Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum My Experiences with the Soft Mozart Program

You're welcome!

I thought a lot about Soft Mozart and traditional methods. I guess, my opinion is: I don't find anything 'non traditional' in SM. All what this system is – adding some colors and pictures to traditional Grand Staff for beginners and use computer interactivity and animation for learning basic skills.

I use system most of the time in my lessons with all types of students, beginners (2 years old and up) and advanced. I have about 45 students, most of them (75%) with SM 4-6 years. Each student develops on his/her own pace. I can't say that all of them are prodigies, but they all play many pieces and read music.

Recently I had a recital and noticed, that no student ever stopped in the middle of performance, because he/she forgot what to play next. But there were many 'cheaters': when they are nervous, they can replace one Dominant chord with another or create their own cadence. It made me smile, because I see, that the students completely aware of what they are playing. When I was teaching without SM it never happened before. I think, the amount of music they play contributes to that experience. Also SM teaches how to play chords to melodies by ear (Solfeggio and Chords curriculum). I think, it helps, too.

About sight-reading and moving to regular sheet music I will write in my next post, but here is some observation. My advanced students, when they practice reading from sheet music, could make tiny mistakes: they could overlook rest sign or hold half note as quarter. They also never could say, how many mistakes and rhythmical errors they made. When they sight-read with program, it is more strict and gives them sense of accomplishment afterwards.

How fast they move from SM to 'regular'.

When I just started working with SM I felt a little nervous. I used to teach with sheet music and with no stickers or piano guides and felt obligated to push my students to this level as soon as possible. Now, after teaching for awhile, I think, that it is no rush. Every child like a 'fruit': when it is time – it's time.

SM supports piano technique development and sight-reading.
In piano technique development we use stickers on piano keys. At first, I was afraid, that students would rely on them forever, but it didn't happen. As soon as they learn keyboard layout, they ask to remove them and replace with piano guides. After that they ALWAYS remove guides, if previous student used it, because they say colors bother their vision.

In my studio I have keyboards, digital pianos and acoustic Grand. They all look up to Grand and working really hard to get there the sooner the better. Grand for them like a goal and trophy.

The same thing is happening with playing with sheet music. Program offers several Grand Staff presentation with different amount of visual support. They try to get to horizontal presentations as soon as possible. As a teacher I give the students more difficult for coordination pieces on presentation with more visual help and use more easy pieces for sight-reading. Last presentation of SM looks like a sheet of music and when they move to play off books the transition is very mild and painless.

With scores of program it is easy to determine, whether student ready to move to next level of difficulty or not. If they struggle to achieve perfect amount of music notes and their time number is greater then amount of notes, it means, that they definitely need to stay on this level.

Anyway, to get to my point at last, with a well educated music teacher as a mother, why did you need the soft mozart programme for yourslef (you have said that you used it yourslef to learn to play)?

I would be fascinated to hear your story.

I've been playing piano for as long as I can remember.. But I never really enjoyed it. To make a long story short(er), I HATED piano lessons. I hated the drills, I hated sitting alone in a room with a score of 'impossible' sheet music that I was expected to figure out, and most of all I hated having to take lessons with my mother and being reminded how 'lucky' I was, when most people couldn't even afford such a 'luxury.' And, I suppose a lot of it had to do with results.. As a child, I just didn't feel like I was making enough progress for the lessons to be worthwhile.. After all, since my mom was a teacher, it was obvious that there were students that were my age that were much more 'gifted' than I was. It all seemed pretty pointless.

Suddenly, I was given an option that dispelled a few of these burdens. I had an extensive library of music to choose from, so I finally started learning the songs that I actually had an interest in, and some of the aides supported me enough to 'step up' to more advanced pieces. And best of all, I could do most of the preparation on my own; Then, my mother would sit with me and show me the proper fingering (though most of the time, my hands could figure out what was best on their own after I became familiar with the piece), and encourage certain techniques that would polish the performance... And of course pull out books of varying difficulty from time to time to develop sight reading without the program. My only regret is that I never got a good routine down for practice. Sometimes I would go several months without a thought about the piano, then go for a few weeks, training everyday. All in all, it took me about three years to reach a point in which I was comfortable with reading almost anything from a book.

In the meantime, like I mentioned, I was a constant witness to Traditional lessons.. From the time that my mother taught in a Conservatory in the USSR, to private lessons in the US before SM. I would often work for her during the summers as a teacher's aide, doing various exercises with her younger students during group lessons.

It is easy to learn a piece using a computer program. I would be able to do the same thing with learning the guitar. I even think there is a video game out now that uses a guitar as a controller.
The problem I have is: the art.
A computer cannot teach proper technique, touch, tone, phrasing and human artistry that is music.
I am not impressed with either videos. Especially the one with the 6 year old playing Ode to Joy.

I believe the program you're referring to is Guitar Hero. I've heard many great things about it, and SM has even been likened to it by a few of my students.. But I haven't had the chance to check it out myself. Once again, I must repeat that SM is NOT meant to replace the piano teacher, nor is it a 'miracle program' that can successfully replace every other method out there. However, if built upon by a good teacher that is well-versed in other useful teaching methods, it can be priceless.

All of the videos I posted just display specific aspects of the program. I'm afraid that I don’t have access to one that shows the 'final result.' However, I can't help but wonder whether anyone can ever FINISH learning about piano, or anything else for that matter.

The video of Wilhelm displays the most basic advantage of the program: A person with absolutely no experience with piano can sit down and learn to play a fairly advanced song on his own in 30 minutes. Yes, his fingering is atrocious. Yes, he lacks musical 'finesse.' Those are all things that can only be taught by a capable teacher.. But imagine how much more time and effort you could spend on those, in my opinion, rather enjoyable aspects of teaching, than the basic focus on memorization of the song when the program can take care of it for you in a very short amount of time?

The video of the three year old displays that the program can make valid piano lessons possible even for children as young as 3. I've heard of music classes for young kids that revolve around music appreciation, clapping to the rhythm, dancing, etc, but rarely making the music themselves.

Finally, the ‘Ode to Joy’ video shows how the program can train a student’s ear to play a song in any key, not to mention instill a sense of confidence in such a young child to even attempt such a task without feeling overwhelmed.

It is too bad that we don't have a teacher here with a decent level of experience with both to compare them fairly. And I also think it is relevent to ask about Ochy's experience and training to back up some of her comments. If you are going to make a critical statement about a type of method, then be able to back it up.

It really is a shame that I never had the chance to obtain an ‘official’ education, so that I could easily say ‘look, I have a degree in Musical Pedagogy from so-and-such prestigious school, so clearly what I say has merit.’ But I am trying my best, and most importantly, I am giving you my honest accounts of experiences. Music has always been a huge part of my life.. So much so, that unfortunately I took it for granted as a child. However, I assure you that I’ve seen this program work, first hand. After all, it worked for me! Here are a few additional accounts from a couple of people that might have more ‘merit’ than I do:

Signed letter of approval written by nationally renowned pianist Yuri Rozum:
http://www.softmozart.com/Site/discussion.php?discussion=97

More on Yuri Rozum can be found on his website here:
http://www.yurirozum.com/

A letter from Victoria Lopez Meseguer, A Piano Teacher and Vicedean of the Professional Conservatory of Music in Joaquin, Madrid:

“To whom it may concern:

I write this letter to strongly recommend SoftMozart as a wonderful method for teaching music. And I speak of music and not only of piano because Softmozart helps setting the foundations of not only piano fundamentals but also ear training, internal rhythm, harmony and music memory. I find it my obligation to be alert of new possibilities for my piano students. I teach all levels but I am specially concerned about the beginning of education. First, because I am convinced that the younger the student, the better the teacher should be. Not only in the psychological approach but also because of the fact that one needs to have the final goals so clearly as to not introduce anything that could be a learning burden for a student in the future. After all, music learning is a spiral method. We teach the same concepts again and again and the only difference is the context, the music piece that the student plays. On the other hand, there are many methods that captivate the student at the beginning but makes them face a dessert after a year or two. I am thinking of teaching methods that provide the student with no reading grounds. Most of these students quit when they find themselves having to read what they think they can play by imitation.
I also find my obligation to dive into the real XXI century, meaning that the students of today deserve
the possibilities that the rest of the curricula offer to them: technology. I was startled to know the results of the investigations of Rauschen in 1997 where he compared the results in spatial-temporal outcomes of a group of children who had taken piano lessons, a group of children that had taken computer lessons and a group of children who had taken no special lessons apart from traditional school subjects. The study found that those receiving piano lessons indeed scored 34 percent
higher on tests measuring spatial-temporal ability. Then followed the children who had received computer training.
Well, SoftMozart combines these two trainings. To start with, children just stick to the piano no
matter how young. I have seen three year old children waving goodbye to their parents without even looking at them as they left and begging for more after their lesson. And this is a very good start for any teacher. In respect to the advantages of the method I would like to highlight::
7. It doesn’t interfere at all with my traditional teaching. The teacher has a reason to exist with constant indications about fingering, hand position and relating concepts from one piece to another.
8. The chosen pieces are also “traditional”. Bastien, for example, is one of the most famous methods in
Spanish Conservatories.
9. Fruit Lines and Guess Note are two games that also help train absolute ear. After more than twenty years of teaching I have found no better method for this. The child constantly listens to the sound of a note with no boring sensation because he thinks he is only playing with a video console game when in fact he is receiving constant listen-recognize feedback about absolute pitch. Some children just respond to sound. To be able to recognize these children at so early stages is an invaluable tool for a teacher. Any other method to work these that I can think of would involve an active respond from the child, and we all know that the shiest children can be the best hidden artists.
10. Note duration makes rhythm not only a mental process from the mathematical point of view but also a fast muscular responding process, as it should eventually become in the future for any pianist. The child thinks and feels the rhythm and it is hard to tell what comes first.
11. Small children can spend years in music movement lessons before starting piano in traditional teaching. Now I see no reason why they should wait for so long before playing piano, provided the piano keys weight is appropriate for their muscles.
12. With respect to Gentle Piano these are the rest of the advantages I see:
a. The vertical disposition of the staves compared to the horizontal simply mean that what is on the right is on the right and what is on the left is on the left. This sounds absurd but the fact is that with
traditional teaching a piano students needs to face orientation indications that contradict natural laws.
Some parents are concerned with this fact (so what will happen when he faces a “normal score”?). I just press a key on the computer and the students faces the “normal score”. And the student just plays because he also recognizes his favorite toy if we turn it around. The important fact is that he has understood in a natural way the direction of the music on the score and the direction of the same notes on the piano.
b. Some traditional teachers say “ok, but art has nothing to do with this”. My answer is always the same one. Your first obligation is to teach the student how to read and now the linguistics. Your second obligation could be letting him read a best seller or take his hand and dive him into Shakespeare. Well, I don’t know of any Language teacher who wouldn’t appreciate all this help in teaching their students how to read. This can only result in having spare time for the “artistic process”.
c. The evaluating process is an instantaneous thing. The competition is not with the teacher. The teacher doesn’t correct things as “not a do or a fa but a mi”. The teacher can teach and correct other more important things and doesn’t need to accompany with words every sound of the piano. After all we keep telling our students that music and silence go together. The fact that the teacher is in your team and that the competition is IN the computer, is another pedagogical approach that I find invaluable.
d. Group individual teaching. That is another advantage. I can switch from one to another many times
in a very short lapses of time. This allows me to make a correction without directing it to the child that
needs it. I speak aloud and all of them listen to it but the one that needs it is the one that understands
it better.
e. The fact that the creators of this method keep upgrading the software and are always ready to listen
to suggestions and keep in touch with the teachers who use it is really important for me. I wish I could say the same thing for other creators of software that I use for only Solfegge training. I have found myself using the songs of SoftMozart in the traditional layout for solfegge singing. The child first reads and sings the piece with the solfegge notes and then learns it on the piano.

I can only recommend SoftMozart for any teacher willing to have an invaluable aid in teaching what for
so many people is the reason to not have continued with piano education: boring approaches or just the intrinsic difficulty in beginning of the learning process.

Victoria Lopez Meseguer
Piano Teacher and Vicedean of the Conservatorio
Profesional de Musica Joaquín Turina de
Madrid
Calle Serrano 226 Duplicado
Madrid 28016
Spain
vlmeseguer@mac.com”

Finally, this past year, the Moscow Conservatory, which as we’re all aware has had many prestigious students over the years, recently published a book in Russian named “How to Teach Music in the 21st Century” that included a 22-page article written by Olenka about the Soft Mozart program. Unfortunately, an adequate translation is still in the works, but here are several scans to give you the idea:

<img src="http://img.photob...cket - Video and Image Hosting">

<img src="http://img.photob...cket - Video and Image Hosting">

<img src="http://img.photob...cket - Video and Image Hosting">
I really must apologize for such a lengthy reply, but I felt that a lot might be cleared up if these points were addressed.

Cheers!

Ochy: I didn't mean to imply that your experiences didn't have any merit. My only concern was that it is incredibly hard to fairly compare any two teaching methods when you haven't used them first hand. There are too many other factors involved (the teacher, the student, etc.) A degree certainly doesn't mean nearly as much as experience teaching with a particular method. It sounds like you had some really rough experiences with music growing up, which understandably would make anyone jaded against what you call "traditional" lessons. I hate to hear about anyone having an experience like that and I am glad you found a program that works for you. However there are so many methods out there and different teachers, I think the only way to fairly compare is for one teacher (same style, personality, etc.) to try both and compare.

No offense was meant, and you certainly have done your research on this program. Passion and a belief in what you are doing mean everything when teaching.

Um...none of those publishing companies typically grant copyright to other people. If this statement is true, then the authors of Soft Mozart could get into serious legal trouble and be sued for a LOT of money.

I can't speak for Ochi, because I don't know what did she mean. I definitely know that contract was signed with Kjos company for some of Bastien books. Don't think, that it was signed with other method books publishers. It is no need for many 'hand position' pieces any way IMO, because students quickly move to regular music.

Ochy,

So much energy you have, really.

Here is my take on the piano problem, it's not getting more kids playing earlier and advancing quicker, it's the dropout rate after a few years. Now if you have something that keeps the teenager going and getting to an advanced state you have a winner. I actually believe a program like SM can produce quick magic (by classical and operant conditioning) but I want to see the long term benefits.

This is what would impress me--two groups of kids start at 5, one uses SM, the other uses traditional. 7 years later how many are in each group, what level are they playing at, and how much do they enjoy the piano. Any comments on this?

Mr. FTP, I WAS a teenager that kept going because of this program! I kept up with my studies even during high school, when I wanted nothing more than to displease my parents!

Your idea for a research project is great, but I'm afraid it would be doomed to fail. The lessons would of course either have to be free, or the students would have to have some very supportive parents.. Not to mention, each family wouldn't be able to move away, in the meantime... So they would probably expect some sort of incentive for their troubles. Too many complications, I'm afraid.

Here us some thought about 'drop out rate'. There are many objective reasons for it, which we ought to take to our consideration:
Total music illiteracy and social motivation to learn music are maybe the cause.
1. Technology with ability to hear any music on CD didn't contribute much to motivation of being performer for others
2. Piano lessons traditional way, which for centuries were not 'easy' for average people didn't promote mass music literacy

SM with it outstanding results to teach practically ANYBODY to play piano, write and read music has long term way to change the society. Today more and more people switch to this way of learning, because it works like nothing else. But it would take time for music educators and average people to understand its true and genuine merits.
Why we have to create any groups and provide any 'scientific research' if all what u need to do is – download demos and try it on your own students/kids?
IT WORKS FOR ANYBODY. End of story!
All THE problems of music education ARE SOLVED. All 'unsolved mysteries' are just in your heads to the time, when u learn the discovery and will try on your students/kids.

Masha, I am sure you believe this to be true. However [and she puts on professor and researcher hat at this point], everything you have talked about to date, and what you are suggesting here, is only anecdotal evidence. For me to be convinced of the superiority of the Soft Mozart program, I would need to see data of the sort fathertopianist described, with the friendly amendment that students/families would need to be randomly assigned to teaching style conditions. Testimonials of the sort offered on the Soft Mozart site and on these threads only tell us that some people benefit from and believe sincerely in the Soft Mozart system. They don't tell us that it "works for anybody," or even that it works for most people.

I can sign under any of these statements:
http://www.doremifasoft.com/pipupiupskus.html
http://www.softmozart.com/Site/discussion.php?discussion=89
Because I did try and know, that it works. My personal data is matching the main stream of other SM teachers' data.
Maybe one day some institute would make it obvious for other people nationwide, but today for me personally the answer is clear.

that's nice Masha, but those of us who teach in the social and behavioral sciences understand the difference between anecdotal and statistical evidence and between random samples and sample selection bias.

In any case the relevant points here are different. We know SM has no real data to verify its claims, but neither does anyone else. Thus we are left with smaller points of doctrine to discuss. Just where are the similarities and differences between SM and traditional methods? This has received some useful discussion here. Just what skills is SM supposedly strengthening? This too has received some useful discussion here. The superiority of one approach versus the other. Well, here we are veering back into advertising, especially in some of the later posts.

I think, you're right! I am passionate and now it's time for me to relax and let others to decide.

I just want to say one thing: SM could enhance any method without replacing it. My feeling is: it is not a method – it is rather a tool. Any teacher can use this tool to help students to understand connection between notation and piano keys faster, more effectively and with more fun. But it has nothing to do with personal teaching technique and preferences.

I think this is a very sensible point. That's why I think the discussion advances further when some of the passion is drained out of the issue.

Masha

You may have the beginnings to how to make it obvious for other people nationwide right in your post.

With respect to the use of the program at Hutsell Elementary in Katy Tx (and the article in the newspaper dated 6/7/2005)-- can you send a follow up of how its going there today? Continued student progress after 18 months and program success and further investment are good testimonials. Looks like the program was funded on a grant which is a great way to get things started.

After 18 months what are the latest results and metrics from Hutsell? Is the program being expanded now to the several other elementary schools in the school district? Have representatives from other school districts flown in to see the program and chosen to adopt it--as piano teachers have flown to Texas to see the program?

Fathertopianist,

'With respect to the use of the program at Hutsell Elementary in Katy Tx (and the article in the newspaper dated 6/7/2005)-- can you send a follow up of how its going there today?'

Unfortunately, school spent all the findings on teacher's salary and stopped the program for year and a half. Now they called to let me know, that they found money for teachers again and going to continue soon after second teacher's training. I don't understand, why they don't use it instead of regular music class. It seems like they are afraid to make such dramatic replacement.

'Continued student progress after 18 months and program success and further investment are good testimonials. Looks like the program was funded on a grant which is a great way to get things started. '

I think, finding is good for computer + piano purchase and for software itself ( we are talking about $10 000 here). But when we offer this program (again!) for selected few students, we miss the whole point of mass music literacy. I think, SM ought to be in public schools nationwide as 'music' subject.

'After 18 months what are the latest results and metrics from Hutsell? Is the program being expanded now to the several other elementary schools in the school district?'

Not yet. They wait when the program would be more 'approved', I guess.

'Have representatives from other school districts flown in to see the program and chosen to adopt it--as piano teachers have flown to Texas to see the program?

No! I know, that SM offered the program to public music institutions for free with no response whatsoever.

PS
Did you read this testimonial from Davidson (princiopal of Hutsell) about her own daughter?

'She said Hiner's revolutionary methods had a profound effect of her daughter's education. Davidson became impressed when Hiner taught her daughter, Carolyn, and was eager to try the music instruction method.

Carolyn Davidson, who just graduated third in her class at Mayde Creek High School, began piano lessons eight years ago with Hiner and has gained the mastery of one who has studied for 15 years, her mother said.'

This post is from 2007. I would be very curious to know what these skeptics think today, 2013, about this program. Using the computer and a keyboard is actually commonplace now. The one thing I don't understand is why everyone thinks that they have to spend so much money on a computer and a keyboard. Most families don't have that much money just sitting around to spend $10000 as someone had written in their comments. You can buy a Casio for $80 that helps a student learn just as well as any expensive brand. It's not the price of the instrument that makes the player, though so many comments on these forums would imply that.

I also had a good laugh when someone mentioned a Guitar program that will do the same thing as this software. Guitar Hero was then mentioned as the name of it. Guitar Hero is a video game. One of my friend's sons plays this game all of the time. He is no more of a guitar player than Charlie Brown is. If he picked up a real guitar, he would have no clue how to use it. Guitar Hero is not a program intended to teach guitar, the only thing you learn on that game is to match the correct colors on the screen to the correct color buttons.

Using the computer and an instrument with a specific program to TEACH you how to play your instrument is very different from a video game. There is technique and learning involved on the part of the student, matching colors on a guitar hardly counts as technique. Nowadays, MIDI is an important part of many music teacher's lessons. I bet that you could find success stories now.

You're potentially missing something important.

Guitar Hero is a video game. That means two things happen: kids develop a high degree of skill, and kids get hooked and willingly, eagerly play it for hours on end.

Contrast that to music lessons. Does either of those two things happen?

Could they, if we restructured just a bit?

Utterly false.