Suzuki Music versus traditional Western instrumental teaching

[talk2ham.1]

I have a friend who is all about Suzuki, teaches Suzuki for strings, and wants me to get trained in it so I can teach my kids and start a Suzuki piano school in our area to have a side job from home. :tongue_smilie: I appreciate her compliment, but . . . I'm swamped.

 

However, aside from the fact that I don't have time to dive into that anyway since homeschooling takes up, oh about . . . 150% of my time now, I WOULD like to look into the methodology and hear from those who have either had their children musically trained through the Suzuki method or have taught it themselves. I am especially interested in the comparison between this method and Western traditional piano teaching techniques. For example, I like that it purports to teach children music as being like learning a language . . . I'm nervous about the concept of children playing by ear before learning to play by reading notes. I would like to know if you think it is really a more effective method for teaching children to play an instrument.

[snickelfritz]

Pros

 

--They play real, fun music early. It's very motivating. The first song song ( well, there are some pre-twinkle things) is twinkle. So, very quickly, they can play a song relatives and friends know.

--I think there IS benefit to the ear training. My girls can pick out songs they've heard. I learned traditionally and was VERY dependent on having music.

-- I think this is a good way to get them involved in playing young.

--It approaches music from multiple ways. We have individual, group, and ensemble practice. They learn lots of skills that go beyond playing a solo instrument. Dd's are used to playing with, and in front of, people.

--They DO learn sight reading, eventually. My dd's can't sight read as well as they play, but they probably wouldn't have been able to start much traditional sight reading anyway. Older dd is doing a pretty good job, considering she's 7.

 

Cons

 

--It's very parent intensive.

--If they only take 2 years and quit, they probably haven't learned much sight reading.

--It's very parent intensive.

 

Did I mention it's very parent intensive? But to be fair, that's part of starting them young.

[Aconnolley]

My brother and I both started Suzuki when we were kids. He was 6 and played violin and I was 8 and played piano. Suzuki is great for teaching musicality. Kids can play some nice sounding songs at a young age. Our problem was that we never learned to read notes well. Our playing ability was pretty advanced before they introduced reading, and it was very difficult to learn. Once we had been through our little "sight reading pieces" a time or two, we had them memorized by ear and were no longer reading them. My brother was an excellent violinist by the time he was 12, but never did really learn to read music. I learned a bit more than him since my ear wasn't quite as good, but it has always been a weakness. :glare:

 

My kids are learning music now. My son has a very good ear like my brother and he is doing a mix of Suzuki and note reading and other technique. I think that Suzuki is wonderful as long as note reading is introduced soon enough. I also think that it makes a difference what learning style the child has. My son, being VERY auditory, picks up songs by ear easily, but just getting him to look at a book is a challenge. I am hoping that by introducing note reading earlier that his note reading will eventually catch up a little to his playing ability. My comfort is that he is a voracious reader. Those eyes do work. We just have to transfer that to music!:tongue_smilie:

 

Angela

[Alyeska]

Suzuki method is excellent because it taught me to play violin almost completely by ear. My dd was the same way. She heard me practicing and also listened to the Suzuki CD so when she got to the songs that I had been playing, she picked them up much faster.

 

I already knew how to read music when I started playing violin a couple years ago. My dd had no prior music reading experience, took 1.5 years of violin lessons, and towards the end of her lessons she was reading music. our violin instructor taught sight reading beginning in about 3rd grade I think...she introduced it slowly.

 

I love Suzuki because it enables people to play and play well in short order. Knowing how to read notes comes along later and that greatly benefits young students, imo.

[Hen]

I think it is a great approach, tho is has a drawback in regards to note-reading, but I think that can be managed if you or the teacher is aware/thoughtful of it.

 

I took a few years of violin as an adult- it was strictly Suzuki method, and I wasn't very good - still not good - at reading notes.

 

fast forward, my dd starts taking lessons, Suzuki again but with a different teacher. This teacher starts her out with Suzuki -and- beginner violin note reading books/practice books. she then moved her up to books of scales. I see much better results in my dd, she can read music well, has a really good ear, can tune her violin by ear.

 

I think the Suzki method is wonderful, but that it needs to be supplemented with note reading lessons and traditional scales. Yes, it was mom intensive for a while, I was so happy when we got to the point where I didn't have to sit in on each lesson and take notes!

[catz]

--It's very parent intensive.

--If they only take 2 years and quit, they probably haven't learned much sight reading.

--It's very parent intensive.

 

Did I mention it's very parent intensive? But to be fair, that's part of starting them young.

 

:iagree: I also wanted to comment, it's really quite parent intensive. And has anyone mentioned how much parents need to be involved? ;) But if you're going to start a child in a daily activity as a preschooler or even older depending on the child, you're probably likely going to need to be heavily involved. There are kids who run with it independently. But we go to a music school with a huge Suzuki program with hundreds of kids. These kids appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Anyway, I think if someone starts a 4 year old with traditional lessons because they think you aren't going to be heavily involved, that would be a mistake.

 

My older has taken Suzuki piano for almost exactly 5 years starting at age 5. My younger started Suzuki violin shortly after turning 4. I took 7 years of Suzuki violin growing up and my brother took several years of Suzuki piano. Reading music was/is not an issue for any of us! We all had Suzuki teachers that used a variety of resources other than Suzuki repertoire once technique was well established. My son at this stage in the game does 1/2 to 2/3's of his playing outside Suzuki repertoire (otherwise he might be almost done or done w/Suzuki). He does now read at his playing level 5 years in.

 

The other thing I like about it is it has given my kids a musical community to be in. I love group lessons and events. I love that kids are celebrated individually for where they're at.

 

I personally don't feel there are many cons to using Suzuki IF you have a very competent, balanced, well trained teacher, that connects well with your child. I think piano kids should be sight reading almost from the get go.

 

2 Suzuki books that were really helpful to me ...

 

Background on the Suzuki method. Suzuki is really an educational philosophy

http://www.amazon.com/Nurtured-Love-Classic-Approach-Education/dp/0874875846/ref=pd_sim_b_1

 

Practice ideas for adults with their children. Great suggestions for keep practices fun! I can't tell you how much goofing around and laughing we do while we practice. Games, puppets, beads, etc etc etc

http://www.amazon.com/Helping-Parents-Practice-Making-Easier/dp/0976785439/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303697190&sr=8-1

[snickelfritz]

I will say that our teacher deviates some from Suzuki, so I don't know how much of our experience is the norm. I think she said that "true" Suzuki has sight reading start pretty far in the books, but most Americans proceed slower than Japanese, so the suggestions are off. My girls learn by ear in individual lessons. Group Lessons and ensemble practice are more sight reading based.

 

So, for example:

Older dd is working on Minuet 3 (Suzuki), and two Irish songs (not Suzuki) but all by ear and in individual lessons. She's learning Buddy Holly (by Wheezer), Blue Danube, Saints go Marching, and Largo in ensemble and by sight reading. They give lots of help, write notes, but it still works on the mechanics of sight reading. Then, in group, they do sight reading drills and review Suzuki songs. We do have a sight reading book, but...honestly... I'm not as diligent as I should be. It's just a lot to do.

 

They have an orchestra performance (ensemble pieces) next week and a recital for individual pieces in May. Like I said, intensive. But, I think, very well rounded.

Edited April 25, 2011 by snickelfritz

[Matryoshka]

Our playing ability was pretty advanced before they introduced reading, and it was very difficult to learn. Once we had been through our little "sight reading pieces" a time or two, we had them memorized by ear and were no longer reading them. My brother was an excellent violinist by the time he was 12, but never did really learn to read music. I learned a bit more than him since my ear wasn't quite as good, but it has always been a weakness.

 

It could be a fault to lay that blame on Suzuki. I am very ear-driven, and I had only traditional lessons. It did not matter that I never took Suzuki, I still memorized all my pieces before I ever learned to properly read them. I drove my teacher insane. The downside was that having a good ear was punished rather than seen as something good to have in music. She would not even consider teaching me a piece I had already heard before (but after I'd sounded it out a few times, I just memorized it anyway). I do know all the theory and where all the notes go, but I can't sit down and read a piece and play it (past very simple stuff).

 

If I'd done Suzuki, I think I'd still be playing. I specifically sought out a Suzuki instructor for my kids, as it turns out they're very ear-driven as well. Our Suzuki teachers introduce note-reading at around age 6 or 7, which is the exact same time as traditional lessons - it's just that they've already been playing the instrument for a couple of years.

 

Their note-reading is a separate track entirely from their playing pieces. For note-reading they are working through completely traditional programs - Alfred and Bastien for my two piano players. But they're not held back to playing only simple songs because they have a slower note-reading curve.

[blondeviolin]

Another thing about learning to play Suzuki method is that one has to be very cautious about not letting the student just parrot back what they have heard. Oftentimes, by learning so early to imitate, the student cannot progress past the imitation and internalize the music while performing. It can hinder their musicality if they are just producing what is being heard. A good musician should be able to FEEL the music--the soft, the quiet, trepidation, excitement, etc--and be able to portray that to the listener. If this can't be done, well...he may be able to play the piano/violin/tuba/whatever, but he can't play music.

[rowan25]

Another thing about learning to play Suzuki method is that one has to be very cautious about not letting the student just parrot back what they have heard. Oftentimes, by learning so early to imitate, the student cannot progress past the imitation and internalize the music while performing. It can hinder their musicality if they are just producing what is being heard. A good musician should be able to FEEL the music--the soft, the quiet, trepidation, excitement, etc--and be able to portray that to the listener. If this can't be done, well...he may be able to play the piano/violin/tuba/whatever, but he can't play music.

How do you teach/explain this to a 7 year old? For the most part, she is parroting. However she does have a tendency to put pauses in or draw notes out that aren't written. She says it feels right to do that. Is she intuitively doing this? Is this something that can even be explicitly taught?

[snickelfritz]

Another thing about learning to play Suzuki method is that one has to be very cautious about not letting the student just parrot back what they have heard. Oftentimes, by learning so early to imitate, the student cannot progress past the imitation and internalize the music while performing. It can hinder their musicality if they are just producing what is being heard. A good musician should be able to FEEL the music--the soft, the quiet, trepidation, excitement, etc--and be able to portray that to the listener. If this can't be done, well...he may be able to play the piano/violin/tuba/whatever, but he can't play music.

 

I don't know that I completely agree this is only a problem with Suzuki. I took 6 years of traditional piano and 2 years of organ. I am just not truly musical. I can follow the notes. I can play for my kids to sing along. I played on Sunday morning for a church, for pay, when I was in high school. I can accompany my kids and help them with their lessons. I can't improvise. I did ok at contests, though no one ever said I was brilliant. If the note isn't on the page, I freeze. When our violin teacher (college degree in violin) says her left hand is nothing special, but her right hand is something people notice.......that's a different level of musicality than I will ever achieve. And that's ok. Sometimes the goal CAN be to just be musically literate.

[catz]

If I'd done Suzuki, I think I'd still be playing. I specifically sought out a Suzuki instructor for my kids, as it turns out they're very ear-driven as well. Our Suzuki teachers introduce note-reading at around age 6 or 7, which is the exact same time as traditional lessons - it's just that they've already been playing the instrument for a couple of years.

 

 

This is a great point. Traditional teachers like to criticize Suzuki method for creating kids that only learn by ear. Some kids/people are just more comfortable learning aurally and might have quit learning had they taken lessons traditionally. Suzuki gives kids many ways to be successful. I know a few 9-10 year old Suzuki piano kids that are very music reading driven. A friend of my son struggles to memorize now. His teacher deals with this too.

 

A good musician should be able to FEEL the music--the soft, the quiet, trepidation, excitement, etc--and be able to portray that to the listener. If this can't be done, well...he may be able to play the piano/violin/tuba/whatever, but he can't play music.

 

I actually think the same thing above applies to the artistry of a musician. Some people are just not going to ever be strong an interpreting music on the fly while they're playing it. My 10 year old almost book 5 Suzuki piano kid CONSTANTLY gets kudos on his interpretation of pieces. He argues with his teacher about editorial dynamics and marking now that he knows Bach and Beethoven didn't actually put them in. :D He definitely does not mimic. He feels his pieces. (technique is more of a struggle for him.) Even when my daughter at 4 started playing her first pieces, her teacher commented that she was really feeling them. I have to suppress my giggles sometimes watching her play her heart out at 6.

 

Again, Suzuki method allows kids to be successful in ways other methods might not. If you read Nutured by Love, Suzuki thought musical education could be beneficial for ALL children. Not just naturally musical children that were likely to become professional musicians. I think music lessons have been great for my kid's work ethics, small motor skills, performance skills, working with a mentor, and just learning to come back to something that can be hard day after day.

 

I don't get any kick back from our teachers. :D I just think most of the criticisms around about Suzuki are unfounded. There are kids with similar struggles that take traditional, that might just end up quitting. Poor teachers are not unique to any method. I see hundreds of piano kids play each year, traditional and Suzuki. (Hundreds of violins too - but mostly Suzuki)

[robsiew]

I think this really depends on what you are looking for in a music education. I am a traditionally/western taught violin student who teaches traditional/western violin. I have many students who come to me whose parents are frustrated with Suzuki. I have had one brother and sister in 14 years of teaching that switched to Suzuki after taking from me for several years.

 

Yes, in Suzuki you play music "well" faster, but I've also had people frustrated with how l o n g their children stay on the same piece. I had one student come to me who had been playing that first Twinkle for over a year! :confused:

 

Suzuki is great for those inclined to play by ear, but those children will struggle with note reading for a long time. This makes it extremely hard to play in an orchestra. I've had students who have excellent ears. Even though I teach note reading from the get-go, these students still struggle. The longer/more I let them rely on their ear, the harder it is to get them to read music. I had one student in the past who had such a good ear... we worked on note reading for many YEARS before he finally started reading the notes while playing. I kind of liken it to someone who can speak a language well, but can't read or write it.

 

The last comment I would have is a personal criticism. To me, students who study Suzuki all sound alike. Just go out to You Tube and search on some Suzuki pieces. Each student you hear sounds exactly the same. Music, to me, is a creative expression. I love teaching my students according to their unique personality. They usually have different ways of interpreting the pieces they are working on. I don't even have all my students progress through the same sequence of pieces. I pick pieces I think fit the student or will challenge the student to play in a different way than they usually do. There is no flexibility like that in Suzuki... it's predetermined the pieces everyone will play. I enjoy hearing their "take" on the piece they are working on. This is enjoyable to me... and I believe to an audience as well as the child. From my experience, Suzuki tends to turn out what I would consider little musical robots. (I may get flamed for that one....:001_huh:)

 

The ultimate thing, whatever you choose, is that your child enjoys playing. Whatever the method.... if there is no enjoyment it's not worth spending the time, effort and money on! ;)

[violinmom]

I was trained by one of the founders of the Suzuki method in the US. I find many of the comments here interesting! There are a lot of misconceptions about it that have been around for a long time. I'll just add my 2 cents :)

 

When the first touring group came to NY in the 60's, it caused quite a stir among musicians. Dr. Suzuki was a violinist, so it started with violin. Until that point, violins were not readily available in fractional sizes. So, you started when you could fit the instrument. Once smaller violins were available, teachers began teaching younger and younger students. The old methods just weren't working. I will go out on a limb now and say that many (most) of the great violinists today now were started with this method. I personally know and have heard some amazing virtuoso violinists started this way. Musical, amazing, players. Not the robots you think of when you hear a Twinkle playdown.

 

Remember that the Suzuki method is actually not a method. It's a philosophy of teaching. You have to bring your own thing into it. There are 2 types of training: Short-term, ala 1-2 week workshops, and long-term teacher training. You can tell the difference in the teaching. Each teacher needs to bring to the table their own skills. Just using the books doesn't make you a Suzuki teacher. The Suzuki method can also be used in other areas, not just music. I always find the Saxon math program to have a lot of Suzuki elements to it.

 

As for note reading. When this first started, note reading was a subject taught in schools. The first "batch" of Suzuki students were delayed reading for quite a while. They could do it in Japan because they already knew the basics of note reading. I taught at a Suzuki school where all the students had theory from the very beginning. You teach it differently to a 3 yo than an older child. If they had to only play what they could read from the beginning, they wouldn't be playing much! Much like we don't only speak what we can read. Gradually, the reading reaches the level of the playing. A side note - Suzuki kids taught correctly are GREAT readers. They have the ear as well as the reading skills.

 

Regarding the same music used. Dr. Suzuki used the Bach double violin concerto as a nice "ending" piece that his students could attain before they had to stop their extra-curricular activities to study for their college exams. He went backwards and put together incremental pieces that would teach every skill needed to play the piece. All the twinkle rhythms are in the Bach double. I was trained that if a student needed to move laterally, you were to add pieces. There are lots of unpublished and published things out there for added pieces. Most never need them. Having students play the same thing allows group classes to happen, and there are a ton of great things that happen in group class.

 

As for the piano, I am not a pianist. I know that at our school, the pianists were amazing. There is quite a controversy in terms of leaping and not leaping for the beginners, etc. Our best beginner teacher in my area is an experienced Suzuki piano teacher and I have yet to hear any other beginning studio even begin to touch the quality.

 

Sorry for the long post!

[JennyD]

What an interesting post, violinmom.

 

My son is in his second year of Suzuki cello and I think the program is simply brilliant. I can't believe the sort of serious musicianship that they are teaching to such young kids. DH and I are both beyond impressed with the quality of the whole enterprise.

 

The only down side is, as others have said, the tremendous amount of parental involvement it requires. It is a LOT of time and energy, and it isn't cheap, either. (Well, nothing here is cheap, but still). If you are simply not going to have time to go to the lessons and classes, supervise practice, etc., then I would likely just wait until the child was old enough to take on most of the responsibility associated with traditional lessons. Obviously all music lessons for relatively young kids are going to require parental involvement, but Suzuki is really structured around the assumption of the parent as co-teacher, as least for a while.

[Donna]

My dd has been doing Suzuki violin since she was 3yo. She is currently 8yo and mid-Book 7 level. Her musical education has been a little out of the norm in that she not only plays Suzuki violin but also plays Irish fiddle (this year will be her 3rd year competing in the All Ireland as the MidAtlantic Region under 12 champion). I am not telling you all of that to brag but just to let you know where I am coming from and how much involvement we have in music here.

 

When my dd asked to play violin before her 3rd birthday, there weren't any options other than Suzuki for her in our area. I love the Suzuki method. I have incorporated tenets of the philosophy in homeschooling and also in my work with developmentally delayed babies.

 

The Suzuki method gave my dd a way to learn to play when she was ready. I am not sure she would still be wanting to play now if she had had to wait until she reached "___" age to begin. It helped develop in her a wonderful ear (she can now hear anything and play it) and my dd now has the knowledge that she can learn anything she wants to learn with practice.

 

Yes, kids do stay on one piece for a long time sometimes and I know parents who have gotten frustrated but each piece has some technique that must be developed. As a parent, it is sometimes necessary to set aside your preconceived notions of how long something should take and enjoy the process rather than the results. A child whose teacher gives the child time to develop each technique rather than rushing them through repertoire to keep a parent happy, will end up playing so much better in the long run.

 

My dd only began note reading in the past 18 months. She was learning not only Suzuki pieces by ear but fiddling music is also learned aurally. I will not say it wasn't a struggle. Her ear was good enough that once she heard something, she didn't need to read. It was not for lack of trying to teach her. Her teacher started the basics of reading when she was about the end of Book 1 level and they played from the music when they started Book 4 but dd didn't see a need to learn. She already knew the pieces so just followed along in the music. It wasn't until she began in an orchestra that she finally found a need and in the past 18 months has gone from not reading to reading at just about the level she plays but it took using a lot of new material daily for her to become comfortable with it.

 

I don't believe the Suzuki method makes musical robots. I think it has the possibility of doing that but I think that has more to do with the teaching and the individual student than the method. We have been lucky to have a wonderful Suzuki teacher who talks about musicality...dynamics, phrasing, etc...right from the very beginning and she discusses it with her students allowing them to have input. She also uses non-Suzuki repertiore more and more as the kids get more advanced and encourages students to listen to multiple recordings of professionals playing pieces (Suzuki or non-Suzuki)being learned to hear how different musicians play them rather than taking one interpretation then encourages students to add "themselves" to the piece.

 

I agree with others who say the cons have to do with time and money. Doing the method properly requires a huge time commitment, not so much in the very beginning but it grows exponentially. Eventually, kids become more independent in areas of their practice but it still requires a lot of input from a parent. I won't even go into cost but I know that anything a child excels at takes lots of money, travel, and time so I think that is relative.

[Dmmetler]

OK...here's my bias-I'm an ECED music specialist, focusing on the ages birth-age 7, and work in a school that offers both Suzuki and traditional. I teach group classes with children who are in both types of lessons, as well as group classes for children who are taking only group.

 

What it comes down to this is:

 

Suzuki works if you have

 

a) A child who wants to play the instrument, or, at least, wants to please the parent enough that they're willing to play the instrument (for my daughter who has sensory issues, it became apparent at age 2 1/2 that starting Suzuki violin wasn't in the cards-the sound of the instrument is physically painful to her. However, piano and recorder both were.)

 

b) A teacher who understands young children and how to break down skills to their level, loves young children, and is able to teach the parent as well as the child.

 

and

 

c) A parent who is dedicated and able to support the child at home. The parent who expects the teacher to teach the child everything needed in 30 minutes once a week, and the child to practice when the parent tells them to is the parent who will be claiming "Suzuki doesn't work" within a year.

 

Here's the other side, though....If you have these three things, ANY method works. I do think Suzuki has real benefits when you're starting children who are pre-literate, though, simply because it doesn't rely on reading. I've found reliably, over about 20 years experience, that children really don't synthesize reading music well until they're reading text on a 2nd to 3rd grade level (I'm sure there are exceptions). So, it makes good sense to teach music mostly by ear up until that point. It doesn't mean you don't expose them to music notation, or that you don't teach them that this is a quarter note, and that it takes one beat, and that you can read it as a ta, or a du or a 1 (depending on what system you're using). And it is much, much easier for a pre-literate child to learn melodies that are...well, good melodies. The folk songs taught by Suzuki (and by Yamaha Piano School, Kindermusik, Musikgarten, and a lot of other preschool programs) are easy for a child to learn because they're ones that are easy to sing. And when they're easy to sing, they're easy to apply to the instrument, whether it's a violin, piano, recorder, guitar or voice. And a child who has experience with this in the early childhood years will have a much, much easier time learning to read music later and learning to play ANY instrument.

 

 

On music reading, I think most Suzuki programs now do start teaching theory separate from playing the instrument pretty early, so that at ages 7-8, the child has the tools and can really start putting them together. The Suzuki volumes do not include this, but that's because, traditionally, children would have been getting this instruction at school, so the violin teacher didn't NEED to teach it. Now that it can no longer be assumed that children (at least in the US) get this at school, most Suzuki teachers integrate it, and programs like Music Mind Games are out there to assist them in teaching it, from age zero.

[zaichiki]

Our Suzuki teachers introduce note-reading at around age 6 or 7, which is the exact same time as traditional lessons - it's just that they've already been playing the instrument for a couple of years.

 

Ditto! That's exactly what I've found with 5 different Suzuki teachers in 2 different music schools.

 

My kids don't play piano, but they have been using the Suzuki method since the beginning of their lessons.

 

Ds(12) has been playing cello for 6 years. He has been sightreading for 4.5 years and in orchestras for 4 years. He reads in 3 clefs and plays in a chamber group. His sightreading is fine.

 

Dd(9) has been playing viola for 5 years. She has been sightreading for 4 and in orchestras for 3.5 years. She reads in 2 clefs and plays in a chamber group as well. Her sighreading is fine.

 

Littles ds has is just starting his Twinkles and is not anywhere near ready to learn to sightread yet. :)

 

I haven't yet found any negatives about the Suzuki method. I agree with the pp who wrote that *any* activity you do at home with a young child (like daily practice) is parent intensive.

[zaichiki]

We have been lucky to have a wonderful Suzuki teacher who talks about musicality...dynamics, phrasing, etc...right from the very beginning and she discusses it with her students allowing them to have input. She also uses non-Suzuki repertiore more and more as the kids get more advanced and encourages students to listen to multiple recordings of professionals playing pieces (Suzuki or non-Suzuki)being learned to hear how different musicians play them rather than taking one interpretation then encourages students to add "themselves" to the piece.

 

Oh hey, Donna. I don't think this is luck. *Every* one of my kids' Suzuki teachers, including group teachers, (so that is 7 and counting) has

 

a) talked about musicality likes dynamics and phrasing from the getgo

b) used non-Suzuki repertoire

c) encouraged the kids to listen to multiple recordings of professional musicians playing a particular piece and then discussed the differerences with the kids

 

Then again, ALL of my kids' Suzuki teachers have been professional musicians who have graduated with master's degrees from conservatories and/or have studied with famous professional musicians in their instrument. So -- does teaching the above skills come naturally to professional musicians? Is it a part of the Suzuki method? I haven't asked, but IME it can't be rare among Suzuki teachers in the United States. (We're batting 7 out of 7 so far.)

[zaichiki]

Suzuki is great for those inclined to play by ear, but those children will struggle with note reading for a long time. This makes it extremely hard to play in an orchestra.

 

This is not our experience. We have been in large music schools where most of the Suzuki-trained kids play in orchestras.

The last comment I would have is a personal criticism. To me, students who study Suzuki all sound alike. Just go out to You Tube and search on some Suzuki pieces. Each student you hear sounds exactly the same.

 

Oh my -- not what we've found AT ALL. I could give you youtube links! (I'm a private person and I do not want to share my own children's videos with this forum, but I'm SO tempted -- just to show you Suzuki kids who certainly have their own flair.) I could easily give you links to other Suzuki kids I know on-line! ACK! So tempted! :auto:

 

 

 

Running away!

[Sara in AZ]

Traditional piano teacher/Suzuki mom chiming in here. My children are studying Suzuki violin and cello because I respect the Suzuki philosophy and feel it is the best way to go for string instruments. Here are my reservations about Suzuki for pianists:

 

* IMO delayed note reading really hurts a pianist (not to say that you won't find a Suzuki teacher who will introduce it earlier and avoid some of those problems.) Violinists will only be learning to read one line of music. Piano music is much more complex and harder to catch up with if you wait too long to begin reading. This is why so many Suzuki students' reading skills lag several levels behind their playing skills. (Yes, I have seen many of these students, though I can't say this is always the case.) It can be very frustrating for the student.

 

* I find the Suzuki piano repertoire to not be very pedagogically sound from a technical standpoint. Like violinmom cited, violins can be made much smaller to accommodate tiny fingers. Not so with the piano. Suzuki Book 1 pieces include many technical and coordination issues that will be challenging for young beginners. (Some examples...early introduction of chords/alberti bass/hands playing together.)

 

I've heard plenty of monotonous Suzuki performances, but not in a greater number than I have heard of monotonous traditional piano performances! Bottom line is it's the teacher that makes all the difference. A good Suzuki piano teacher will be aware of the issues with note reading and make sure his/her students can read. A good traditional teacher will make sure to incorporate ear training into his/her program.

 

Before you choose any teacher, I encourage you to sit in on a few lessons and attend a recital if possible. That will help you decide.

[elise1mds]

My daughter is currently a Suzuki violin student, and my sister is a former Suzuki student. My daughter started nearly two years ago, of her own free and very determined will, but my sister was 11 or 12 when she took up the instrument.

 

My mom had tried to teach my sister and I how to read music and play piano when we were younger. I took to it easily, but I have a flair for playing musical instruments (not to brag, just a statement of fact). My sister does not. She felt like she would never learn how to play an instrument. She finally gave up piano because she struggled with reading music and also didn't have a very musically inclined ear. When she and my mom found a Suzuki violin teacher, my sister flourished. She enjoyed memorizing the pieces and perfecting her techniques and has since learned how to read music. She played in a trio/quartet (depending on the semester) while in college and enjoys her instrument. She still can't play piano but can at least read the notes now. She has talked about taking Suzuki piano lessons, but I don't know that it'll ever happen.

 

My daughter loves playing her violin. I too felt like we were "stuck" on the Twinkle variations forever, mostly due to age/ability related to age, but over the past semester, the songs have just flown by. I'll admit to some robotic tendencies at first, but now that she's becoming more comfortable with the instrument and the music, she's branching out and really starting to make songs sound different - playful, slow, just more musical in general, etc. It's more fun for everyone. Her teacher also introduces at least one non-Suzuki song per semester so the kids feel free to investigate other resources and branch out, and she encourages the kids to start reading music as soon as they feel ready. DD seems to have a fair amount of musical talent, so I ordered a theory book (one recommended by her teacher specifically for violins), and we'll work on that over the summer. I honestly think that if DD had wanted to take violin and we hadn't been able to find a Suzuki teacher, I probably would have made her wait a few years until she was more able to grasp theory. The Suzuki method gave her a way to enjoy her passion at an earlier age. As to what she does with it in the future, who knows?

[Donna]

Oh hey, Donna. I don't think this is luck. *Every* one of my kids' Suzuki teachers, including group teachers, (so that is 7 and counting) has

 

a) talked about musicality likes dynamics and phrasing from the getgo

b) used non-Suzuki repertoire

c) encouraged the kids to listen to multiple recordings of professional musicians playing a particular piece and then discussed the differerences with the kids

 

Then again, ALL of my kids' Suzuki teachers have been professional musicians who have graduated with master's degrees from conservatories and/or have studied with famous professional musicians in their instrument. So -- does teaching the above skills come naturally to professional musicians? Is it a part of the Suzuki method? I haven't asked, but IME it can't be rare among Suzuki teachers in the United States. (We're batting 7 out of 7 so far.)

 

I said lucky because of all the people on here posting about kids not being musical and not being able to read music. So, I didn't mean, lucky as in it being a rare thing but lucky that we happen to have a good teacher. We have come across numerous wonderful teachers when attending seminars, workshops, and camps so I don't think it is a rare thing at all.

 

I have seen just as many youtube videos of bad performances as I have of musical ones. :blink: So, I am guessing there are teachers out there who don't expect good technique before moving on or don't teach theory or musicality.

 

I know my dd's first teacher started with beginning music theory in group class right from the Twinkles but the substitute teacher we had for 3 months did not even mention anything about technique or theory...she was very young and I don't think she was very systematic in how she taught.

[Donna]

Running away!

 

:lol::lol::lol: