didn't register because they were piano books. Would they be relevant to non-pianists, do you think? I'm always on the look-out for new material.

I'm reading this thread with amazement. I've lots to say so I'll be as brief as possible.

Well done embojet! Great start, very promising.

Lynne I loved your postings on this topic and I'm full of admiration for your ability to confidently take on 4 yr olds (with them having no prior experience!) and stride forward with them.

Cyrilla - I find your subtle critism on this topic difficult to comprehend.

My view (with experience to support, see below):
Teaching 4 yr olds IS very much possible, with or without them having previous musical experience.
It depends very much on the following:
1. Teacher being capable of teaching kids so young
2. Parental support (on a continual basis)
3. Maturity/concentration of the 4 yr old.

Most teachers can not teach kids this young. Not a criticism, its a fact. Totally different mind-set, different approach needed, different goals.

Few parents give the support required for 4 yr olds to succeed. It's not the taxi-service support that they think it is, it's getting fully involved (ie: time-consuming), understanding the lessons, helping with practice, making it fun and exciting (as they would when taking them swimming or playing ball), totally supporting the teacher's endeavours.

Lots of 4 yr olds aren't ready, it has to be said, and I've got boys in mind here especially. Some time back, in our 4 yr olds class of 30 kids (too big a size I know!), there were 4 or 5 girls who in my view could have started piano lessons, but taking the parental factor in, maybe 3. None of the boys would be have been ready in my humble view, even if you caught one first and dragged him to an instrument!
Excluding mine, 2 started piano, one has since given up due to boredom (good teacher, no parental support), other is progressing well.

I started my daughter on piano at 4. First teacher spent the first and only lesson complaining that the wrist action was wrong and the angle of the thumbs were not correctly aligned!
I quickly found a teacher who had most of Lynne's approach (see above Lynne's postings on this thread), and we were off. I went to every lesson (sat in a different room), I helped with the practice, making it more fun and 'time with parent' than practice. It went very well I'm thrilled to say and is still going well 3 years on.
I should point out that we have since changed teachers, as the approach for 'beginning' 4 year olds is totally different for 'experienced' 7 year olds. My daugther simply adores the piano now, and is extremely proud that she can play.

There are those who say that its best to wait, that the slow progress at a young age may put them off, while a 12 year old will sail through the years of the young starter in only weeks, and anyway whats the rush....!
I don't subscribe to any of that.

As for Kodaly being the best way forward? A good teacher who suits the pupil is the best way forward (with supportive parents behind the scenes). I could show you a few wonderful music teachers (took a while to find them mind) and they could not be faulted on any aspect of their approach, nor their results. Kodaly is never discussed.

Andante.....

The Alfred book is extremely piano specific, I've only used it once, am working my way through it now with a student, so I can't see that one being relevant.

The Listens and Creates book is also piano specific, but i can't remember off the top of my head to what extent. I have a sneaky feeling that it could be adjusted with the exception of a couple of pages. And if I remember rightly, even where it shows the keyboard, it also has pictures to colour in aswell. It has lots of high/low sounds, rhythm recognition, free-composition pages, loud/quiet sounds etc. If you're interested, I suggest you get hold of a copy, last time i looked it was £3.95, and then maybe draw out your own version using the ideas as a template.

Indy.... Brilliant posting, says it all really

Thanks for your help, Lynne.

Indy. I agree...fantastic posting.

Further to recommendations regarding suitable books.

Piano Lessons Made Easy - Lina Ng. Publisher - Rhythm MP.

Andante- this course is only for piano,but there are brilliant books in this series on Theory.

I will try to find a link,so you can have a peep. The books are also very competitively priced.

Found this,but only brought up 2 of the theory books.

http://www.musicroom.com/Browse/Series.asp...esid=series1300

Apologies to Noodle: Having done a search on google,none other than our dear Noodle has posted the very same course back in April.

I actually purchased these books from a shop in Liverpool as a crawl round google isn't bringing up much on where to purchase them from.

Because of Forum Rules I don't think I'm allowed to post details of the shop,but the phone number is 0151 227 9836.

Thanks, Semele. I'm using the Lina Ng books already. They are very good value, and the stickers in the 'Theory for Little Children' books are very popular with my 8-year-old pupil, who didn't mind having a book for 'little children' is it came with stickers.

Gosh, has Tanya Byron started writing theory tuition books too? .

Andante

Ahhhh...well I'm always on the lookout for new material too.

Where would we be without stickers? Some of my adult pupils like receiving them too!!!!

I think all this piling in and blasting Cyrilla is a bit unhelpful really. She really, really cares deeply about musicianship and I don't think the ABRSM would hire her to come and do a whole afternoon's workshop at the CTABRSM courses if they didn't think Kodaly was worth the candle. It obviously is. Steve is right when he points out that geography is a big problem - there just aren't enough Kodaly teachers. But this doesn't make Cyrilla's and Hammerklavier's points irrelevent, or less important.

I think what they're getting at is that the development of musicianship is such a subtle thing, and so easy to get wrong. I was lucky in that I received a Kodaly-style training from my mum (it was Viennese but very similar). I've also noticed that very few of my previously-taught jazz violin pupils have what I would call a well-developed ear; this doesn't mean they're not good players - a lot of them are, in many ways. But they still struggle to recognise intervals, which means when they try to improvise they can't always get down in notes what they can hear in their heads. They are definitely at a disadvantage.

So surely it would be best to teach an instrument while (or preferably after) developing aural skills to the highest level possible - we're doing our students a disservice if we don't. Whenever I use Kodaly-related ideas with my pupils they always seem to make a quantum leap. Only yesterday I was trying to explain the modes to an adult pupil; all I needed to do was describe a major scale as doh to doh. From that understanding I just had to explain that the dorian scale is re to re, the phyrigian mi to mi and he got it immediately and his aural skills took a leap. This is because he (unwittingly) began to absorb the concept of relative solfah, which is the basis of the Kodaly method.

Why knock that, or call it 'just another method'?

Calling Kodaly 'just another method' would be a bit like describing Japanese calligraphy just another way of writing. Yes it is, but if you learn it you learn a beautiful, subtle way of writing that will enhance your handwriting skills out of all recognition. England is too full of musicians who play the notes with understanding what they're really doing, and it shows. Do we want to carry on with that, or try to change it, by giving our pupils the very best of what's out there if we possibly can?

Violinia

Hey everyone

This post has really surprised me... I started piano lessons at 4 or just 5 and it wasn't even questioned.

I wanted to be taught music so much and had to wait a month or so for a piano teacher but before lessons I was able to pick out tunes on a toy piano at this age.

So yes, it is most definately possible! And yes I was taught at the piano, not away from it, and avoided taking any grade exams until I was about 9 as I was just playing for fun.

I still look back very fondly on those lessons. I do wonder though, if a child can't concentrate for 30 minutes then do they really want to play the instrument? My parents are totally unmusical so I made my decision to want to learn, from I don't really know where... I just did.

I really didn't think it was that remarkable??
I shall read on with interest!!!

Violinia

I'm staying out of yet another argument just waiting to erupt here.

But I wish to say this.

Kodaly is just another method that can walk hand in hand with other methods.

If it was more accessible I would be willing to explore it further. But it is not the be all and end all of musical education.That would be very narrow minded,wouldn't it?

Plus the fact I'm sure Cyrilla will be along later to explain her posting herself.

I have nothing against Cyrilla and I have never criticised her.

I agree.

Steve

Thanks Steve.

And I would again like to say I always enjoy reading your contributions.

Unless you've studied Kodaly it's not really fair to call it 'just another method', is it? It's a little bit more than that! I've spent a week studying Kodaly intensively, have really only scratched the surface, but enough to sense how rich it is.

I don't want another argument either, but do feel like the record needs to be put straight here, otherwise there'll be another backlash, like there was once about the necessity of aural skills!

There are methods, some of them good, some of them mediocre, some of them excellent. Kodaly is most certainly in the excellent category, and there aren't too many methods for imparting musicianship you could say that about, more's the pity.

Violinia

I wasn't brought up on Kodaly when I was young, but I had a good sense of pulse and pitch etc by the time I started lessons at 7 (plus my dad had done some piano with me when I was 5 until I was seriously ill for 6 months) BUT BUT BUT - my parents had always played rhythm and rhyme games with me and sang with me from infancy. Which is often completely missing these days. Which is why the whole idea of music classes is a great one, whether or not you call it Kodaly. For people's information, from what I can gather, Kodaly is not just about hand signs and strange words for rhythms - the principles behind it are essential to musicianship, and should be applied in any case. What is the point of telling pupils about 1 and 2 beat notes if they have no sense of pulse therefore no sense of how the notes compare to each other?! And large motor actions are better for helping children feel this, rather than the tiny motor actions required to press a note on the keyboard. Vocal counting is no good - it has to be felt. Singing and rhythm are often missing in schools because the Kodaly and Curwen 'methods' became unpopular and unfashionable and I think in general music in the UK is a lot poorer for it. And instrumental teaching is probably a lot harder as you can't take for granted a child being able to count/feel a pulse/sing/hear and relate notes higher/lower etc.

Sorry - have to go - doorbell!!

I agree with that, but also have to point out that it's also a little unfair to judge teachers' methods from the outside without having seen them teach or heard how the pupils play, which is what often happens and what may have (intentionally or not) come across in what Cyrilla posted. Maybe I misread the posts but from what Embojet said she did have her pupil clapping a pulse...

I agree with those who point out that music in schools seems to have died a death and that is obviously going to have repercussions in kids' musicality.

[/quote]
Cyrilla, this is a typical example of what I referred to recently, when I accused you of sniping away from the sidelines without offering anything anything useful in return.

Here, you adopt a smugly superior position, criticising the effort of a fellow teacher, as if you actually had this superiority.

OK, so given embojet is not K trained and is dealing with this 4 year old now, and you appear to feel that embojet was misguided, what should embojet have done?

You are completely missing the point. Firstly, what criticism are you referring to? Cyrilla was picking up on the fact that the pupil needed some practise at clapping a steady beat (so the post suggested anyway) and that if this is the case why introduce visual note concepts at this stage? There are often too many stages in development that are missed out and if you are asking what embojet should have done........I don't know. What do you think should have been done? Perhaps make absolutely sure that the pupil concerned has a complete and comprehensive understanding of beat and rhythm and an ability to perform it before moving on to other concepts especially those that might be considered theoretical which is what notation and note values etc are.

As for Cyrilla sniping away at the sidelines and not having anything useful to offer in return.........go to her classes.....take a risk and put yourself up to be educated by her to add to what you already have even if it is just to observe her teaching and then you will see exactly what she has to offer in return........or maybe you would be too blind to see what she has to offer. Nobody said what embojet did in the lesson was no good or that it was bad. Cyrilla has huge experience and years of brilliant teaching behind her and she made a very good observation.......take it or leave it.

Yes that's true,and actually it's not clear from Embojet's post whether she meant written one and two beat notes or played one and two beat notes. If she meant played notes, then fine! Written notes - well, to be honest I sometimes use the Eta Cohen method which uses written notes from the start, but you do have to sing and clap the rhythms well before attempting to play them.

With a 4-year-old I would just go really, really slowly, introducing just one concept at a time, and making sure there's lots of singing and moving to music - to make sure rhythm and pulse are felt in the body before attempting to play anything. But I expect Embojet knows that already.

Re music in schools - yes, certain things have gone right out the window which can only be a bad thing. I grew up in the 50's, and remember Music and Movement classes virtually daily - which were based on Dalcroze principles. Dalcroze is often use alongside Kodaly, and is also excellent. What happened to Music and Movement? Long gone, more's the pity.

Violinia

yes - well said Violinia - I'm right with you there, as you'll know if you read one of my previous posts where I referred to school music and the lack of anything to replace M and M and similar (?think it was on this thread - not sure now!).

I remember going home and absolutely raving about a piece of music we had on M and M - it turned out to be orchestral Bach, from one of the suites. I must have been 5 or 6. And yes, I'm positive we learnt to feel music from inside ourselves in these sessions.

Yes, yes!!! I remember crawling along the floor pretending to be the wolf to the music of Peter and the Wolf, and acting out different animals to Carnival of the Animals - we all really enjoyed it.

I've just remembered - Music and Movement was the baby of Carl Orff, not Dalcroze, but their work was very similar, and quite ahead of its time. I just found this:

The Orff approach, not unlike the Suzuki method, begins with the
idea that music should be learned by a child the same way a language
is learned. Suzuki calls this the "mother tongue approach". A child
learns to speak simply by listening and then imitating and then, later
in life, the child learns to interpret symbols as a written form of
that language. So, then, a child should learn music in the same way.
At an early age, a child is exposed to music and learns to sing and
play percussion instruments, then, later in the child's musical
development, he learns to interpret the symbols on a score as music.
The music a child learns during this time of his life is very simple
melodies that involve a lot of moving. Orff believed that rhythm was
the most important part of music. This is because rhythm is what
movement, speech, and music all have in common. Rhythm is what ties
these all together to make what Orff called elemental music. Orff
uses this approach because it is believed that children must feel and
move to music before they are asked to conceptualize about it.

Speech is one of the key elements in the Orff approach not only
because speech is an inherently rhythmic action, but because Orff was
the only one of the major educational philosophers (Dalcroze, Kodaly,
and Suzuki) to use speech in this way. Orff's thought was that a
transition from speech to rhythmic activities and then to song was the
most natural for a child. So, the student moves from speech to body
rhythms such as clapping or tapping, and then finally leads to the
playing of an instrument. Orff's philosophy continues on in this way
even after a child has developed a skill for an instrument. For
example, concepts such as meter, accent, and anacrusis are introduced
in speech patterns, reinforced in other activities, and then studied
in a musical context. A specific example of this is the teaching
of the concept of a canon. A simple yet varied chant or other form of
rhythmic speech is taught to the class. The students then use the
idea of a "round" to explore how each entrance by each different part
is achieved. Finally, the teacher notates the rhythmic pattern and
shows how each part of the pattern works with the other parts.

Orff's approach to Music Education notes that speech, chant,and
song are all points along the same line. That is to say that one
leads directly to the next. Children's experiences with singing
follow directly from speech. This means that melody is actually an
extension or an outgrowth of rhythm. When children begin to learn to
use their voices as musical instruments, they enter another
pre-planned part of Orff's method. There is a very specific order in
which students learn to use solfege. As with most other theories that
involve singing, the descending minor third, sol-mi, is the first
interval that is taught. Other tones follow in succession in this
order: la, re, do, to complete the pentatonic scale, and then finally
fa and ti. The Orff method uses the pentatonic scale because Orff
believed it to be the native tonality of children. This is cohesive
with Orff's belief that music history is relived in the development of
each individual because he considered the pentatonic mode appropriate
to the development of each child. The use of the pentatonic scale
also gave the students confidence. After all, it's very difficult to
improvise and sound bad when the only notes available are those in the
pentatonic scale. This kind of constant affirmation is crucial to a
child's development.

This is the link to the whole article - absolutely fascinating and well worth a read in light of the current discussion.

http://www.sw.riverview.wednet.edu/music/E...ic_educator.htmCarl Orff and 'Music and Movement'

Violinia

Music and movement! We had it at first school in the early 80s and I loved it! We also did lots of singing and percussion at school, and in assemblies one of the teachers used to hold up 4-beat rhythms (crotchets, quavers and minims) and get the whole school to clap them. We had to click our fingers/ stamp our feet along to records they played, too.

But... I wasn't what you'd call a natural mover. And at 7, I was the only girl in my class not chosen to sing in a local music festival, because I couldn't reliably sing in tune, despite the fact that I could play the recorder well. By 9, I'd passed grade 3 clarinet, but I'm not sure how long it took for my vocal control to catch up with the music I could hear in my head and play on my instruments. I grew up with music in my head all the time, and started writing little tunes and songs when I was 4 or 5. I'm not sure that our school teaching was brilliant, and I certainly didn't have much of a singing background before I began formal lessons. I guess each of us is different.

I did music and movement when I was young and apparently I loved it! If (when?!) I have children, I think I would take them to one.

I do believe, after much thought, consideration and research, that Kodaly is quite frankly for hippies.
ha ha!

Big Yawn.

The debate is now degenerating,but what's new?

I sometimes wonder what the people at the ABRSM think about the stuff that is posted on here. I wonder why they don't offer their contributions on topics.

I for one am getting a bit pig sick of having K shoved down my throat.It's getting as bad as religion.

As for reporting Steve,who is one of the most talented and intelligent teacher and musician amongst us,shame on them.

Violinia...please shut up and give it a rest. Or are any of you going to report me too for speaking my mind.

I definitely remember Music and Movement... I forget where from though, whether it was school or ballet or what. (this is in the 80s)

elliewelly, good point - the ability to understand pitches/hear it in your head/reproduce it on an instrument does NOT necessarily go hand in hand with reproducing it orally. My dad could tell you if something was out of tune with itself (not perfect pitch, but just whether it sounded "right") but he couldn't hold a tune in a bucket.

flutey:

True darn story there Semele. I think K is the new Church of Scientology. As for my hippy remark, I was just winding people up for the fun of it...been in school and teaching for almost 12 hours and Im tired and feeling silly! also annoyed about poor old Steve and him getting grief.
PS used that Theory for Very Young children with a pupil today and she was racing through it! Possibly too easy for her but at least Im now sure she understands the very basics!

I always thought that Kodaly was purely designed to justify exhorbitant fees to the chattering classes and their little Mozarts, or to speak to aliens?

Semele, that was completely uncalled for and if you don't know it you ought to, and why anyone would report anyone else here for speaking their mind is completely beyond me.

And as for trying to paint Kodaly as a weird hippy cult - puleeeze. Next you'll be saying Music and Movement was a weird hippy cult...

So, some of us go on about all this stuff here; why do you think we do that? Because it's relevent and because it works, that's why. This is beginning to feel like a witch hunt, so please stop it now.

Violinia

I am a Zillon from the Planet Tharg. I am also a hippie and describe myself as a Christian Buddhist (that's when I can tear myself away from counting the stars whilst lying on the roof of my narrowboat). Maybe these qualities entitle me to free K training?

On a more serious note, I have read this thread with interest but feel that now is the time to close it....it has made me feel rather uncomfortable. We are, after all, supposedly all on the same side and should spend less energy in having a go at certain individuals. I have always accepted that there are no "right answers" but enjoy reading others' experiences and opinions because every now and then there is something useful there!

Peace, love and lavender oil,

Bag x

That wasn't disputed, Violinia, and I, for one, have no objection to you "going on" about Kodaly. What has been fuelling the anger on this debate is the "implication" that anybody who does NOT use Kodaly methodology is doing it wrong and cannot possibly have students who are well trained in aural, and cannot possibly have students as welll trained as a Kodaly student.

THIS is what the argument has been about, NOT the virtues/non-virtues of Kodaly.

Lynne

Violinia

Without re-reading the entire thread here are a few of my reasons for my posting last night.It is not comprehensive and I'll make it short.

A new member posted her concerns about teaching a young pupil.After the first lesson,she posted back and it was full of enthusiasm.She has not ( I think )contributed to this topic again. Why?Has she been scared off by how this topic has degenerated or simply just not come back on the Forums because she is busy? We don't know. One way or the other it's a shame.

Cyrilla ( who again has not contributed further to this topic ) then,in my opinion and I think others here,put a damper on the new member's success and perhaps knocked her confidence.

Perhaps the topic should have stopped there.However,you continued...when it was Cyrilla in the first place who introduced K to the topic, to ram the virtues of K teachings down people's throat and now it has come to this.

For the record last night I did some googling on Kodaly. The GB home page didn't list the aims etc of the teaching,but I found them on another website.

Impressed? Not really,but I accept I need more indepth information that, unfortunately, I cannot glean as it means parting with money.The basic principle appears to be an emphasis on singing.Wholly commendable and pretty obvious.

I have just read Lynne's posting and I agree.

All methods of teaching ought to run parallel with each other.You may find K excellent ( after studying it for a week!) but other members find other methods excellent too.

Please take this into consideration when posting in future and I still find my response totally justifiable.

Well said, Bagpuss. This thread seems to have run its course...

Violinia: I've found your posts interesting, thank you