Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Switching methods

Most of the students I've taught have come to me at the intermediate or early advanced level. I've only taught a handful of beginners, and I started them with the Bastien method because that's what I learned from and that's what I'm familiar with. I'm currently teaching my own daughter as a beginner and am wondering if I can do better for her than Bastien. She has just finished the primer level, so if I'm going to switch her to something different, this seems to be a logical time to do so. I've been reading reviews of various methods, and now my head is spinning. And I still haven't found one method that seems to be exactly what I'm looking for. I know a lot of people like Faber, and almost everyone I know that teaches piano prefers Faber, but it seems like the Bastien primer has covered all but the last third of the material in the Faber level 1 book. And my daughter has progressed very rapidly through the Bastien primer, often moving ahead on her own b/c she has mastered all of her assigned songs before her lesson day. So I'm concerned that switching to the Faber method would slow her down or hold her back. I really like the Marlais' method for a number of reasons, but it also seems to move a bit more slowly than Bastien. Have any of you had good luck with combining different aspects of several methods? I'm considering switching to Helen Marlais' Succeeding at the Piano lesson and technique book even though the songs in the first half or so of the level one book seem much simpler than the pieces my daughter has been playing at the end of her Bastien primer because I really like the way this method teaches technique better than anything else I've looked at. I'm also torn between the intervalic method that Marlais' leans toward and the multi-key approach. I see pros and cons of each. So I'm thinking of supplementing the Marlais' lesson book perhaps with Bastien level 1 Hymns and Performance.(The performance book is not one of my favorites, but I think she'd like some of the songs, and we already own it.) My thinking is that this combination would allow me to incorporate both methods. Also I've looked at the Playtime Piano Classics as supplemental material for introducing more classical pieces early on. I'm not 100% sure about theory, but am leaning toward the Marlais' theory and activity book. I do like the creative emphasis on composing. And then I'm thinking about adding Bastien's A Line A Day series to ensure good reading skills to counterbalance the negative I'm hearing about the multi-key method. The only lack I see in this system seems to be transposing. I'm considering using the Bastien technique book sparsely and having her transpose some of theses exercises. I think that would cover everything. But this compilation of curriculum seems a bit complicated, and I don't want to overwhelm her. Any thoughts or suggestions? Thanks in advance.

Both Piano Adventures and Alfred Premier do an excellent job teaching intervallic reading. Both have an extensive set of supplementary materials graded according to their own levels.

I have used Succeeding at the Piano books before, but they tend to go really, really slow. I guess the rationale behind that pacing is to build a solid foundation and ascertain the mastery of all skills before moving on, but...oh, my...it took forever.

When you talk about "teaching intervallic reading" I'm very confused about what you mean.

The book goes in order 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th. The music they write will contain only the intervals they have covered thus far.

I don't like some of the music Piano Adventures uses to teach 7th, but that's a minor quibble.

The position books tend to mix 4th and 5th early on.

What about Piano Town? I think those books move relatively quickly once you get through the beginning material in the first level, compared with Faber. I did Bastien as a kid and didn't like that or John Thompson or Line a Day. The last was the worst for me, but that's the kind of person I am. If your daughter loves it, give it to her and don't worry about switching.

Most of the time it's the teacher not the method that works

Thank you. I'll take a look at that. I'm not familiar with Piano Town. And thank you for the reminder not to obsess too much over which method to use. I've always been willing to teach from whatever books a student has come to me with and add from there as needed, and all my students have learned (well all who truly wanted to learn, that is). I think I'm just a bit more neurotic about it when it comes to my own daughter. Combine that with not having taught many beginning students and, therefore, not having been in the position to make the choice of methods from the get-go very often. Makes for a stressed out momma who wants to get this right for her baby girl. I will try to relax!!! Got to keep it fun for her, after all.

Yikes. That would drive me nuts, and I think I would lose a lot of potentially good students moving that way. I get to octaves almost immediately, and every interval up to an octave.

In the way I teach 3rds and 5ths are instinctive because I start out teaching lines from day one. 3rd is a jump, 5th is a double jump, step is obvious. Then we identify this idea when learning chords.

I prefer working logically through the intervals. Students need some exercises for each interval so they get comfortable with it before moving on.

I have some transfer students who know steps and skips, but anything beyond that it's time for letter names. It's like I can almost pinpoint where their previous teacher gave up on intervallic reading.

Yes, I agree about keeping it fun for her. I've known many piano teachers who send their kids to someone else to teach, probably for the reasons you are describing here. Might be worth considering.

Some kind of extra work is necessary. Letter names are problems for reasons most people will not understand, but you do. If a student links a line or space with a letter, that student will start playing things in the wrong octave. The only letter I use for the staff in the beginning is Middle C. Everything else is a line or "in between lines".

This is even more important for people who start with me knowing instruments like trumpet or violin - or string bass. In such cases a "beginner" already knows one clef. The student will want to associate notes in the bass clef with the treble clef. It's hard-wired to call first line in the bass clef "E" because that is what has already been learned in the treble clef.

Instead, I tell people: "Play line 1 in both clefs."

Line 1 can also be "bottom line". Doesn't matter. But you have to rewire the brain.

I just went through that two days ago with a good adult who played violin as a kid. He was trying to use letters for the bass clef.

I have two parents who are bass players. Both are serious players who know music. They couldn't deal with the treble clef until they learned to navigate by line rather than letter.

The reason letter don't work is that it requires a translation. It's one of the most serious problems in people never learning to read music well.

I don't think it is either method that is the problem or the solution. I think it is the pain and boredom of learning those notes that is the deterrent.

Either you can spend whole lessons drilling interval/note-learning into the students, at the risk of having the parent wondering why the child is not playing anything in the lesson, or complaining that they haven't learned a new piece for a while. ('cos they are not, in all likelihood, going to learn their notes at home)

Note learning in itself is not inspiring. There has to be another goal. The student is either driven by wanting to please, wanting to get as good as someone they have heard play who is much better than them, wanting to conquer a piece that seem much more advanced than their level, or something else. This is what gets student to learn notes.

I was really bad at reading and identifying notes until I starting playing things that really gripped me (there's not too many of those in the method books ..) and then note-reading was a non-issue. I forgot that it was painful to learn the notes - they just came to me because they were necessary step in creating the beauty of the music.

My best sight-reading students are those that have gone quite off the method books are are tackling the real things i.e. unedited original scores. Note-reading problems, for them have just about vanished.

+1

This is the prime reason why most kids can't sight read hymns or pieces with large chords. They spend all their time deciphering one letter at a time, instead of taking in the "big picture" of chords, harmonies, and relationships between chords.

And I'm battling the brainwashed parents of transfer wrecks. Just like the myth of curved fingers, these parents are brainwashed into thinking that sight reading means speedy reading of letter names.

It's really a combination of getting letter names (to start) and recognizing patterns and shapes of melody and groups of notes in the accompaniment.