I'm really kidding. How could a child be too musical? Well, let me just say that she just turned 9 years olds and if I play something for her (which I don't do, but her mother does) once, she can play it. She just did this to the 'Spinning Song'. She can learn a piece instantly. Sometimes, she doesn't even have to hear the music, she can just predict where it's going.
To get her to slow down and read the music, and especially, I just discovered, to pay attention to what fingerings she is using, is, in her mind, such a bother! I just spent a good part of her lesson promising that great things would happen if she would use the correct fingerings the first time she played through the piece. I have her doing sight reading drills, but they are so beneath her level, that they have no fingering challenges at all.

Its a gift to have a student like her, yet she presents really different problems than my other students!

Sounds like she's "wired" for sound. A gift for sure.

I have a student a little bit like this as well (same age, but mine is a sight reader more than she is a listener). She certainly won't slow down, anyway. She'll grab something like Burgmueller Op. 100 and just read right through the whole book. OK, she'll say, what should we do next?

I certainly didn't teach her to be this way. If I had, I would soon be rich.

Where do they get it from? (Neither of this girl's parents are musicians, AND she has a terrible little keyboard at home. Piano should arrive this month, FINALLY!)

It’s the old conundrum ... aural memory/ sight-reading ... both are critical to sustained advancement .

Here we have a case of a pupil (some 2%) who can mop up a tune in moments and
regard this generic skill as a means to duck the laboured sight-reading bit ... a truly musical student is one who can balance the intuitive aural memory with the sight-reading chore.

That has nothing to do with being "musical". Being "musical" is an entirely different discussion altogether.
Obviously, this student has quite a gift if he/she can play through a work after hearing it just once and more than likely has natural relative or perfect pitch working for them as well. The problem is that what they're doing is mere imitation and as a result they're really not learning anything that they'll proffer from later. One way around this problem would be to introduce the habit of slow practice (which SHOULD HAVE already been done). Have the student present a work at their lesson at no greater than half tempo, with the appropriate fingerings, phrasing, articulation, dynamics, etc. If they're not able to do this, then they're not ready for further work on whatever it is they're working on. Slow practice is an absolute must for ANYONE who seriously wishes to advance. Take any piece you play and take it at no greater than half tempo and I'm willing to bet that you'll find you don't know it nearly as well as you think you do.

kennywood, your points are good in a way, but Carol is talking about a nine-year-old who may or may not be an absolute beginner.

And if such a young student gets arbitrarily prohibited from doing what they are already good at, they are quite likely to give up altogether. You can't expect weeks- or months-long capacity for delayed gratification from someone this young.

The hillbilly with 4 notches on his gun-belt figures that he is ready to challenge the top-guns.

The staid old logic "have the student present a work at their lesson at no greater than half tempo" is suggested as
a key to ... presumably musicality ... what rot!!

Some of the respected members of this Forum carry 10,000 notches ... and have, with respect, learnt not to go off half-cocked.

This student comes with 2 years behind her (two different teachers), and started with me in September. Neither teacher insisted on starting at the basics with her, and that's exactly what her parents want me to do, to back up and make sure she gets a solid background in reading and technique.

I think one thing that may be helpful for her is playing more contemporary music with less predictable patterns. I find that she struggles more with this kind of music, which is a good thing for her.

I also am starting to see that we need to allow plenty of time in the lesson to make sure she is learning a piece by reading the notes and fingerings, not by ear. (Her mother knows not to play a piece for her, but I know she probably slips up sometimes.) I've made the mistake a few times of sending her home with a new piece - and it comes back learned, but with pretty random fingerings.

btb- I think what you are saying is that a good musical STUDENT is one who can incorporate all the skills needed to learn music. But this is not to say that this child is not exceptionally musical. Those are two different things.

It's interesting to teach her. I'm learning new things every day! Not only that, she's a great kid.

Note reading is not required for anyone to be a musician. In fact, this "generic" skill (playing by ear) is the most valuable one a person can have if they're interested in playing an instrument.

This sounds slightly familiar
Can she read rhythms? By which I mean, can she clap them out correctly without having heard them? Would doing that with more complicated rhythms (than the current sight-reading music) be a way to short-circuit the "cheating" by listening?

When I was a kid, I was guilty of combining my sight-reading and aural skills...My rhythm reading skills were behind my note-reading skills (still are, in fact, altho they are much improved), so I would finagle my teacher into playing or tapping out the rhythm of the trouble spots, then I'd grab the notes (and easier rhythms) by sight reading.

I was guilty of bizarre fingerings too. Until I got into music where *I* could tell that using subpar fingerings was limiting my playing.

It sounds like what you are saying is that she's a natural musician without a good foundation of piano technique. Piano currently happens to be her tool to make music. The trick, of course, is to convince her that technique, in and of itself, and good reading, is a worthy goal. Some of that may just come naturally as you work with her and she gets into music where she has to work harder.

Note reading is not required. But a musician who cannot read notes is an illiterate musician.

Folk music and bluegrass have a strong tradition of aural learning...if you happen to play instruments like mandolin, fiddle or banjo.

Jazz has a strong tradition of improvisation. HOWEVER, the best jazz musicians I have known (and I have known some excellent ones) had a better understanding of music theory than most classical musicians and NONE of them would have argued in favor of musical illiteracy.

To purposely hobble oneself with the determination that reading music is unnecessary or silly is, in my opinion, a shame.

For a teacher (any teacher) of music, much less piano, to advocate in favor of musical illiteracy is practically criminal malpractice, as far as I'm concerned.

I didn't say note reading isn't something a student should learn ... if they want to. I'm saying, it's not necessary in order to play piano or any other instrument.

You learn how to speak a language first - before learning how to read and write it. So as far as I'm concerned, this skill should come before note reading.

Don't force this kid to sight-read, that would do a HUGE disservice to her natural talent of playing by ear. I have a feeling none of the teachers here can even play by ear.

The kid is 9!!! I would keep encouraging her to learn by this method, if it's getting good results why bother with sight-reading.


Challenge her to more progressively harder songs, where she is forced to use her ear. I've seen Marcus Roberts, a blind jazz pianist play Gershwin's Rhapsody in Blue brilliantly. It can be done with the hardest music.

Music is all about SOUNDS, not notes on a page. There are so many great blind musicians who can't read a lick of note. Most of the musicians I know who learn only by sight-reading sound forced and robotic. They aren't playing from the soul within.

Get her to improvise and learn some jazz. Don't be like the former teacher of Gabriella Montero, who said improvising is not to be done. It only squelched her creative spirit.

As for jazz theory, I play jazz. Theory is useful to a certain point, to give proper names to sounds. But experimenting, risk-taking, listening, are far more important.

As for proof, check this kid out playing jazz, doing Chick Corea's famous song Spain. He does better at 13 than most college jazz players, let alone some pros. How did he learn? You can bet it wasn't by sight-reading. It was LISTENING.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9BXa22qWTc

An Israeli kid? Sure he reads music.

What you say, Wizard, in your earlier post, is very lovely, heartfelt ... and nonsense.

Bigoted much Landarrano? What does his nationality have to do with anything?

nonsense? Prove it. Or are you one of them players who can't play by ear and can only sight-read. You must be jealous, hehehe...

Prove that the kid can't read music.

Whether he can or can't read music is irrelevant to what you said about him being Israeli. If you can't see that, then ... oh well, there's nothing more to discuss.

exactly, what did you mean when you said "Israeli kid"? Explain yourself!

You obviously don't play jazz do you? I can prove he didn't learn that song by reading the music, he has 3 versions up, all improvised and different except for the theme. If he learned it by transcription, he'd be playing exactly the same thing each time.

You sir, are the one who is nonsense.

Nothing indicates that the kid can't read music. It is ridiculous to say or to suggest that he can't, or to suggest that if he can read that it has nothing to do with his playing, or that if he plays, improvises, well, than he sure doesn't read music or study written music, or whatever.

Or to suggest that learning to read will block the creativity of a young musician.

He's from a country that has a great deal of structured music education and produces excellent musicians in many genres. An Israeli musician of this caliber that can't read: it ain't probable.

Jazz is a not a naive art. Its musicians are formed, educated, and know how to read music. Blind musicians don't in anyway invalidate this incontestable fact. The myth of illiterate jazz musicians is nothing but a myth. They were a small minority, and are today even less than that.

Like I said, you obviously don't play jazz. His ability to read music has nothing to do with how he learned that song. If he didn't learn to use his ear, he would never have been able to play that.

I finished the highest level of Royal Conservatory of Music Piano. I could read pretty much anything. When I learned jazz, I dropped it all and had to focus my ear. Now, I play by ear only and don't bother to read anything.

I can tell you that having a good ear is far more useful than being able to read music.


Let me ask you this, how well can you play by ear?

CarolR did not say that the kid who is the topic of this thread does not read at ALL...she said she doesn't "slow down and read the music" which means she's not reading carefully...and from what I'm gathering the music, at this stage, is not so difficult that she can't easily do a combination of sightreading/playing by ear/winging it, which a musical kid can do with fairly easy music.

In fact, it sounds like correct fingerings are a bigger issue than music reading. She could be a very good sight reader. She's just not a careful one.

Carol is trying to get the kid to sight-read more and learn "proper" fingering. I say hogwash!!

If the kid can play that well, by just listening to a song once, why bother to change the method. Encourage her to do more of the same.

Fingering is just a means to the end. Do what feels most natural and easy to you. That may be different from the standard or normal way.

Why force the kid to read music if she can hear in her mind how it sounds and relate to it on the piano. You are just making it harder for them.

Along those lines...why "force" a kid to learn to read (written words) if they speak well?" Oh, well, only to open up a whole world that's possible to those with that skill...why bother?

If a pianist knows how to read music they can discover the sounds of a piece on their own without hearing it the way someone else plays it. They can put their own stamp on something and be creative. From the very beginning (of learning the piano) they can experiment with subtle variations in sound and see what they discover ON THEIR OWN about the piece and what works, what doesn't and what they like.

Yeah I realize that's a way old school suggestion...to hear how something sounds by PLAYING it yourself and not jumping on YouTube or an iPod. But I'm good with that.

There is NOTHING that says a student can't be taught to listen carefully explore sound AND taught to read music. You are setting up a false dichotomy.

Well, if, as you say, you learned to play classical to a very high standard before discovering jazz, perhaps you have not had the experience of being allowed by poor teachers to play with subpar, awkward fingering choices that hindered the musical line.

Lucky you.

However, I can assure you that those of us who did that, hit a wall beyond which we couldn't improve until our fingering became more naturally and logically pianistic in line with the musical phrase.

Well if the rest of what you say is as inaccurate as this "feeling" then there's no need for any of us to read it.

Let me start first by addressing your inane childishness wherein you call me a hillbilly, which, I'm not (though whether I were or not is really a moot point). Next, I'll address your superiority complex, which seems fairly evident, in that, you feel you need to belittle me, because I have 4 notches on my belt and that as a result the inference is that I should defer to the "top-guns" (notches in one's belt does not an expert make).
Now, to the point of my post. I certainly didn't go off half-cocked. My suggestion was not intended as a key to what you call "presumed musicality". The original poster stated that she was having difficulty getting the student to slow down and work out some proper fingering. I think my suggestion of having said student present their work at no greater than half tempo (which allows you not only to incorporate good fingering, but proper phrasing, articulation, dynamics, etc., while giving your brain a chance to absorb all of the input you're feeding it) addresses her problem fairly directly.
I would seem that you are the only one here who has gone off half-cocked, since it appears you're not able to actually read and comprehend what it is that you're reading.
What area of expertise was it that your 10,000 notches have bestowed upon you again?

Hi Carol,
You will have noticed that the suggestion was made that your 9 year-old student appears to be in the generically gifted 2% ... it is this same bonus which marks the concert pianist ... however, as you are discovering, stage performance puts a demand on accurate sight-reading.

You’ve only had your charge since September ... and it comes as a pleasant surprise to have inherited a potential top gun ... all your other pupils might well progress at a slower pace (largely driven by Mum’s heady ambition ... not to mention the stultifying uphill labour of reading and finding the notes ... AND then looking away to the keyboard).

How you solve the problem of random fingering to an aural memory ... and at the same time gently ingrain a programme of CREATIVE sight-reading is something we’d all like to wish a happy ending ... and hear HOW YOU DID IT.

I derisively laugh in your general direction sir. You completed the highest level at the Royal Conservatory of Music (which, I'd like to ask is what level? when and with whom were your studies?) yet make a statement such as this...and I quote..."Don't force this kid to sight-read, that would do a HUGE disservice to her natural talent of playing by ear. I have a feeling none of the teachers here can even play by ear." Any individual having attained the highest possible degree offered by RCM would never venture to make such an asinine statement. Thanks for helping to close out my day with a good laugh though.