SUZUKI Violin, Piano, Music Lessons, Method, opinions, cost, experience, etc. - Page 3

[TulsiLeaf]

I really don't think one way provides a better musician. Being a musician is something that you inherently posses and no amount of training, blood, sweat or tears will make you a better one is you don't have it.

i just think that the differences in the approaches have their pro's and cons for each child. I think a well trained classical musician is just as good as a suzuki trained musician. And same the opposite way. no two children are a like, so some need different instruction.

I am a musician (I play flute) and I am classically trained.

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by TulsiLeaf

I really don't think one way provides a better musician. Being a musician is something that you inherently posses and no amount of training, blood, sweat or tears will make you a better one is you don't have it.

Totally disagree. I come from a family of four children, two [separately] adopted, making for three unrelated genetic backgrounds. Our parents had degrees in philosophy and English Lit. All four of us children became professional string players. What are the odds of that? What we had in common was Suzuki music education -- where the belief is in the immense potential of every child.

Miranda

[redvlagrl]

Miranda, my background is very similar to yours - both my parents also have higher degrees in Eng lit and fine art. I am adopted, yet both me and my brother went into music.

*however* I will still assert that it's not the Suzuki method itself that's made you and your kids so lucky, but the teachers. I have had countless kids come to me with really, really terrible problems due to *bad* Suzuki teaching. Bad teaching, of course can come from anywhere, but IME, bad suzuki teaching often ends up with terrible rhythm and below par music reading ability. It is repairable, but it's sooo tough for the student once they have been learning for, say, 12 years and they have to go to baby stuff in order to try and rectify their problems.

When I've seen the results of bad traditional teaching I often see problems that are different - poor technique, for example. However these physical problems seem to be easier (somewhat) to fix, whereas a terrible rhythmic sense is extremely debilitating.

So I'm neither a huge proponent of either 'method' of pedogogy. It's the pedegogue that matters.

[Whistler]

Originally Posted by TulsiLeaf

I really don't think one way provides a better musician. Being a musician is something that you inherently posses and no amount of training, blood, sweat or tears will make you a better one is you don't have it.

I don't agree with this. Every child has the potential to become a musician with training. There are people with naturally more aptitude, but anyone can learn to play an instrument well if they work at it and anyone can improve and become "better at it".

Originally Posted by TulsiLeaf

i just think that the differences in the approaches have their pro's and cons for each child. I think a well trained classical musician is just as good as a suzuki trained musician. And same the opposite way. no two children are a like, so some need different instruction.

I do agree with this. There is no "better method" just like there is no one-size-fits-all education for any other subject.

There are things I like about the Suzuki philosophy and method. I, myself am classically trained in flute just like you. My kids are doing Suzuki violin. To me a musician is a musician regardless of the method of training. It is something you need to work at daily to progress, especially in the formative years.

When I've seen the results of bad traditional teaching I often see problems that are different - poor technique, for example. However these physical problems seem to be easier (somewhat) to fix, whereas a terrible rhythmic sense is extremely debilitating.

Even this can be corrected with good instruction. I don't that that sharp, innate sense of rhythm that some musicians have. Yet I have learned to compensate, to work harder at counting and sight-reading, and I am happy to say that I seldom make the rhythmic mistakes now that I used to make when I was younger. I can now "feel" the correct rhythm and get the notes "in the groove" (as the Jazz guys say) just as well as anyone else. So I guess you could say that with hard work and concentration I have developed my natural sense of rhythm and timing as well as being able to play difficult rhythmic figures accurately.

I highly credit my instructors in college who did not write me off as having no talent but had the philosophy that every student could improve. I had poor teachers in junior high and high school, but in college I finally hit my stride as a musician and I'm so grateful to have teachers who didn't give up on me.

[redvlagrl]

Originally Posted by Whistler

<regarding rhythm>

Even this can be corrected with good instruction. I don't that that sharp, innate sense of rhythm that some musicians have. Yet I have learned to compensate, to work harder at counting and sight-reading, and I am happy to say that I seldom make the rhythmic mistakes now that I used to make when I was younger. I can now "feel" the correct rhythm and get the notes "in the groove" (as the Jazz guys say) just as well as anyone else. So I guess you could say that with hard work and concentration I have developed my natural sense of rhythm and timing as well as being able to play difficult rhythmic figures accurately.

I highly credit my instructors in college who did not write me off as having no talent but had the philosophy that every student could improve. I had poor teachers in junior high and high school, but in college I finally hit my stride as a musician and I'm so grateful to have teachers who didn't give up on me.

I'd liek to clarify what I meant by 'no rhythm'.

Yes, I agree that it can be corrected, but I have seen, many many students who play every single note the same value or simply whatever value seems convenient due to technical concerns (easy stuff shorter note values, hard stuff longer note values). It's more than a less than sharp sense of rhythm, IYKWIM. The pieces were not even recogizable! This is easy to correct if caught early, but I have had students who were playing this way after 10+ years of instruction. It just made me so mad that their last teacher didn't bother to insist on at least an approximation of rhythm! PLUS, it was very puzzling to me that the supposed 'mother tongue' kids would have these problems because surely they should hear it, right?

Anyhow, in all things to do with parenting, DH and I take a moderation route. We do everything in moderation. It will be the same with music lessons, should our kids want to learn (we hope they will as we are both musicians). The advantage of having us as parents is that we can more easily assess the quality of the teaching they receive.

[momtokea]

My two dd's are in their fifth year of Suzuki piano. It has been a very positive experience and we have an excellent teacher. The girls are progressing amazingly well, and yes, they are learning to read music and do theory.

Both girls just started traditional violin lessons this past September. I would have preferred a Suzuki teacher but we couldn't find one nearby. Their teacher is very good and the girls are enjoying it and doing well.

As a parent, I prefer the Suzuki approach. I do not have any musical background myself, and by listening to the Suzuki cd's I can help my dd's with their practicing. They play their Suzuki pieces perfectly because we have the cd to listen to. On the violin, we have no idea how some of the songs are suppose to sound because we have nothing to listen to. They could be playing a song wrong all week and we don't know until we go to our lesson.

[Whistler]

Originally Posted by redvlagrl

I'd liek to clarify what I meant by 'no rhythm'.

Yes, I agree that it can be corrected, but I have seen, many many students who play every single note the same value or simply whatever value seems convenient due to technical concerns (easy stuff shorter note values, hard stuff longer note values). It's more than a less than sharp sense of rhythm, IYKWIM. The pieces were not even recogizable! This is easy to correct if caught early, but I have had students who were playing this way after 10+ years of instruction. It just made me so mad that their last teacher didn't bother to insist on at least an approximation of rhythm! PLUS, it was very puzzling to me that the supposed 'mother tongue' kids would have these problems because surely they should hear it, right?

Blaming the Suzuki method for the shortcomings of a sloppy teacher in your area doesn't make sense, though. My daughter's teacher insists that the rhythms be performed correctly.

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by redvlagrl

PLUS, it was very puzzling to me that the supposed 'mother tongue' kids would have these problems because surely they should hear it, right?

Puzzling to me, too. I've listened to many concerns and criticisms concerning the Suzuki approach over the years, and this is the first time I've heard "no rhythmic sense" mentioned. Very odd. Good posture, good tone and strong rhythmic sense are things that even critics of the Suzuki approach seem to agree that in general Suzuki students have.

Miranda

[TulsiLeaf]

Originally Posted by Whistler

I don't agree with this. Every child has the potential to become a musician with training. There are people with naturally more aptitude, but anyone can learn to play an instrument well if they work at it and anyone can improve and become "better at it".



I do agree with this. There is no "better method" just like there is no one-size-fits-all education for any other subject.

There are things I like about the Suzuki philosophy and method. I, myself am classically trained in flute just like you. My kids are doing Suzuki violin. To me a musician is a musician regardless of the method of training. It is something you need to work at daily to progress, especially in the formative years.



Even this can be corrected with good instruction. I don't that that sharp, innate sense of rhythm that some musicians have. Yet I have learned to compensate, to work harder at counting and sight-reading, and I am happy to say that I seldom make the rhythmic mistakes now that I used to make when I was younger. I can now "feel" the correct rhythm and get the notes "in the groove" (as the Jazz guys say) just as well as anyone else. So I guess you could say that with hard work and concentration I have developed my natural sense of rhythm and timing as well as being able to play difficult rhythmic figures accurately.

I highly credit my instructors in college who did not write me off as having no talent but had the philosophy that every student could improve. I had poor teachers in junior high and high school, but in college I finally hit my stride as a musician and I'm so grateful to have teachers who didn't give up on me.

anyone can play an instrument. ANYONE.

But not everyone can play music.

This sounds so horrid and like I am tooting my own horn, but oh well. haha. It pertains to the discussion.


I started playing flute in 8th grade. I started beginning band and was one of 3 8th graders in there. No one thought I would do anything because I was getting to old to learn. My dad went out and bought me some crappy crappy yamaha flute for 50 bucks because he thought it was just a phase ( I come from a family of guitar players. Self taught amazing musicians). I learned how to play it and I was 1st chair the whole year though. I never lost it. Never. I get to high school and start in the 9th grade band. I only had 1 year experience, and I NEVER practiced. I would run through something once to get my fingers ready and then never really again except for when we would play in class. I beat out a girl who had been playing for 3 years, another girl who did suzuki since 2 years old (you should have seen her face) and someone else who was playing for a lot longer than me. They all practiced for a week. I went through it once or twice and nailed it. the only thing I had trouble with was sight reading. I couldn't sight read to save my life. My friend and I would go back and forth between first and second chair because the only way she beat me out is if we had some sight reading. But anytime there was a solo, I got it. Because I played music, she played notes. I went on to college and had I not dropped out because my professor went on and on and on about my hatred of practicing and my crappy sight reading I would still be playing today. I would probably be something pretty good. I had Juliard auditions and I walked away because someone didn't believe that I could play music without all this fancy training. When I pick up my flute, it just plays. It just happens. I don't think, I don't do anything but breathe. Not every person can do that. I can play a bit of piano, but I can not make music with it.

Yes, everyone can learn to play an instrument, but if you don't have it, you can't play music.

[Bekka]

Originally Posted by moominmamma

When you sit down with a Dvorak or Mendelssohn or Wieniawski work and listen once or twice while following in the score, you have a wealth of previous experience with those composers and styles to draw on. You know what makes Dvorak Dvorak stylistically. You don't need to develop an internal blueprint of what a Dvorak sforzando or molto crescendo sounds like. A 6-year-old? Not so much. Repetitive listening is helpful at that age.

DD is 11, (and not nearly as far in the books as Miranda's dd), and working on the Vivaldi stuff in book 4. She was listening to the radio and called the song out as Vivaldi in like 4 notes. She herself said that she "knows Vivaldi now" because she has spend hours and hours working on part of Vivaldi music a lot. She was right. I thought it was V, but not as certain as she was.

[Panthira]

Originally Posted by momtokea

My two dd's are in their fifth year of Suzuki piano. It has been a very positive experience and we have an excellent teacher. The girls are progressing amazingly well, and yes, they are learning to read music and do theory.

Both girls just started traditional violin lessons this past September. I would have preferred a Suzuki teacher but we couldn't find one nearby. Their teacher is very good and the girls are enjoying it and doing well.

As a parent, I prefer the Suzuki approach. I do not have any musical background myself, and by listening to the Suzuki cd's I can help my dd's with their practicing. They play their Suzuki pieces perfectly because we have the cd to listen to. On the violin, we have no idea how some of the songs are suppose to sound because we have nothing to listen to. They could be playing a song wrong all week and we don't know until we go to our lesson.

Butting in here...
I was caught on your post re: not knowing if your DDs are playing a song right on the violin. First, the instructor should have shown the students the song by playing it through a few times. Second: Do they not know how to read music? I could look at a sheet of music and figure out the song by the notation, like reading a book. If they have been in music for 5 years, I'm not understanding why they could not know the song by reading the music, but maybe I don't understand how Suzuki works, as I have no experience in that technique.

[redvlagrl]

Actually, the rhythm thing is something I have come across in many Suzuki students from differnt countries/teachers etc. It's obviously very sloppy teaching.

I suppose my original point is that *some* people are attracted to Suzuki teaching because of the extensive teacher training. Of course, when done well, Suzuki is great. But I have seen a lot of people go into Suzuki teaching because they don't really ahve a clue themselves.

I think the other thing about Suzuki, which I mentioned before was that the pieces progress fast and some teachers succumb to the students' pressure to go on to the next piece so students are playing pieces which are way too hard. I have seen this in 2 cities in Australia, while teaching at summer festivals in the USA and while teaching at university level in the USA. So I would say that I have seen the results of a lot of Suzuki and traditional teachers from different backgrounds.

Also, good, talented students will fare well pretty much no matter what. It's the ones who need more help that can be left behind with sloppy teaching.

Suzuki's great when taught well - which is what I have asserted all along. It's just that I feel like the risks with a poor Suzuki teacher are greater than a 'traditional' method.

[Bekka]

Originally Posted by Panthira

Butting in here...
I was caught on your post re: not knowing if your DDs are playing a song right on the violin. First, the instructor should have shown the students the song by playing it through a few times. Second: Do they not know how to read music? I could look at a sheet of music and figure out the song by the notation, like reading a book. If they have been in music for 5 years, I'm not understanding why they could not know the song by reading the music, but maybe I don't understand how Suzuki works, as I have no experience in that technique.

Suzuki training is ear first and reading 17th. Depending on the teacher/age of the starting, a student could do it for 5 years without reading. You should read about the pedagogy.

[Bekka]

Originally Posted by TulsiLeaf

anyone can play an instrument. ANYONE.

But not everyone can play music.

This is where Suzuki-ists and you divide--we feel like given the right musical/home environment, everyone CAN play music. Research bears this out. Almost all people love some kind of music.

Some people are gifted and will learn faster, but the environment/nurturing plays a huge, huge part.

[momtokea]

Originally Posted by Panthira

Butting in here...
I was caught on your post re: not knowing if your DDs are playing a song right on the violin. First, the instructor should have shown the students the song by playing it through a few times. Yes, the teacher played it for them. She is an excellent teacher. But we don't have a recording of the song to refer to like we do with Suzuki. Second: Do they not know how to read music? Yes, they can read music. That was perfectly clear in my post. I could look at a sheet of music and figure out the song by the notation, like reading a book. Good for you. So can I, and so can my kids. If they have been in music for 5 years, I'm not understanding why they could not know the song by reading the music, They started traditional violin 3 month ago and are doing great. They can read the notes and they can play them, but there is a difference between plucking notes and playing music. In my experience, Suzuki students play music. but maybe I don't understand how Suzuki works, as I have no experience in that technique.

.....................

[TulsiLeaf]

Originally Posted by Bekka

This is where Suzuki-ists and you divide--we feel like given the right musical/home environment, everyone CAN play music. Research bears this out. Almost all people love some kind of music.

Some people are gifted and will learn faster, but the environment/nurturing plays a huge, huge part.

Hmmm.


Well what about those who are more mathmatical than creative? Those who love english and can write stories rather than do math?

Not everyone can be stellar at everything.

What about those girls who desperatly want to be ballerinas but they are to clumsy?

I can't dance. I posses no rhythm with my body. None. but I can play it.

[Bekka]

Originally Posted by TulsiLeaf

Well what about those who are more mathmatical than creative? Those who love english and can write stories rather than do math?
Not everyone can be stellar at everything.
What about those girls who desperatly want to be ballerinas but they are to clumsy?
I can't dance. I posses no rhythm with my body. None. but I can play it.

I will stand by my claim, but our definitions are different. I'm not talking about an "adept" or "professional" musician, but someone who can share music with another person, and they both gain joy out of it. I know lots of people who say "they can't sing," but they sing to their babies/children, and the kids love it. They don't care if it's somewhat atonal.

My FIL is a great example. He says he's not a good singer. Maybe. But is the value on his vocal quality or what he shares when he sings? He LOVES Christmas songs, and will happily sing along with the radio, in the congregation at church, or with a musical sing-a-long of Christmas songs with gusto, joy, and no self-consciousness. If he did it on a stage, he'd never be able to do it at all.

I believe that music is a language that anyone can communicate with, and that is what Dr. Suzuki was trying to do--teach a language. It is another way for people to learn to speak.

(I also would recommend this book:

http://www.amazon.com/Rhythmic-Train.../dp/0881889768

Our Suzuki violin program uses it (supplementally, of course) as a full-body rhythm training to help the children with rhythm and sightreading. It is an excellent aspect of their training (violinists don't usually march in a marching band, which is also an excellent component for rhythm training). And I'd also recommend a ballroom dance class, step aerobics class, stomp class, or something similar. Or join a drumming circle. I love to dance. I'm not particularly good, but I cannot stand still when wonderful music is playing. And to play well I believe we have to feel the music with our body, not just in our head.)

[moominmamma]

Originally Posted by TulsiLeaf

I can't dance. I posses no rhythm with my body. None.

Dr. Suzuki would say that while it might take another dance student 2 or 3 repetitions to learn something well, and it might take you a thousand repetitions, you can still learn to dance well. It's about being willing to persist, to work, to repeat, to attend, to trust your teacher, to immerse yourself in the learning. For you dance might not be worth all that time and effort -- fair enough. But Suzuki would say you could learn, and learn well, given enough time and effort. Same deal for music.

Miranda