| Author |
Message |
    
akl
Citizen
Username: Akl
Post Number: 102
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 12:39 pm: |     |
I think Suzuki is teaching kids tricks for the benefit of their parents. I don't want my 3yo to be a trained monkey. My wife thinks I'm nuts. Anyone have pro- con- opinions on this? |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2427
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 1:09 pm: | |
SUzuki means sea bass in Japan.
|
Cleve Dark
Citizen
Username: Clevedark
Post Number: 226
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 1:51 pm: | |
My kids did Suzuki violin and piano for a couple of years. It was demanding, in general, and they learned advanced things very early on. They started at age 4.
In the end, both of my kids were fired. They were totally burned out, hated it, and stopped cooperating. If we were more realistic, we would have pulled them out earlier. I guess we were hoping they truly were prodigies. My kids still smart at the memory. It was not a pleasant time for us, looking back. And we regret it.
|
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1308
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 2:52 pm: | |
Some of the criticisms I have heard ( and I play a musical instrument and can sight read most pieces) are the dependency on rote memorization of pieces and the relatively late introduction to learning to read music.
To my mind, the general emphasis on group playing and public performance is healthy, but students are often too worn out to enjoy sitting in the privacy of their own homes and picking up a piece of music to play it either for the sheer enjoyment or "just for the hell of it" and trying out a new piece of music on their own. Just my opinion. |
Cleve Dark
Citizen
Username: Clevedark
Post Number: 231
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 3:06 pm: | |
You have to be careful that the lessons are scheduled at the right time for the little ones. My poor kids had lessons at 5, 5:30! It was all so stupid, looking back.
My kids were taught musical notation in their group class through games and worksheets, but were not taught to read the pieces they were playing. |
E
Citizen
Username: Scubadiver
Post Number: 78
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 3:11 pm: | |
Themp,
While the spoken "suzuki" can mean sea bass, the meaning of the pronounced word can only be inferred from the written form (Kanji). In this case, the family name of "Suzuki" means "bell tree", which is a musical instrument.
|
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2429
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 3:26 pm: | |
OK, I stand corrected.
Here's an alternate translation:
 |
mjc
Citizen
Username: Mjc
Post Number: 1002
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 3:51 pm: | |
our experience for what it's worth:
My son started at 6 or 7 (his idea) with a teacher who used Suzuki materials and (as I understand) some but not all of their methods. He had individual lessons for a while, then shared his lesson time with 2 other kids for a while.
I liked that he was encouraged to play what he heard (like speaking instead of reading), but his teacher early on started with reading music, too.
He loved the big-group Suzuki "play down" (?) events at Montclair State and with his teacher's other students.
Cleve is right about the scheduling: the kid had a really hard time getting through a one-person 4 or 5 pm lesson. 3:30 was better, and the group lesson was also less grueling.
He stopped taking lessons for a while in middle/high school, started up again for a while, had a wonderful experience with Ms. Roberts at CHS, and now (first year after CHS) is playing regularly for joy, which was the whole point to begin with. |
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 2169
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 4:52 pm: | |
I think like Montessori, many things are called Suzuki.
Chuck Speicher teaches Suzuki piano, supplemented with a lot of theory. When we used him he taught privately and through Montclair State. He definitely taught notation, but said that it is important for children to be playing actual music from the beginning, rather than repetitive notes and scales. He likened it to expecting a baby to learn how to speak by having it repeat phonemes, "...say bah,...c'mon say bah" |
Strings
Supporter
Username: Blue_eyes
Post Number: 773
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 4:57 pm: | |
Innisowen is right - I have found that students who study suzuki can play incredibly well but are terrible sight readers. I taught orchestra at the middle school level for 2 1/2 years (up until just recently) and taught private lessons for several years before that. I also judged the Junior Region 1 (Northern NJ) violin auditions the past two years and the suzuki players were painfully obvious. Both years I was in the scale/sight reading room and kids would come in and play a perfectly in tune and in time 3 octave scale with beautifully impressive tone quality and control, then would completely bomb the simple sight reading.
If Suzuki is supplemented by note reading, simple music theory, etc., then it is fantastic. On it's own, it's only worth so much. |
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2287
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 5:12 pm: | |
I studied violin for twelve long years, beginning with the Suzuki method when I was six. I rarely ever play anymore, having never achieved enough proficiency to have fun with the instrument. (Violin is sort of all or nothing...)
The result of not learning to read music early on was that by the time I was old enough to join a youth orchestra I was perpetually behind everyone else in terms of my ability to read music. And this was very discouraging.
That said, my deficit didn't hamper me much in high school orchestra, as the musicals we performed weren't as difficult as whatever the mad Belgian conductor had us playing in the more serious city-wide youth ensemble.
I've deliberately avoided Suzuki with my own kids (who both study piano), and I'm pleased to say they already show far greater facility with reading music than I ever did at their ages (or later, for that matter). They also improvise, pick out melodies by ear, and compose on their own, and this I think is due to the fact that a) we listen to a lot of music at home and b) they have a very good and encouraging teacher.
A final thought on this topic: I'm comvinced it's a very good idea for kids to start out their music education by studying piano, if at all possible, since this entails learning about bass clef notation, chord structure, and other things that have broad uses, whether your kid winds up eventually playing an orchestral instrument, accompanying a camp sing-along on guitar, or blowing innovative bass sax lines in a jazz quartet. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 1315
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 5:17 pm: | |
I agree with J. Crohn on the virtue of learning music early and through the piano.
I started out life learning the piano and learning to read music well.
Though I now play a stringed instrument and haven't touched a piano in years, I still sort of "see the keyboard" with regard to music.
It's just that you can't take a piano with you on the plane or in the car. |
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2288
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 5:19 pm: | |
"...it is important for children to be playing actual music from the beginning, rather than repetitive notes and scales."
This sounds like straw-man dogma to me. Both of my parents were music teachers, neither taught Suzuki, and neither taught beginnning students by first requiring them to play only repetitive notes and scales. I don't know of any teachers who do that today, nor have I ever heard of a music teacher who doesn't assign "actual music" from the beginning.
But who knows, maybe assigning exercises in isolation was a popular practice in 19th century Vienna. |
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2289
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 5:25 pm: | |
"...I still sort of "see the keyboard" with regard to music."
I was going to point out that the visual aspect of piano is said by musicians to be very helpful. Stringed instruments (and I guess wind, too) lack that advantage.
|
Strings
Supporter
Username: Blue_eyes
Post Number: 774
Registered: 4-2004
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 7:39 pm: | |
I also agree that starting a child on piano at a young age is a great idea, however, the difference between piano and violin is that with piano you don't have to worry about intonation. Ear training and suzuki go hand-in-hand and that is one thing that the method does accomplish very well.
J. Crohn - as a music teacher still in the "circuit" (we all tend to know each other) I can confirm that there ARE still teachers out there that don't start with "actual music" right away. They're definitely a fading breed, though. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11853
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 8:08 pm: | |
Hmm, maybe it's best to have more than one instrument. I went to a music school (after school) starting in fourth grade. They started me on piano and soprano recorder. I also had ensemble singing and ear training classes.
I continued choral singing through high school (and beyond). I was a music major in college, and having played piano and having sung bass in chorus helped me a lot at hearing chords. I remember taking harmonic dictation in theory class and getting it fairly quickly while the violin and flute students had no idea what to do. All they could do was pick out the melody.
|
chiquita
Citizen
Username: Chiquita
Post Number: 61
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 8:24 pm: | |
I have two children who study piano using the Suzuki method with Chuck Speicher. As someone mentioned before though, not every Suzuki teaches the same way. My son started at age 6 with one Suzuki teacher then switched to Chuck when she moved away. His first teacher did have him do some repetitious things and did not start him reading music, which worried me. Chuck trashed the repetitious stuff, began having my son learn to sight read and encouraged him to play things he enjoyed and create his own compositions. My son also attended group music theory classes with Chuck and became comfortable playing in front of groups, learned a lot about rhythmn, composers, etc. He is now in 6th grade, is a very good sight reader, and loves his lessons with Chuck. My daughter has learned much faster than my son, having listened to all his Suzuki tapes for years and having attended his lessons. She is actually catching up to him. Her music teachers at school have been very impressed with her abilities--she is in third grade.
A lot of people are very critical of the Suzuki method, sometimes making very disparaging comments to me despite the fact that they know my children take Suzuki lessons. I think the teacher and the relationship between the child and teacher can matter more than the method. I know plenty of people who studied the conventional way and HATED it or who have kids who hated it. All I know is Suzuki has worked for my kids (although I think Chuck broadens their experience--he'll teach my kids to play any song they want, not just strictly Suzuki), and no, I do not consider my kids trained monkeys. |
sk8mom
Citizen
Username: Sk8mom
Post Number: 406
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 8:49 pm: | |
Is there any such thing as sea bass?
The stuff they sell in restaurants as "Chilean sea bass" is Patagonian toothfish. |
Cleve Dark
Citizen
Username: Clevedark
Post Number: 235
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Monday, January 9, 2006 - 10:47 pm: | |
Thinking back, my daughter's first Suzuki piano teacher was really special. She had a way with children, and she did really fun games with her. She encouraged her to compose her own music, notated, and was endlessly patient. She taught very subtle phrasing and technique. It was quite amazing, really.
There were some kids at the school who took regular lessons, and they would all play together at recitals. The difference in technique and music choice was profound. But I can't tell you who was having a better time, or who would continue to play and grow as a musician.
I also remember a very gifted little boy (five years old) who the school wanted to send to a local college level conservatory (his mother said no way). Apparently when a student reaches a certain level of mastery, they leave Suzuki behind and continue training in a more traditional method.
The basic premise behind Suzuki if you read any of the primary source materials is that every child has musical talent, and the method will nourish it. It also has something to do with the psychological state of post-war Japan, when Dr. Suzuki did his groundbreaking work.
My friend studied violin at a conservatory, and he said that you could pick out the Suzuki trained players very easily--their technique and physical comfort level with the instrument was astounding. He felt that he would never reach their level of accomplishment.
|
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2294
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 12:18 am: | |
"My friend studied violin at a conservatory, and he said that you could pick out the Suzuki trained players very easily--their technique and physical comfort level with the instrument was astounding. He felt that he would never reach their level of accomplishment."
Well, Cleve, it's possible that both your friend and I attribute too much to too little. That is, I attribute my poor sight-reading skills to early Suzuki instruction, and he attributes some comparative inadequacy in his technique to lack of Suzuki instruction.
In my own case, I never developed anything remotely like a fine technique or physical comfort with the violin, mainly because I'm uncoordinated and my muscles tend to seize up. (I also can't type. Over the years I've developed a pretty serviceable four-finger keyboard hopscotch that suffices only because computers feature the capacity to correct mistakes easily and rapidly.)
In other words, my discouragement with the violin likely was not simply because it was hard for me to read music, therefore Suzuki was likely not entirely to blame.
"...the difference between piano and violin is that with piano you don't have to worry about intonation. Ear training and suzuki go hand-in-hand and that is one thing that the method does accomplish very well."
Quite right. Even I, with my collapsing knuckles and seized up neck muscles, and my abysmal technique unamenable to any "method" known to mankind, was said to have had good intonation. |
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 2170
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 10:04 am: | |
Chuck also told me that although Suzuki violin is very popular with the young set, he really believed piano was the best first instrument. For the reasons jcrohn mentioned above (melody and harmony, both cleffs, chords, etc.) but also because when you touch middle C for the very first time it sounds like middle C. This is not the case with violin.
jcrohn - I'm curious...if both of your parents were non-suzuki music teachers, why did they start you on Suzuki violin? |
J. Crohn
Supporter
Username: Jcrohn
Post Number: 2299
Registered: 3-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 2:39 pm: | |
I have no idea. Probably the idea simply had some sort of currency at the time. (This was almost 40 years ago.) Or maybe they thought they could make up for any deficits at home.
As Strings points out, piano is not an instrument that requires attention to intonation, so it simply may not have lent itself so much to Suzuki instruction. Perhaps my folks thought that Suzuki seemed like a more rational approach to violin in particular.
|
Cleve Dark
Citizen
Username: Clevedark
Post Number: 238
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 2:42 pm: | |
What's intonation? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11864
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 2:46 pm: | |
Intonation is playing the pitch right on, rather than a little too low or high.
|
Cleve Dark
Citizen
Username: Clevedark
Post Number: 239
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 3:03 pm: | |
Oh! That is the most horrible thing about kids learning violin. It sounds terrible. I can still hear that group class ringing in my ears.
Thanks. |
Debby
Citizen
Username: Debby
Post Number: 2173
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 9:23 pm: | |
It truly does. The screeching is unbearable. Piano sounds good and musical from the very beginning. |
Cleve Dark
Citizen
Username: Clevedark
Post Number: 244
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, January 10, 2006 - 10:10 pm: | |
The screeching notes of Twinkle Twinkle Little Star is imprinted on so many people's brains it's probably worked it's way into the human genome. |
Lizziecat
Citizen
Username: Lizziecat
Post Number: 1019
Registered: 5-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 12:08 am: | |
Sometimes parents, even though it may be painful, have to accept the fact that their children have absolutely no musical talent. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 11883
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 10:51 am: | |
I don't think it's a decision for parents. If a student isn't performing well (and who gets to decide what "well" means?), it could be because of the teacher, not the student.
If the student is learning and is enjoying the study, then it's worthwhile, no matter what level of proficiency he or she is likely to reach.
|
Cleve Dark
Citizen
Username: Clevedark
Post Number: 248
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, January 11, 2006 - 12:20 pm: | |
Nah, I believe that everyone has some musical talent. They just need the right teacher and the right instrument and the interest. But it's hard to make all the planets align. That's where you give up.
What's tough is when the parent wants the child to continue at all costs, when the child doesn't want to. Some kids make it painfully clear, other kids want to please and go along with it. |
akl
Citizen
Username: Akl
Post Number: 104
Registered: 8-2002
| | Posted on Thursday, January 12, 2006 - 5:36 pm: | |
Thanks to everyone for the comments. When I was a kid, I studied violin at a conservatory. I formed my "trained monkey" opinions by observing the Suzuki class taught to the young kids and (probably) from absorbing the opinion of my teacher (who was a first violin in the NY Philharmonic). This thread has helped me realize I've probably been too close-minded about Suzuki.
|
moondagny
Citizen
Username: Moondagny
Post Number: 4
Registered: 11-2004
| | Posted on Friday, January 13, 2006 - 5:18 pm: | |
Shinichi Suzuki liked to refer to his method as the "mother tongue" method. He believed that children should achieve proficiency on a musical instrument in much the same way as they learn to speak. As we speak long before we can read, learning to read music on the staff is not a priority in the method until the child is a more "fluent" musician.
I supplement my students with Suzuki materials, but actually find their piano course to be extremely difficult given the amount of time that your average 8 year old devotes to practice at home. Children who have a "good ear" do really well with it. My more analytical students think it's torture. It takes all kinds, eh?
Lisa |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page