Jump to content

Menu

Teaching piano classically


Recommended Posts

I think Suzuki may fit what you're looking for :).  Keep in mind that I don't play an instrument or have any musical training, lol, but it's been a great fit for our musical kiddo :).  Suzuki typically starts out by learning songs by ear while progressively working on foundational techniques and then begins working in learning to read music a little later. His playing ability is still above what he can read but we've been working on reading/playing music and the gap is quickly closing :).  
 

This is ds (just turned 6) after two years of lessons at a local Suzuki school.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, but I kind of think Suzuki is the opposite of classical methods. At least from what I've read. It seems more whole to parts not part to whole as discussed in TWTM. But I have not done Suzuki. I have used other methods. I just adjust to how I want to do it. I don't know all the methods well enough to give you any ideas. I teach my kids from the same method books I used growing up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say to think about it the way grammar is learned via the classical method. That is, you build a strong foundation. In the case of classical piano, the building blocks are site reading, theory, and ear training.

Suzuki is a good method for ear training, but poor for producing good sight readers without supplementation. In my 20 years of teaching piano, I've seen many more students struggle with sight reading than ear training, so I usually focus more on that particular aspect (sight reading) first. Learning to read music is very important, so I pick a method (any method) or curriculum that focuses on that as well as other aspects of theory.

After learning to read music, I focus on how the language of music is put together, i.e. chords, keys, harmonies. I'd teach what each chord is and how to build it (probably using scales and arpeggios), then get a fake book (which has the melody written out with chord names for the purpose of improvising) and have the student improvise in addition to reading and learning new pieces. Classical music training has not changed all that much in the last couple hundred years (it has always included both sight reading and improvising), so most methods follow those guidelines. Suzuki is one exception that focuses much more strongly on ear training. 

That was a long way to answer your question, so let me simplify: Any traditional method, in my opinion, will teach piano classically, because they have changed so little over the last few centuries. I use John Thompson for my older daughter and Hal Leonard for my Younger. I have used Faber in the past but it's not my favorite. I like to graduate to original compositions as quickly as possible, there are several publishers who put out books of original classical repertoire for all levels of ability, as I'm sure you know if you teach music (John Thompson is one, for each level of lesson book there is a Classical solos book of original pieces).

 

Hope that helps!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have thought a lot about this. My thoughts have been that if you were to do Suzuki in addition to a traditional note reading program it would be similar to the principles WWE uses to teach writing. The reason I say that is you are separating different skills and practicing them separately. Eventually when those skills catch up to one another they are recombined. So with WWE you practice writing skills separately... handwriting (Copywork), composition (Narration), and the ability to hold thoughts in your head (dictation). With Suzuki you are practicing ear training along with building the muscles in your hands to play more complicated songs earlier than you would in a traditional approach. This allows a student to learn muscle memory for things like scales much earlier than they would encounter them in a traditional series. Another benefit of Suzuki is once a piece has been learned they have the opportunity to practice refining and perfecting the sound quality of their piece (so working on things like tempo and dynamics). This is something that is not as easily done with a very simple song found in their primer or level 1 book. In addition to Suzuki if they are using a traditional piano series alongside Suzuki they will be practicing their note reading skills as well. Eventually those ear training, good tone quality, strong hand muscles/muscle memory, and ability to read notes will all catch up to one another, but in the meantime they are able to practice and improve each of those essential skills seperately.

 

A disclaimer: I am not a Suzuki teacher, I have only played around with the beginning book of Suzuki with my kids. So more qualified individuals who have more experience with Suzuki may be cringing over my ideas. ;) I have had these ideas rattling around in my mind for a while, so I thought I would put them out there. I am not dead set on this as being the one right way, as I said it is just a thought I have had.

 

Also for higher levels of piano, my idea of classical piano instruction would be learn to play classical pieces and learn theory concepts from those pieces. Like learning literary analysis and writing using good/great books. I also think music appreciation is a really important component as well, to help refine taste. Just as we try to avoid poor quality literature when possible in hopes that our kids will develop a taste for quality literature. I think it is important to provide opportunities to listen to and interact with classical pieces, in hopes that one day our children will enjoy and appreciate the richness of that music.

 

I have also thought that a music copywork book might be a good idea. I only listened to it once, but I remember the Delectable Eduction podcast on music had some great ideas on teaching music (episode 100, November 17, 2017). I would love for my kids to study music as deeply as that podcast was describing, however I feel completely inadequate to teach them to that level, even though I have been playing the piano since I was young. :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd say to think about it the way grammar is learned via the classical method. That is, you build a strong foundation. In the case of classical piano, the building blocks are site reading, theory, and ear training.

Suzuki is a good method for ear training, but poor for producing good sight readers without supplementation. In my 20 years of teaching piano, I've seen many more students struggle with sight reading than ear training, so I usually focus more on that particular aspect (sight reading) first. Learning to read music is very important, so I pick a method (any method) or curriculum that focuses on that as well as other aspects of theory.

After learning to read music, I focus on how the language of music is put together, i.e. chords, keys, harmonies. I'd teach what each chord is and how to build it (probably using scales and arpeggios), then get a fake book (which has the melody written out with chord names for the purpose of improvising) and have the student improvise in addition to reading and learning new pieces. Classical music training has not changed all that much in the last couple hundred years (it has always included both sight reading and improvising), so most methods follow those guidelines. Suzuki is one exception that focuses much more strongly on ear training. 

That was a long way to answer your question, so let me simplify: Any traditional method, in my opinion, will teach piano classically, because they have changed so little over the last few centuries. I use John Thompson for my older daughter and Hal Leonard for my Younger. I have used Faber in the past but it's not my favorite. I like to graduate to original compositions as quickly as possible, there are several publishers who put out books of original classical repertoire for all levels of ability, as I'm sure you know if you teach music (John Thompson is one, for each level of lesson book there is a Classical solos book of original pieces).

 

Hope that helps!

 

This.

 

I also think of it like phonics. The classical method for reading would also be the traditional--learn phonics. Classical learning to read would shy away from the sight method. Similarly, I think Suzuki couldn't qualify as "classical," because as sight-method is to reading, so I feel Suzuki is to piano. My sons did take Suzuki violin, but I was teaching them piano with Alfred, which I feel emphasizes the chords well, so they were learning to read the music well. I don't have any Thompson books with me. I really don't like Suzuki for the piano. I know this is a caricature of their program, but it kind of seems like trained monkeys to me. They can play a limited repertoire very well, and that's it.

 

I have taught with Faber, and I like it, but it seems a little more like creative writing to me, rather than simple copywork and dictation, if you understand my meaning. Faber will take that 5-finger pattern and put it all over the piano. It's interesting, but I agree, there is a more "free" or modern taste to it than some of the others, although it's still pretty traditional.

 

My impression of classical instruction (which, none of our music would be truly classical, as even the scales we use are only from the last 500 years) is that it would be taught with a lot of technique practice. A lot of the classical composers wrote etudes and such for youngsters (usually girls) to practice with. Lots of scales, Beringer daily exercises, that kind of thing for the grammar stage. Perhaps the "logic" stage would continue with technique and sight reading skills, and add in more theory. Then the rhetoric stage may be using all of that to begin composing, arranging, or improvisation skills? Just a thought.

 

But that's if you view classical education as "stages" of learning per Dorothy Sayers Lost Tools of Learning. If you consider the ancient views on education, you might be thinking about how to use music to instill the "good, true, and beautiful" into your children. So then the good might refer to playing well, working hard, having consistent character to practice; the true could perhaps refer to theory and sight reading and learning the "truth" of music (like 2+2 in math, learning the notes and staff and theory); the beautiful could refer to proper taste and judgment in playing with expression, beauty, and playing things that are aesthetically pleasing and uplifting, not simply appealing to the "belly," or the baser desires. What do you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd also like to add, not as a music teacher but as a homeschooling mom who is teaching her children music, that I'm really seeing the benefits of taking it slow and doing the grunt work and building a good foundation (or conversely the consequences of not doing it that way).

My older daughter didn't enjoy Flashcards for note reading so I stopped doing them with her. Now, over a year later, I'm regretting that decision as her music reading skills have suffered, which is holding her progression back. Since I've added flashcards back in to her routine, her note reading skills have taken off. Any practice would do, but flashcards are the most efficient imo.

 

There really are no shortcuts. Which is why I agree with Amy Meyers that an ability to quickly play limited repertoire well (a la Suzuki) does not necessarily indicate a mastery of skills required to develop into a well-rounded and independent pianist, one who could pick up an unknown piece of music and learn it without hearing it first, or compose music without the aid of one of those keyboards that automatically notate what you play.

I'm not trying to rag on Suzuki. It is a very good method for instruments which don't require as strong an ability in reading music. Violin, for example, requires less than half the sight reading skills of piano. Treble clef only and most often one note at a time. Where piano requires two clefs, two hands, and rarely less than three notes at once (in standard repertoire). That's why it's so very important to match the method to the instrument I guess. Or at least heavily supplement to shore up weaknesses in the method.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...