Recommended age to start piano?

[Alicia64]

I freaked when I saw how much piano is X two because I have twins. Then a friend's 90 yr. old piano teacher said that he recommends a child be at least 8 -- 10 is better -- before the child begins lessons.

 

That their fingers and attention span aren't long enough.

 

What does everyone on this board think?

 

Alicia

[teamturner]

My twin boys started piano lessons when they began 2nd grade which for them was just 4 months before they turned 8. I think it was the perfect time as they progressed quickly. I started my dd also when she began 2nd grade, but she had just turned 7. I somewhat wish I had saved my money and started her a year later. She's done well but her learning has been much slower. She's matured a lot this year and is taking on the responsibility of practicing and getting her work done, but in the beginning of the school year, not so much. I can see the wisdom of waiting until 8. My twin boys couldn't have waited until 10 though. They were trying to teach themselves piano before their formal lessons began. In the end, each child is different so you have to make the call. Piano is very expensive so I think it's wise to make sure the child will get the most out of it.

[myfunnybunch]

I think it depends on the kid, the family, the teacher.

 

My two older boys started playing at age 4. They play very well and enjoy playing. They've got a wonderful patient teacher who works well with them and enjoys teaching young children.

 

I am finding that now that my oldest is eight, he's able to practice more independently. And of course his hands are able to stretch a little better.

 

So, I think it's up to you. If you got the time and energy to help them practice at home and they want to learn, then go for it. And waiting a couple years certainly won't hurt either.

 

How's that for helpful? ;)

 

Cat

[JennC]

I've taught piano lessons for several years. Here's my 2 cents.

I've had 5 yo students - they have books for them with a coloring page, then some counting, then some note recognition, etc. It is fun if you have a smart 5 year old who wants to learn to play. They are sweet and want to please you. However, they can't read, don't remember anything on their own and an honest teacher IMO will tell you straight up if you don't have a Mozart on your hands. If you are fine with paying for an "enriching lesson" go for it.

6 & 7 yos do somewhat better, because a. they can sit still for 1/2 hour and b. they can read.

that being said

my favorite students are 3rd - 5th grade, and only students who want to learn.

Music lessons can be expensive, but beginners don't need a master teacher either. I started teaching as a college freshman for extra money. I was a music student and worked for a conservatory. Parents were given a cheaper option to go with a student teacher. If you don't have a teacher in mind, try the local university music department.

YMMV

[Ali in OR]

If you want them to learn by ear (eg Suzuki method), younger is better. We started older daughter at 6 (on the old side for Suzuki) and younger daughter at almost 5. They really can develop good technique and a good ear from an early age. Both are learning to read music too. But if finances are an issue, go with a teacher who starts when they can read! I don't think you HAVE to start early.

[OH Lori]

One of our piano teachers told us that it wouldn't do any good to give them lessons before they could read (can't figure out the letters of the notes if they don't know alphabet). Another told us as early as possible. Personally, I think it depends on the personality of the child and the family ability to cope with/afford lessons. But then I'm that way. :blink:

[gandpsmommy]

I have heard such conflicting things. One music professor told me that kids need to start learning between 3 and 7. One lady who had a degree in music performance, was a music director for a large Catholic church, and whose husband was a high school music teacher told me that as long as children are exposed to music and are learning to sing, you can wait as long as 10-12 years old before starting lessons. One teacher prefers to have students who are old enough to read because she feels that the note recognition is much easier for them. And a professional musician who plays in the city orchestra told my husband that the idea of having to learn to play an instrument in early childhood in order to be good at it is highly overrated. She sees many adults successfully learn to play instruments at a very proficient level.

 

I personally feel that, depending on the child, 7-9 is a great age to begin lessons, but 10-12 would be fine, too. I know there are children who have had wonderful experiences with the suzuki method as toddlers and preschoolers. Unfortunately, we don't have any suzuki teachers in our area. We started dd on piano lessons when she was almost 7.5, at the beginning of second grade. Ds tried a lesson with the same teacher, but he had just turned five, and he just wasn't quite ready. He wasn't reading yet and just wasn't ready socially yet for the lesson structure, either. Now, I'm not sure because we didn't try it, but I think dd could have succeeded at piano at age five because she was reading and was very mature for her age. But, I can't see that we have lost anything, either, by waiting until she was 7. So, as long as you continue to expose your chlldren to music, I can't see any harm in waiting until they are a little older. We plan to try again with ds when he is seven and see if he is ready. In my opinion, a little older is better because they are more mature, better able to cope with the frustrations and better able to spend time practicing consistently.

[KJB]

I think music training for young children can be great, but I think it's a big commitment for a parent. It's takes time, money, patience, and a willingness to sit through lessons and practice with a child that might rather be doing other things.

 

Here's the abstract of an article of interest:

 

Musical Training Shapes Structural Brain Development

 

Krista L. Hyde,1 Jason Lerch,2 Andrea Norton,4 Marie Forgeard,4 Ellen Winner,3 Alan C. Evans,1 and Gottfried Schlaug4

 

1McConnell Brain Imaging Center, Montreal Neurological Institute, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3A 2B4, 2Mouse Imaging Centre, Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5T 3H7, 3Department of Psychology, Boston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts 02467, and 4Music and Neuroimaging Laboratory, Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02215

 

Correspondence should be addressed to either Krista L. Hyde or Gottfried Schlaug at the above addresses. Email: krista.hyde@mail.mcgill.ca or Email: gschlaug@bidmc.harvard.edu

The human brain has the remarkable capacity to alter in response to environmental demands. Training-induced structural brain changes have been demonstrated in the healthy adult human brain. However, no study has yet directly related structural brain changes to behavioral changes in the developing brain, addressing the question of whether structural brain differences seen in adults (comparing experts with matched controls) are a product of "nature" (via biological brain predispositions) or "nurture" (via early training). Long-term instrumental music training is an intense, multisensory, and motor experience and offers an ideal opportunity to study structural brain plasticity in the developing brain in correlation with behavioral changes induced by training. Here we demonstrate structural brain changes after only 15 months of musical training in early childhood, which were correlated with improvements in musically relevant motor and auditory skills. These findings shed light on brain plasticity and suggest that structural brain differences in adult experts (whether musicians or experts in other areas) are likely due to training-induced brain plasticity.

 

When my older two were younger, our music teacher told me that she believed there was a window for music development just like language. She thought that if a child began musical training young, they might not seem to make much progress, but a lot goes on "under the hood".

 

I've found that to be true with my children. They aren't Mozarts, but they've been taking lessons since they were 5 or 6 and they have developed both the ability to play pretty well, AND the ability to concentrate and persevere through difficulty and frustration. I credit the years they've spent learning to play and I think our first teacher was on to something.

[Matryoshka]

It depends on the type of lessons. For traditional lessons, they should be reading well, so 7+. For Suzuki, which teaches by ear first, you can start as young as 3 (though honestly for most kids that first year is just Twinkles over and over...).

 

We do Suzuki, and my older two started at 5 and my younger at 4 (because she was already playing the right hand of the whole first book just from osmosis, so it seemed silly to wait). Music reading lessons get added in with Suzuki at the same age as they would with traditional, around 7. (Suzuki uses the "mother tongue" approach - you learn to speak (play) before you learn to read).

 

But for traditional lessons (reading first, then playing), they should be older. That's why you hear such a disparity in advice. Apples and oranges.