Last week I was on holiday and for a full week I had no access to a piano. I came home last night and this morning I switched on my Roland FP-7.

I sat down and started playing 'Misty' just as I had memorised it from Sudnow.com and with little effort played it. It sounded and felt fantastic.

I really do hope that I can get back to Sudnow and that Markham will PM me as soon as possible.

Has anyone done the Sudnow method without the support of the students forum.

I'd dearly love to hear from anyone who has.

Although Sudnow has some very loyal followers it's not the end-all regarding "methods". His "method" is not a mystery but just learning to voice chords which you can find in many voicing books. A less expensive route would be to go somewhere like Bill Susman's Play Like Me series of DVD's which is quite similar and much, much cheaper. They also don't charge you $100 a year for joining their "Members" Club!

By the way, good luck contacting Markham......

http://www.playlikeme.com/

(click on the link "Play Like Me DVDs available from Jamey Aebersold")

BtComm, from what I have seen and heard on Sudnow it has much appeal. The real difference with it and other methods is that he delivers a programme of 'songs' for adults without all the months of 'building' that years of classical training requires.

I tried it years ago and I think it's a joke! I even talked to the guy who devised it over the phone as I practiced his method, and I don't really see why anyone would go for that. This is as direct and tactful as I can be on this method. The effort one would put in trying to understand his symbology and archaic methodology is well worth spending reading real music.

So you're saying you don't like the Sudnow method then?

I'll try to open up and be more direct next time

I think that we don't need any negative statements, if you've nothing positive to say, reserve your judgement.

The 'dot notation' is designed to get you kick started and doesn't need to be 'learned'. Once you have the concept of the 'dots' and recognise the sounds you are creating, you apply the principal to all songs.

If one has a negative opinion about something as fundamental as the method you are asking about, they should reserve their judgment? I certainly hope not. I would rather hear an honest opinion, even if it doesn't suit me well, as long as it is honest and meant to be helpful. Cheers.

This is a terrible, horrific, just bad statement to be made in SUCH a thread as created by you.

If you wish to endorse Sudnow in such an unmolested fashion, then buy an advertisement, or something to that effect.

Music in Me's comments were both fair and from experience, something anyone considering such an expensive program would regard with high value.

Yes, you are 100% correct, it was a very unthoughtful remark for which I apologise!



I am not endorsing anything here but simply stating that it is one of many methods that can work.



True, MusicInMe's remarks were honest and therefore quite valid.

ragtime, to be fair, I took up this method about 12 years ago, which consisted of some manual and a video cassette. I remember Misty and Danny Boy as the main pieces. I did spend a reasonable effort of a week or two trying to see if that would fit me. My conclusion then (which is still valid now as I have since progressed more)is that this course is not for "educated" people. Play around with it but don't take it seriously. Again, this is my opinion as a lowly Alfred L2 guy.

Music-in Me, I have been classically trained for the two years that I have played piano and have just completed another term of lessons in June.

I will lay my cards on the table in a PM .

Withholding comment.

Taking into account some of the things that have been posted in these pages, both good and bad, I would like to ask members of the sudnow method a genuine question.

Do you think the Sudnow website needs a complete restructuring?

I would dearly love to become involved in assisting with the way the Sudnow Method is presented, the way the course materials are obtained and the general way it is accessed. I know that I have crossed swords with certain individuals here on The Sudnow Method but I genuinely believe it has great potential.

I am interested in comments/PMs

Ragtime Clown:

It has been quite some time since I was a member of the Sudnow site, but I do have some thoughts that might have bearing on your question and the Sudnow method in general.

First of all, the Sudnow method DOES "work" as advertised. It may not be everybody's "cup of tea", but it does work. I seriously doubt that ANY single approach is suitable for everybody, whether lessons with a "live" teacher (which appears to be considered the best means of learning to play) or through a self-study method in whatever format.

One thing I think people should realize about the Sudnow method is that it really is experiential in that, while the materials seem overly simple, there is a lot of depth that comes through actually working with the method for some rather lengthy period of time (i.e. a month or two is not enough to begin to see what one is REALLY learning). Ir is in hindsight as one moves forward, that we realize how much we have really learned about a lot of areas of music and playing songs at the piano.

Now to your question...

The Sudnow method was originally designed to be worked on alone, though Sudnow did encourage people to form local study groups, largely as an aid to long-term motivation. The idea that one must join a website as part of the curriculum is not something I remember Sudnow talking about, though he did often change certain aspects of his approach to teaching in response to what he sensed students needed or wanted (which any responsible teacher will do as long as such changes don't compromise the core of the material), so it is entirely possible that he later embraced this idea as an inherent part of his materials.

I know that, when I was an active member of Sudnow's "student club", he offered ongoing support through answering questions himself, engaging in discussions on a forum that he provided, and he continued to produce additional materials in the form of more "dot songs" and several piano side chats in the form of MP3s that were similar in nature to his earlier "song of the month club" that he distributed on cassette in the 90s.

But the core of his method was really the weekend seminar he recorded in Chicago in the 80s. The original idea was to point the student in the right direction and let that student's motivation carry him or her so that when the basics of Sudnow's approach were well in hand, the student could seek out whatever else s/he wanted to learn. As Sudnow put it, you are learning to walk and then you see a kid hopping and skipping and jumping - you can learn that to, but you have to learn to walk first. Sudnow's method was the "learning to walk", and once you could do that, you could determine for yourself how to hop, skip, and jump by making informed choices as to what learn next and from where.

Personally, I think it would be a great idea to bundle all the extra materials that Sudnow offered additionally on his site (since these were ALL in digital form of MP3s and PDF files and that sort of thing) and offer that as a single add-on package on CDROM to those who purchased the basic course. Rather than having to support a web site that has forums and that sort of thing, go back to Sudnow's original intent of self-study and let people form their own online study groups as either threads here or elsewhere, as Sudnow originally intended people to do (though in person at that time). Then, the Sudnow site could be very simple, only needing to allow people to purchase the product.

Tony

Right on music in me! So many people blow smoke here on this website because anything that is not "positive" is not accepted, but like you, if I want an opinion, I want an honest one, not a kind one!

I looked at this method, and it was not for me, for the following reasons.

It is advertised as a way for people to learn to play standards from a lead sheet, with rich sounding chords played under the melody, following simple and concrete rules, which can be used for any song.

The biggest problem with his method is omission of good voice leading. The linear relationship between chord sequences is completely ignored. Why, if there is a common chord tone, isn't it retained in the same finger? Even if the same note is played in the next chord, it is moved to a different finger, I suppose to accomodate the voicing rules. I don't think it's deliberate, nor is it random. It's just not part of the program and I think that is so odd.

The result is a series of awkward movements in the right and, and for that matter, in the left hand, and the sound of disjointed chords which he attaches to the melody note they fall under, but never to each other or to the subsequent melody notes.

Whether this is a result of poor musicianship, or a personality issue....lack of focus or imagination, I don't know, but I think it is worth mentioning, and it is unfortunate for students who don't know better that they might spend a couple of years learning his suggested series of 15 or 20 songs, and not realize they are really not voicing them well.

I've listen to a few mp3 from Sudnow student and they sound good and they're not advanced pianist but only beginner and intermediate.

Yes, most of the chords sound good...they include enough notes to sound full and they match the melody (for the most part, there are a couple of real clunkers in the first couple of songs).

What is very poorly done is voice leading, so the chord tones are improperly connected from one chord to another. This isn't really an advanced concept. In any style of piano, you learn inversions early on, so you don't have to move your hand up and down the keyboard in root position chords.

It's even more critical in jazz chords, where you are adding many extra notes, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13. In fact, in good voice leading in jazz, many chords, or groups of notes, could be described differently, or serve different functions, you may only be able to determine the "name" of the chord by looking at the key signature and the previous and subsequent chords.

In the types of voicings Sudnow uses, where so many color tones are used for each chord (as opposed to blues or most pop songs) one group of 5 notes could be several different chords...it should be easier to have good voice leading and have common chord tones. It's really hard to understand why he didn't give more thought to this.

Nikalette, it is interesting to read your comments on the voicings that Sudnow uses. I am an absolute novice when it comes to jazz and voicings but it alarms me that the method, in your opinion, has short-comings.

I try to resist getting pulling into these types of conversations but the level of inanity and just plain ignorance regarding The Sudnow Method compels me to wade into this discussion. So while an "honest" opinion may have some value, an informed one is more difficult to come by.

First things first. There is, simply put, no one in this forum who has more experience with individual Sudnow students (successful and unsuccessful) and the thought, intent, and mechanics of the Method than I do. There are, as well, a number of successful Sudnow students lurking here and usually available for honest, and informed, discussions. Barb and Tony among them.

If you were thinking about going to medical school would you invest your time with people who flunked out, people who decided to transfer to the vet school, graduates from mechanical engineering, or people who successfully navigated and graduated from med school? You may still decide med school isn't for you but at least your decision would be based on an informed understanding of what it takes to graduate rather than why you shouldn't even try.

Personally I'm not only the administrator of the Method and a long-time friend of David Sudnow, I'm also a student and a believer in what the Method teaches. That being said, I understand, more than anyone here, the types of things that keep people from being successful with the Method and anyone who knows me knows that I'm pretty straightforward with students who just aren't prepared to go down this particular path - for whatever reason. In the end I'm always happy when more people are having more fun in front of pianos - regardless of how they got there. That, in fact, was David Sudnow's "cause". He was deeply saddened that music-making by ordinary people in front of a piano with friends and relatives had largely been supplanted by recorded music and a destructive tendency to introduce competition into our judgement of players and playing. The entire notion of "beginning", "intermediate", and "advanced" he felt was a detriment to broader amateur music-making. To him the key measure of success was the amount of joy one could create for oneself and ones friends.

Nowhere has a claim been made that Sudnow is some kind of magic pill that will allow anyone to play songs - in point of fact we have lots of students involved in several methods of learning and I have lots of experience with people who weren’t successful with the Method at all.

In a more specific sense and, admittedly, rising to the defense of a friend, the notion that David Sudnow didn't give great thought to his Method or that it is somehow not "for educated people" is profoundly ignorant of who David Sudnow was, what he accomplished in his life, and the vast range of people who met him, admired him, and successfully used his Method.

So, you can waste your time with the people who have ”spent the effort of a week or two”, or who are consumed with the silly notion that song-playing is primarily a function of not moving your fingers around too much, or you can ask probing questions of people who have successfully navigated the Method and make your own decisions about what’s likely to be a good fit for your own needs and what isn’t.

It would be nice if Ragtime Clown would post a little more about his experiences, which *were* positive - enough so to entitle this thread "Sudnow works!" He has experimented with several different courses, and it was nice to hear that he found one that works for him.

It might help allay the reservations that keyboardclass, suddenly, got here

Ya know what I'm sayin'?

Cathy

FYI, Ragtime Clown is not on my list of "experienced" Sudnow students, whatever he may mean by "Sudnow works" has roots in stories untold, but not unrelated, to my post. Keyboardclass has some other identity issues which I question as well, based on off-thread correspondence.

Ya know what I'm sayin'

Cathy

Markham, are you able to address the issue of voicing which was raised?

I'm wondering of your offensive remarks are addressed to me as well. First of all, it is very bad form for a representative of a commercial venture to attack those who are giving their honest opinions about something that is really being sold on these forums. These forums are all about supporting other pianists and giving opinions on many products and services, among other things. And when you or another representative of the Sudnow site choose to make direct or indirect recommendations of this site, you have opened the door to people who are not satisfied with the system to respond to you. It would be wrong not to.

It doesn't take years of studying this method to find what I pointed out. I chose not to make any personal attacks or ridicule any aspect of the program. I didn't belittle the lack of standard music notation or the claims from Sudnow that after working through 15 or 20 songs, a customer will be able to voice any jazz standard song well. That falls under the category, buyer beware! There are no shortcuts to musicianship.

I chose to point out what became immediately apparent to me as I worked through the first song and listened to a few of the seminar sessions...to wit, a disregard for proper voice leading.

That is not an advanced topic, it is something that most students working with a teacher or a good lesson manual will be taught early on. However, a novice or someone who doesn't have a background in theory, or someone looking for shortcuts, might not notice that, and might not even realize they are being taught something that flies in the face of good technique.

I am particularly sensitive to appropriate voice leading because I am studying that right now. The sense of awkwardness and confusion that "turned me off" to the program quickly led me to give it some thought, and I then realized it was the issue of voice leading which was so problematic.
A student may choose to pursue the course anyway. Someone may just want to play standard songs for his/her own pleasure or for friends. But anyone pursuing further studies will have to go back and relearn voicings...and Sudnow's method is not all that easy. You have to put effort to arrange songs the way he is recommending.

That is my opinion, based on many years of being involved in music, as a singer, a guitarist and a pianist, and having taken college level theory and performance classes.

At any rate, you have made yourself, your colleagues, and the program seem rather sleazy by your vitriolic and uncalled for scolding of adults giving their opinions.

If you were not a representative of the course, you could bicker and bite to your heart's content, but it is unseemly and unethical for you to launch the attack that you did.

Actually, markham has been helpful many different times on the ABF, and patient in the extreme, IMHO, with Ragtime Clown, who has a history of trying/quitting/re-trying/trying-to-guarantee-he'll-like many different courses/methods. Currently he has a thread in the non-classical forum essentially asking Sudnow members to help him out as if he were a member of the Sudnow forums, because for whatever reason he doesn't want to join the Sudnow forums. Oh, wait - that thread is under the "keyboardclass" login name - oh, just looked - it *is* under the Ragtime Clown login name. Hard to keep things straight

I actually have no problem at all with markham posting here about Sudnow. It seems no different to me than Rich Cunningham posting about Cunningham Pianos in the Piano Forum, or Pete the Bean chiming in on the pop piano thread. As long as they're speaking with full disclosure about who they are, which some people don't, you can take their posts however you want.

As for answering the question about voice leading - well, perhaps markham had other issues he was primarily dealing with, given the OP's history. Perhaps someone with more experience than Nikalette had with Sudnow will chime in. But I can tell you that the music made by the Sudnow players here is pretty good - even if it turns out to be lacking in Nikalette's expectations of voice leading

In short - I have no problem with markham posting as long as his identity is transparent. There are issues with this thread that aren't transparent And the music I've heard from Sudnow learners is good music.

In the continuing interest of transparency, Nikalette purchased the Sudnow Method and literally within a couple of hours had requested a refund (which was issued) stating she was unhappy with the Method, "furious" at Barb for recommending it, and upset because there were "no videos" with the Method. So what she "knows" about the Method has either come from an hour of skimming through the material or she's continuing to review material she has already been refunded for and agreed to delete from her computer. So draw your own conclusions about the depth of her understanding of what Sudnow is about.

The Clown, after two bouts of buying and refunding the course, asked me to remove him from the student forum database. When I didn't do it (he was free to stop posting), figuring he'd change his mind again, he contacted me again and insisted I delete his name from the forum database. I agreed but said that would be the end of the conversation. Silly me. Now he's back trying to get re-instated on the student forum - it won't happen.

I have no problem with people deciding to pursue some other methodology or even saying they "hate" the Sudnow Method, what I object to is a cursory examination of a great deal of material resulting in blanket statements that give the impression that the writer has a deeper understanding of the subject matter than they really do. I'm not challenging what Nikalette knows about music - I have no idea - what I am challenging is what she knows the the Sudnow Method. She's in no position to debate with me - or Barb, or any experienced student- about what is or what isn't "in" the Method because she don't know.

The voice leading question is a red herring. However you decide to define "appropriate" or "proper" voice leading it makes you sound like an academic snob. What we're interested in is the sounds - but we're just poor uneducated souls who couldn't possibly understand even such a simple concept.

You've already irritated me beyond my considerable capacity to be polite thus I'll bow out of this particular conversation and leave you all to the entertaining machinations of RC and his alter ego.

Well, there you have it folks. The ethics of a business person revealing a confidential business transaction. As I said, buyer beware!

And with that, I take leave of this conversation. I was under the impression that business people were not supposed to peddle their wares on these forums, but then, I suppose everyone has to make a living. And Markham, since the Sudnow method comes with a 90 day unconditional guarantee of refund, I could have waited 90 days and asked for my money back, but it did not take that long...again, I did not need more than a couple of hours to see the poor quality of the material...but shame on you again, you are truly sleazy.

Well, I suppose neither of the two people whom I'm about to address will see this, since they are bowing out of this thread, and for good reason, but here you go:

Thank you, Markham

Nikalette - it does seem to me it would have been more straight forward of you to include the information that you had gotten a refund with no questions asked, and that you had only looked it over a couple of hours. JMO, of course.

I have been reading your past posts - have just gotten to the time period when you have apparently ordered your new Yamaha but haven't received it yet. Sorry you had such bad luck with your first older grand piano purchase - hope you're enjoying your digital -

Cathy

Not that my opinion matters, but hey it is as good as anybody's I guess. I don't mean this to seem harsh but Ragtime does seem to be on an endless search for something. I am not sure what it is but it seems he jumps around a great deal. When I originally saw the post, my initial thought was, "Man this guy must have a lot of money," and then "I wonder why he doesn't stick with one method."

As for Markham, I see no intention to "Come here and peddle his wares," as suggested. He is simply responding to the attack that was made on his product. There is a difference and he has been forthright and honest in his responses.

I am not sure what is driving Nikalette. I am sure her intentions are honorable and she is just trying to tell people what she believes the shortcomings of the method to be. But she did come across very strong and a bit snobbish sounding. I am not saying she is a snob but it just sounded that way.

I agree (not that I am any expert at all) that when it comes to music, there is no one right way or necessarily wrong way. Maybe she is technically correct but to the vast majority of casual players, sound and simplicity is more important than being technically correct. Heck I was happy when I played my first black key rendition of Ode to Joy out of my Faber and Faber 1 book. I am confident that it is about as technically incorrect as they come but I enjoyed it. Now that I am running into inversions and trying to understand them and why not so much fun (for me). But I am working through it. One day I may well realize that there just is no other way to make music without inversions but for now it is another stumbling block.

Anyway, my two cents is that I see no viciousness or impropriety in Markham's responses. But I do wonder why Ragtime Clown started this thread in the first place.

IMO any method will work if a person will just stick with it and practice regularly. To each his/her own. What works for one may not work for another.

Good luck to everyone and keep pounding them keys.

I have found that the Sudnow Method is not a "joke," and I can't see Markham as being "sleazy." I have learned from the program. Like anything else regarding piano learning, I have found that its what you Put Into the program that matters. Its takes time at the piano to be good with Sudnow's method, NOT time watching videos, reading, etc.

The course can charge more, and offer piecemeal little exercises designed to get you playing the way he does from the beginning. Instead, it offers concise info that you have to think about, and a forum of great folks offering guidance.

The folks there, like Swingin' Barb, have been wonderful to me. I have branched away from Sudnow's method at this point in my learning, but yet Barb still finds time to communicate to me and encourages me to "have fun" at the piano even if I don't do the Sudnow's method at this point in my development.

But I do feel that Markham's, and Barb's hearts are certainly in the right place. Its a great method, if you wanna do the work.

In a post I put on the Sudnow Forum at one point, I suggested that the Method is a rip-off, and it might still be a rip off. It might be a ripoff that the program doesn't cost more money, and it may be the heirs to the Method who are getting ripped off not charging more.

I agree with Nikalette in that the Method is not that easy. But what Method is?
I'm not sure with Nikalette's suggestion that the Sudnow Method doesn't teach good "musicianship," in that I'm not sure what that term means. Also, I am not knowledeable enough about the "voice leading" issue brought out here, so I can't comment on that.


By the way, of course the above is in my humble opinion, and I don't get paid anything for endorsing the Sudnow Method.

Its just a concise method that sounds great but takes work. Nothing more than that.

Everyone has an effect. Some people brighten the atmosphere when they enter a room. Some brighten it when they depart. Goodbye Nikalette.

I actually think that Nikalette has made some fine contributions to the forums and it's too bad she's getting flack from former or present Sudnow members regarding the "method". But I guess that's understandable with folks who enjoy a particular piano learning program. But what she said about voice leading is a perfectly legitimate topic and maybe the folks complaining aren't at a level yet to understand its importance. I understand it from nearly 40 years of playing guitar and vocals in the club circuit and playing with jazz groups. As a piano player, at this point, I pretty much suck and I'm sure most here are better than I but her point on voice leading and the Sudnow Method I think was a good one.

Markham mentions that what we're interested in is the sounds. But unfortunately for me it was the sounds of the Sudnow arrangements that didn't sound right for me. Just my opinion. Everyone has their own tastes.

I'm guessing Nikalette may have a lot of theory under her belt and to me was just giving her opinion and I saw no indication of her "attacting" Sudnow's method other than voicing her thoughts.

I don't know what kind of chord structure the Sudnow method uses, but voice leading is not that hard of a topic to teach. It's all about chord inversions and smoothly transitioning from one chord to another. No big whoop.

btcomm,

There's not a single person on this forum who would not be absolutely delighted if you would kindly illustrate the concept of voice leading as applied to jazz songs. Please give us an example of a song, say, maybe Misty.

We will all surely bow to your wisdom if we are sufficiently impressed as to the efficacy of the 'voice-leading' approach as regards an improvement of the sound of the song.

Jazz Mallets -----

You surely are an idiot with your snipes. Regarding voice leading, as Eweiss has mentioned, is no big whoop. Get your theory book out and learn.

Just to chime in here, Jazz uses a lot of voice leading. But voicing leading is not the end all in ballad playing. It can't be. In this style, the singing Melody drives the voicings, and the root in the bass.

So as a basic instruction, it is important to know voice leading but it is a supporting role, not the star.

The middle voices can be moving around less or more as needed, which is where the voice leading takes place. There's no one answer and it is determined tune by tune.

For example in the Autumn Leaves thread, we do LH shell voicings (1/7). Obviously there is no LH voice leading there when we do two handed voicings. The voice leading in this case happens in the RH. But only if the melody allows. The melody is always the highest note and sometimes the middle voices are pushed down.

btcomm,

That sounds like a compliment, coming from you. Anyway, put up or shut up.

My original post spoke to the OP posting in this thread under two different login names, and given that they had opposite views it seemed deceptive to me. I also have read many of his posts in these forums and I knew he had exchanges with Markham before, in which, as I said, I felt that Markham had been very patient. I had no comment on Nikalette until it appeared that she, too, had dealings with the Sudnow method, apparently quite civil on their part in which they refunded her money, which she did not reveal, and that seemed less than open to me.

I have no problem with people who dislike a particular program. Not everything's for everyone, as many here have said. As I said, with or without Nikalette's concerns about voice leading I like the music I hear from the Sudnow members on this forum. But when I read (all of) Nikalette's posts I wasn't under the impression she actually knew much about voice-leading in jazz - I was under the impression she had taken a community college course in theory. I, too, took a cc course in theory, and I learned about voice-leading in the context of Bach :\ I know, as she does, that it also turns up in other contexts. But she's had a "learn about voice-leading" priority for awhile (or at least she talked about it in many of her posts). If she expected that from Sudnow but wasn't explicit about it in her research of Sudnow (and in her posts here she wasn't) then I suppose she was surprised when she got her materials. It may or may not be a legitimate issue - it's not *my* issue at the minute. And it does seem to me that a couple of hours looking thru her materials may not let her know whether it is addressed either later in the course or in the forums. JMO, of course. Again, I think that was misleading on her part. It has nothing to do with whether I support the Sudnow method or not. I didn't know there were Sudnow courses until I read about them in the ABF.

If voice leading in pop and jazz is simply about using inversions to make it easier to get around on the piano then it's not what I was learning when studying Bach. It's what I figured out from necessity the first time I had a week to play dance accompaniment from a lead sheet. I simply had to use inversions because I didn't have the skill to jump around on the piano. But if I recall, perhaps poorly, Bach used it in choral harmony so there's apparently more to it, theoretically. I dunno. At any rate, I was using it on piano, in that simplified version, before I used the words "voice leading" to describe it. In fact, I still don't use those words.

I did, however, many years ago, read a book Sudnow wrote about how he learned to play jazz, so I knew who Sudnow was. And that is the only connection to Sudnow I have.

My sense of markham's answer was that he was, once again, dealing with Ragtime Clown's on-again-off-again method search, and not addressing Nikalette's concerns about voice leading. Of course, I didn't know she'd ordered the course and then gotten a refund. As I said, his posting here is not different, to me, than dealers posting in the piano forum, and there have been times when some of them have posted their perspective to a particular problem someone has had with them.

For those who don't like Sudnow - that's fine, and please say so. But to universalize your experience to "it's all rubbish" or some similar sense is a pretty broad brush. Some people like it. I don't think it's out of line to recognize that.

Cathy

Put up or shut up??? It sounds like I'm back in grade school. There's always on any of these types of forums whether it is music, photography, or whatever an over-confident windbag who enjoys sparring with other posters. It never fails. As I said in my earlier post, piano is fairly new to me and I'm not accomplished at all but guitar, vocals, music theory and performance are not new to me. I'm old! I've been doing this since 1965. That I will not apologize for so if you don't have anything constructive to say -- put a lid on it.

Wow. Just reading some of this should drive anyone who's thinking of buying the Sudnow program running and screaming away.

Jazzwee, have you bought this program? You made some comments on voice leading which are the opposite of what I have been taught. I've been studying piano for 8 years with a focus on jazz for the past 2 years with a very good private teacher.

I play in a trio and at a local church.

I've been taught that voicing leading is critical for playing solo and in groups.

Anyway it matters not to me whether this method makes people happy or unhappy. I've only ever seen one online course that was any good and it was very comprehensive and an ongoing package.

Ragtime you said something about Sudnow's system teaching people to play songs without having to study for years...I've never met or heard a good musician of any kind, on any instrument, who hasn't studied for countless hours and many years.

I'm going to bow out of this discussion now, in case anyone wants to pick on me next. I just don't like bullies.

btcomm,

we're still waaaaiiiitttiiiiinnnggg.

BarbaraTF, no I'm not involved with Sudnow in any way. I was just commenting on the Voice leading question. Voice leading is implemented differently in Ballad vs. Non-Ballad. Just from the examples, I noticed that Sudnow is focused on ballad style so that's why I made the comment.

In regular swing tunes, voice leading is a regular and integral part of the voicings. In ballad tunes due to hand placement and orchestration issues, the voice leading isn't the primary focus, although it may or may not exist. As I said this is due to the placement of the melody note which has to be above all the other tones, and takes priority position.

I don't know anything about the Sundown system other than for hearing some play here and I'm hearing the usual jazz tension notes. So the voicings appear to be consistent with jazz ballad voicings.

If this is supposed to be a *FRIENDLY* forum, what I wonder, is an unfriendly one like? Just because we are posting on the net does not mean we should become uncivil boors.

When I joined PW there was a lot of debate about PianoMagic now it seems the debate have move to Sudnow method.

Serge

I'm wondering if anyone can define good vs. bad "musicianship."

David Sudnow says ...



Stop arguing! It's just music.

This is a "friendly" forum. Today, we have argument about Sudnow and tomorrow we will agree on something else.

Here's a recording I did 3 years ago after one month using Sudnow method

http://www.box.net/shared/s9n5e4dotq


Serge

+1

I don't like to see junoir-high school type bullying and taunting passing without comment.

As someone with no particular interest in the method in question (more into clasical than jazz), and just reading this thread out of boredom and idle curiosity, it appears to me anyone who questions this method seems to have set themselves up for some rather personal attacks.

I just think this is bad behavior.

[edited to add]

I'd be interested in hearing the pro-Sudnow defend this method on it's merits, and take this into more positive territory. What do its users love about this method? How has it improved your understanding of music? What about it makes it mesh well with your tastes and learning style?

That's a fair request, I think -

here's a couple of links to some discussions here on PW in which they did chime in, and gave some pretty extensive descriptions:

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1134494/The%20'Sudnow'%20Method.html#Post1134494

That one is from almost exactly one year ago. It was in the non-classical forum here, and it was started by Ragtime Clown.

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthrea...tml#Post1174459

That one was this past April, here in the ABF, and it was started by - uh - Ragtime Clown

It has also come up in other threads - if this discussion doesn't have what you'd like to know you can use the search function above.

But this thread seems a little iffy at the minute Nonetheless, tangleweeds is fairly new, and it's a fair question.

Cathy

This thread is closed.

There are too many people with multiple accounts pretending to be other people, it's like trying to keep track of Sybil.

I've warned people before, we do not like multiple accounts by the same members. People use this method to act as sock puppets, or make comments supporting their own arguements in a thread.

I've a good mind to turn on IP tracking so everyone can see the poster's IP address, making it easy to track those who have two, even three accounts.

I've also a good mind to close all the multiple accounts and ban those who use them.

Am I making myself clear here?