Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Dad has some questions / needs advice

Your point of view I find to be sad, MomOfBeginners. It is a utilitarian point of view, not the words of someone who loves to read.

Your daughter's comment is charming, no need to prove her wrong.

Nikolas, I was giving advice to the OP regarding her child not wanting to learn to sight read. This debate has NOTHING to do with classical or jazz music.

It has to do with how to keep that child active and interested in learning music when they don't want to sight-read. I suggested to let the child play by ear and when they are ready or find reading useful to add it.

Funny that I haven't heard a single piece of good advice from any of you guys. So, are you going to force that kid to sight-read and make him or her hate learning music?

As I said before, I would MUCH rather have a good ear than good sight-reading. To have both is great, but for my personal application to music, the ear is essential and the eye is not.

Now, getting back to the topic, exactly how would you go about motivating that kid who doesn't want to sight-read?

Well... you can imagine that the thread derailed a tiny bit...

I don't think that the 'issue' with sight reading is far apart an 'issue' with math or history.

It has to do with:
a. bad teaching
or
b. no insentive

As you saw from my post my personal doings in teaching is applying all. I'm primarily a composer, so I find the importance of ear training (and inner ear actually) to be great.

The thread derailed, as I said above, but bottom line is this: If someone managed to find a way to explain to a little kid the usefulness of sight reading it will be great. I, personally, find that this skill should be developed 'later' in life, rather than the age of 6-7 years old. Listening and ear training happens the minute you start playing the piano, instinctively.

But it does remain that you blur the line between what you find useful (as you mention in your very last post, and thanks for that) and what is universally agreed as useful. Because while you said "... my personal application to music...", which is exactly that: personal, while on another post you mention "teaching classical music is flawed", which is not personal, but appears as some universal truth!

And to be clear: My PERSONAL approach to music is attempting to be whole: Let them listen (brought a DVD of Messiaens works a few months ago and they hated it :D), let them see concerts (took them to concerts, along with a few parents), let them realise the beauty of music (played Lady GAGA on the piano, and then some Chopin), let them realise their potential, by pushing them lightly to learn harder pieces, new pieces they've never heard of, songs, etc, and teaching them everything about music, from the golden ratio, to Bachs primary number use, to the life of most Romantic composers who barely reached 30 years of age, to the meaning of motifs in Wagners music, and whatnot. Referencing makes it possible.

For as "charming" as it may have been, I think it a sad reflection on society in general today. Why read the book...I'll watch the movie. Why read the book...I'll listen to it instead; i.e. entertain me so I don't have to put forth too much effort. It's too bad so many don't take the time to trigger their imagination between the covers of a great book.

Just a note that I find books, and especially notation (scores) to be a form of art in itself! (just a BTW comment)

I second the motion!

I get your point, but I think that you are mistaken. You must have forgotten some things from your own childhood. Hearing a story or a book read to you is not a passive activity.

I don't know exactly what "books-on-tape" are, but even so I'd wager that kids that listen often to this sort of thing also read voraciously.

books-on-tape are normal books read by... actors. I always thought they were for people with hearing problems and I found them a good idea, but if someone is using it instead of reading... bleh...

What I should say is that the current method of teaching classical music is INCOMPLETE, rather than flawed. Just as there are faults in the jazz schools and pedagogy, which I won't get into here.

Being the best musician is like being the best athlete, you need to train in all areas. My experience with classical training found it lacking in some skills that could transfer to other arenas of music. Had I not learned them I would have been stuck.

Just the same with some of the posters saying they wished they had learned to sight-read better.

I like how the Suzuki method emphasizes ear training but that still seems to be the minority. There are others who are using an audiation approach like Edwin Gordon.

Ultimately learning music is a personal endeavor where one needs to be self-taught and motivated. Same with pushing kids into sports they aren't ready or excited to play. If a child loves music then it becomes easy.

currawong you seem to have enough idle time to reply to every post I've made on the Teachers or Corners forums lately. Are you stalking me? Hahaha.

For the record, are you a guy or girl. Just want to be sure.

oz: But an athlete is expert in ONE sport, not many, and practicing differers greatly amongst athletes...

If you think about it weight lifters, or discus throwers are some heavy 'monsters' (<- notice the " please), who would probably fail to jump 2 feet of the ground, never mind 6...

:-/

The current method of teaching classical music is the one that each teacher uses... And yes,I will agree that there is too much emphasis on scores.

I hope this answers your question

Currawong is a

Generally, the common methods for teaching the classical repertoire are intend to teach people how to play ... the classical repertoire. I conceded that there seems to be an assumption that learning to play `the piano' amounts to learning to play classical piano, and perhaps that is regrettable. Nevertheless, I think most people understand that when they sign their kids up for `piano lessons' (rather than `jazz piano' or whatever), they're aiming primarily at Bach and Beethoven and such.

My experience is that kids who have a good ear don't need any encouragement to improvise and play by ear. They will do it for fun. Often they will make good progress with even the most modest teaching and encouragement.

Sight-reading is different. Most kids (in my experience) don't enjoy learning to do it, although they may well enjoy the results of being able to do it.

So how do you motivate a child to practice sight reading? I don't know. But I do think that the approach you advocate -- essentially not doing it, because there are more productive things -- is a mistake. It's a mistake because sight reading is much easier to learn when you're young (like many things). Kids don't know what their future interests are going to be, and I think we do them a disservice if we let them opt out of things that we -- adults -- realize will be hugely beneficial in later life.

My own approach with kids and sight-reading essentially centres on bribery.

Probably when she is learnning a new piece, don't play it for her to listen. Just ask her to figure out the notes without hearing it first.
I don't think you need to worry about it even her sight reading is several levels below her playing level, I think that is quite normal. Her sight reading is going to advance just like her playing does.

Nice pikky, Canonie. We haven't had so many lately - more magpies (Saw two of them taking a splashy bath in a puddle this morning).

When you are a child you speak and think as a child thinks...that's a child's reality. With education and life's experience your inner world and outer world bloom to be so much more. We participate in both worlds. One is public and one is private.

In conversation we can state the things we are aligned about or we can concentrate on the differences or we can remain neutral.

We can think, talk. If we don't learn to read and write we've limited our participation in the world.

Contemplating one's belly button day in and day out is lonely and non-productive. The more posters say the same old, same old predictable things the more I consider they are talking to themselves because they enjoy the sound of their "voices".

To not get caught up in repetitive redundance, the ignore button comes in handy.

And, Billy Joel is a Julliard graduate, isn't he? Oh.

Oz, your post is a breath of fresh air. But it might be wasted on classical purists here.

And, Billy Joel is a Julliard graduate, isn't he? Oh.

You are being facetious, yes?

Nice quote. Here's something more relevant. What does a child do first? Speak his/her native language or pick up a pencil and start writing the alphabet? As in language, so in music.

Exactly. Don't show them anything...just let them figure it out on their own. They'll turn into a much greater musician that way.