Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Anyone heard of/use the Simply Music curricula?

Jerry, when I have more time I will let you know how I teach and the method I use. Or, try doing a search by typing Suzuki Piano or my display name. I've written a lot on the subject.

By the way, really, playing by ear first before learning to read should be called "traditional" that is how (all?) of the greatest musicians learned. Quite naturally.

Thank you, Pianobuff. I am, of course, aware that the Suzuki method exists, but I have never looked at it closely. I didn't think it included contemporary styles of music, nor improvisation of any kind, but perhaps I'm wrong about that. I will investigate and look at some of your previous posts on the subject, Pianobuff. If you do get a chance to "sum up" your experience and explain why you think it is better than SM that would be much appreciated.

I don't see why curriculum like SM cannot be considered a valuable adjunct (supplement) or even starting point to a very serious classical piano education, branching off into traditional method after a short while. As such, personally I see it as offering significant and valuable experiences for the beginning classical pianist. Most significantly, I think having that direct, intimate relationship with the instrument and making music without music at the very beginning can set a student up with a sense of comfort at the piano for life. I would consider that extremely valuable for even the most serious of budding classical pianists.

Pianobuff - I checked out the Suzuki books at the music store at lunch time. I can't believe how advanced the music is in the 2nd level book - very impressive. Are students reading by that point, or are they still being taught by rote? It is very apparent that these are to be used only with special teacher training - something I will have to investigate further. Can you explain how reading is taught when it is taught?

It appears that I am correct that Suzuki does not include contemporary styles, improvisation, or lead sheet arranging/improvisation, but its classical curriculum looks very impressive, indeed.

Improvisation, arranging, transposing, ensemble work, composition, reading lead sheets, contemporary styles and sightreading are all incorporated in my studio appropriately.

The pieces learned in Book 1 give students all the basics needed to play well and to know basic theory in order for them to improvise, compose and sightread.

I would love to write a longer post, but I am in the midst of teaching and Guild auditions. But the pieces are not taught by rote per se.

Reading of music is a formal part of the lessons when the student starts Book 2. Most students of mine are able to learn Minuet 3 of Book 2 easily by reading it then memorizing it.
I use a special reading book that conincides with the way they were taught Book 1. The development of technique, ear-training and theory they learn in Book 1 allows the reading of music to be easily accomplished; they are not method book type pieces either, but well written, lovely pieces of music in which they learn how to read music.

The cost for training is minimal, $225.00 for 5-days, I believe is what it is. After that the teacher takes what they want from the workshop and applies it to their own studio adding what they wish for a well-rounded education. What is mostly taught is how to teach natural technique and the mother-tongue philosophy of the Suzuki method.

Here is a link to Suzuki Piano Basics website where there is a link to workshops:

http://core.ecu.edu/hist/wilburnk/SuzukiPianoBasics/

I recommend doing a search on PW, for more information about Suzuki piano or Suzuki method.

If I understand correctly, you are not saying all those things are part of the Suzuki method, just that it prepares your students well enough for you to add them to their curriculum. Can you tell me what materials you use to supplement the Suzuki method that covers these other areas? (only when you get time). This is very helpful, Pianobuff - thank you very much.

Hi Jerry,

You're more than welcome.

Well... there is really no materials necessary! Just common sense and having fun making and exposing/exploring music to your students!

Let me try to give an example.

Book 1 students will naturally start to transpose their pieces, especially after I teach them a five-finger pattern with a I-V7-I cadence added to it in all keys, major and minor. They take a break from Twinkle Variations and start on this when they are about half way through Book 1. Of course they also know what a IV chord is and a V chord too, from their pieces. Soon they will play a I-IV-V-V7-I cadence along with scales, arpeggios, inversions for warming up/theory about the time the end of Book 1, start of Book 2.

We do ensemble work form the beginning. I have two pianos. We also work with other instrumentalists that play the Suzuki repertoire.

Composition often happens naturally too, depending on the student, could happen in Book 1. I do assign how to write a four measure phrase and we build on it using guidlines in regards to basic compositional form and key, modulation, etc... until we have a full composition. This assigned type of composition happens in Book 2.

Contemporary styles... hmmm do you mean 20th and 21st century music? I incorporate this as part of their repertoire when they enter Book 3, sometimes in Book 2 depending on the student. Lots of real music out there for this, it's practically limitless.

If you mean rock, blues, jazz... we do that all the time, if it happens, we (I) just let it happen and we have fun. Sometimes we play soemthing jazzy (improvised of course) in Book 1 or later, just depends on the student. Or it may be an assigned piece then it falls more in the category of 20th or 21st century music as described in the above paragraph.

Arranging would be Happy Birthday (for example.) This would around Book 2 or later depending on the student. Or some of the pieces they know from the Suzuki rep we would make an arrangement for fun, most often my students do this themselves!

Reading lead sheets: I actually have had them write their own from the chords they know. Book 2, they do this. Christmas carols are great for doing this. I do have some fake books for my older, more advanced students, which they have used.

I would have to say that the basic foundation to all of this is a classical foundation, based on good listening skills, natural technique that gives students the freedom to express and explore all genres as well as a basic but solid knowledge of theory. This all happens before reading music. If you can play the piano intelligently and with ease it will then make it easy to learn to read music. The notes on the printed page will make a lot more sense.

Oh... I think I forgot reading... we start reading music formally at the beginning of Book 2. After they finish their reading book (excellent book too, imo) they are on their way to reading lots of music and I have them sight read every day using a couple different sight-reading books as well as learning their repertoire by reading it, then memorizing it.

Jerry, since you seem so interested,

One added comment, on delaying reading...

The way students learn their repertoire is by listening. Just like we learn our native tongue. The Suzuki rep has beautiful recordings of Books 1 - 3 pieces that parents play as background music for their children. This is how they learn the notes to their pieces.

I also teach solfege instead of note names at the beginning, so my students sing the pieces in solfege before playing them.
They end up learning/using both, letter names and solfege throughout their studies.

Pianobuff - it sounds like you do an excellent job both teaching with the Suzuki method and supplementing it on your own.

By contemporary music I did mean blues, jazz, rock, pop, etc. Your comment that "if it happens, we (I) just let it happen and we have fun. Sometimes we play soemthing jazzy (improvised of course) in Book 1 or later, just depends on the student" makes me wonder about just how you go about teaching these things. Learning blues, jazz, rock and pop does not just happen - the components must be taught systematically. There is a difference between playing just any piece with a jazzy rhythm, and learning authentic, albeit simple, pieces in these styles, and learning left hand styles, grooves, chord progressions, chord-building theory, chord nomenclature, idiomatic melodies, riffs, improvisation, etc.

From your description, I don't know that I would say that one is better than the other, Suzuki or SM, because they are quite different. I think for the teacher who wants to teach either strictly classical or is very well versed in improvisation, composition and contemporary styles and skillful and resourceful enough to know how to teach them as well (and wants to teach them), then the Suzuki method appears to have its merits. For a teacher who is looking to introduce a broad range of styles and skills via a pre-designed curriculum that includes those styles and skills, then it appears that SM is a good choice, although it would appear somewhat weaker in the classical music track to me (can't have it all).

OK, after some excellent posts from Jerry, Cindy and Dianna I am willing to accept that SM can be used effectively with the right teacher and for the right kind of student. I am not that worried about the reading delay as those questions have been answered and the positive reasons for it explained. You seem to get a good variety of repertoire which is also a good thing.

I still have some more questions though. We know the kind of student who would be most interested in learning this way. Maybe you could even say the majority of students would like it. Could someone explain how flexible it is? It sounds like a prescriptive program and I know from experience that one method does not suit everybody. Cindy said early on that the program should not be diluted in any way. Does that mean you must follow it to the letter? What does the SM teacher do with a student for whom it might not be suitable or if they decide at some point the program is not working?

Most teachers would not rely on one method. You have to select materials and use an approach which is suitable for each individual student. Teaching an adult to improvise is a lot different to teaching a 6 year old whose parents want them to study classical. Is there room in the SM program for all students or do you only take on students who you feel will benefit?

Also, I am trying to get my head around this $2 per student thing. Let's say I took a student on the program and signed them up for the $2 per lesson fee. If I choose to use suplementary materials which are not part of SM should I really be paying that fee? What if I decide to withdraw the student from SM because it doesn't suit them, do I still have to pay the fee then? What I am asking is if SM teachers use it exclusively or not. If they don't then how does this charge work and how does the company police it?

double post!

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pianobuff:
[qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by JerryS88:
[qb] Pianobuff - it sounds like you do an excellent job both teaching with the Suzuki method and supplementing it on your own.

By contemporary music I did mean blues, jazz, rock, pop, etc. Your comment that "if it happens, we (I) just let it happen and we have fun. Sometimes we play soemthing jazzy (improvised of course) in Book 1 or later, just depends on the student" makes me wonder about just how you go about teaching these things. Learning blues, jazz, rock and pop does not just happen - the components must be taught systematically. There is a difference between playing just any piece with a jazzy rhythm, and learning authentic, albeit simple, pieces in these styles, and learning left hand styles, grooves, chord progressions, chord-building theory, chord nomenclature, idiomatic melodies, riffs, improvisation, etc.

From your description, I don't know that I would say that one is better than the other, Suzuki or SM, because they are quite different. I think for the teacher who wants to teach either strictly classical or is very well versed in improvisation, composition and contemporary styles and skillful and resourceful enough to know how to teach them as well (and wants to teach them), then the Suzuki method appears to have its merits. For a teacher who is looking to introduce a broad range of styles and skills via a pre-designed curriculum that includes those styles and skills, then it appears that SM is a good choice, although it would appear somewhat weaker in the classical music track to me (can't have it all). [QUOTE] [qb]


Pianobuffs reply:

This is what I've been saying. The two are very different. It is really what you want for yourself as a student; or what/how you want to teach as a teacher. If you are a student that does not care to play classical music or build an excellent technique and wants to learn more of the popular genre, then I would say SM is for you.

I also disagree regarding learning rock, pop and jazz. For the young child, it does just happen, and we do have fun with playing all three. Those genres are pretty accessible by ear. For the older student there are lots of music that we use or they make up their own pieces.

Hello!
I have been teaching Simply Music for 4 years. I grew up in a "traditional", musical family and used to teach using traditional methods. I have read through some of the posts here and have a few comments.

First of all, the bottom line is that if you have no experience with this method, then you cannot confidently comment on its merits or lack thereof. I was skeptical at first glance, too. It's easy to make a bunch of assumptions based on a little information. But it is literally impossible to understand what it's about until you teach it for a while.

Secondly, I would never, ever, ever teach any other method ever again. I will comment on the reasons. This is not a gimmick, it's just different. That's why a lot of "traditionalists" are afraid of it. I sense a mentality of "If it's different, it must be wrong."

Pianobuff said:
SM is for people that want to have fun spending little time but learning to play tunes on the piano, like you said. Will they have good posture and technic? Probably not, by the way...there is a thing called a footrest.
Will they become excellent sightreaders? Sounds like they won't. Will they be somewhat well versed on classical repertoire? No.

So back to what I posted some time ago. SM is more about learning to play a keyboard, imo. Not becoming an artist at the piano.

Several comments here - you present here what we are talking about regarding "traditional" methods - posture, technique, sightreading, classical repertoire. Standard fare for several hundred years.

Neil is not bashing traditional methods, as some have suggested. He is just telling the truth, which I understand can be difficult to accept. The truth is, the majority of the population is not musically expressed. The truth is, a very high percentage of people who started piano lessons, quit piano lessons and never returned. The truth is, there are scores and scores of adults who say, "I took piano lessons as a kid, but I hated it. Now I wish I would have stuck with it." I hear this ALL the time. The truth is, most people who have learned with this approach are lost without music in front of them. That used to me as well, by the way. The truth is, this does not reflect a successful approach to learning piano.

Posture and technique - is it important? Yes. Does it have to taught before a person can play the piano? No. We don't ignore it, we simply take a different approach. It happens much more naturally.

Classical repertoire - I grew up on it. I love it. I also love contemporary music, jazz music, new age music, the blues. Now I can play it all, comfortably and confidently.

Sightreading - anyone who can read music can develop sight-reading skill, regardless of the teaching approach. Simply music teaches different learning strategies in addition to reading that only aid and simplify the process of reading music. Students who have come to me who already read music have commented on how much easier reading music is when combined with the tools we teach. There's no way you could possibly understand this unless you taught the method.

SM is not about becoming an artist at the piano? I suppose that depends upon your definition of "artist", but imho, a person who can play different styles of music confidently, accompany, read, write, improvise, compose, play in ensembles, enjoy it, and do it all in a musical fashion is an artist in every sense of the word. That's what we teach.

A few other reasons I would never, ever, ever teach any other method ever again:
1. My students don't quit like they did when I taught traditionally. They are motivated by all the awesome material they learn.
2. I maintain a studio of 50-60 students while spending next to nothing on advertising; the method is so good it sells itself. There is no doubt in my mind that I could have as huge a studio as my heart desires and my schedule allows.
3. I make more $$ teaching SM, doing something I absolutely LOVE - part-time - than I ever did as a full-time accountant. My husband was able to semi-retire and do something he loves, rather than spend 9 hours a day riding a desk, which he did not enjoy. I didn't do it for the money, but I've never been more passionate about what I do, and am blessed to make good money doing it.
4. My son with Down syndrome can play great music on the piano because of Simply Music. Autistic people are experiencing incredible success. People recovering from strokes have found Simply Music aids the recovery process, and they are able to do more than was ever thought possible. This method is available to EVERYONE.
5. Neil Moore, the creator, is a genius. I am not exaggerating. I am extraordinarily lucky to have gotten in on this in its relatively early stages and gotten to know him fairly well.
6. I could really go on and on and on, but I should wrap this up.

To summarize, if you don't teach it, you do not and cannot understand all that Simply Music is. I'm just one of the lucky ones.

Laurie R.

So only you can comment on it? Funny I'd never heard of it before then 3 teachers come along in a row!

I'm really not sure exactly what your point is. Yes, I can contribute educated comments about Simply Music because I know the program from having taught it for the past four years. No, I am not the only one who can contribute educated comments on it, since I'm not the only person around with experience in the program.

Shoot, of course anybody can comment, all I'm saying is you cannot know exactly what you are commenting on if you haven't learned or taught the program. You are forced to make assumptions about it because you are not familiar with it.

Comments from Simply Music teachers are based on knowledge of the program; comments from people who do not know the program are inherently based on assumptions and interpretations. It's not a judgment, just a fact.

Laurie

Goes without saying. So your point is?

It makes you wonder how anyone managed to learn to play piano without SM.

It explains why so many people don't.

My point was to address your global comment about me being the "only" one who could comment on Simply Music.

Does anyone have comments on the content of my message?

Have a great week ~
Laurie

I take it it even washes whiter!

Or your money back!

Cindy--I am an adult student, traditionally taught, and I really enjoyed your video. Could you explain how much time you're talking about having elapsed from Book 1 to Book 4 or Book 7? It seemed like you were talking about a few months at first, but later I wasn't sure when you said your students hadn't gotten past a certain point. I'm sure each student progresses at a different rate, but there's also probably an average for each level you could give me.

One of my children started out with the Suzuki method, and this sounds very similar. Can anyone explain how it's different? My son's Suzuki teacher--who had a full studio and was well-respected--used this same argument about talking coming before reading to explain why Suzuki was so good. I must admit I was not very impressed with the method, but I also know that many traditional methods also have shortcomings.

On the other hand, after 13 years of lessons I play very well, but I couldn't improv if my life depended on it. I know tons of theory, can read a fake book, etc., but I'm truly not very musical and always thought that just wasn't my gift. Hearing the teachers talk about Simply Music makes me wonder if that's not true and musicality can be taught.

Finally, I have to agree with several posters that there is obvious disdain for traditional teaching in some of the posts here and on the website. I saw that in Suzuki as well, and I heard it from the public TV piano teacher (Scott something?) when I caught one of his shows. There's something that automatically turns me off about a program when I hear people promote it as if everyone else had been duped all their lives. I'm sure part of that attitude is a backlash against traditionalists who dismiss these alternative methods as "piano lite," but it still makes me more skeptical about the methods than is probably warranted.

Thanks again, Cindy, for taking the time to post that video. It really was helpful, and you clearly know your program well.

Nancy