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

Laurie R,

Hi! I'm pianobuff... the one you quoted.

I do not teach "traditionally". I think you failed to read all of the posts.

I regret to say I disagree immensely with what you said about technique. This is what makes you play the piano easily and allowing you to express in ways you couldn't without using the proper technique, which does include correct (natural) posture.

I do not force technique on my students, I show them, they follow. They listen and they play.

Again, there are other very fine alternatives to SM that, imo, might even be (better?) But again to each his/her own.

This traditional versus alternative verbage used when defining methods of teaching is getting to be quite tiring as well.

It is what the result is that counts. It really does not matter how you teach as long as you have good results and you feel comfortable teaching the way you teach.

I do hear what you're saying though, for me, I hated using method books, I could never go back. Yet, I do know of excellent teachers that do use method books and are very good at it. Their students play quite well and with enthusiasm.

One of the main things that bothers me about SM is that it costs a lot of money and it really isn't rocket science. Teaching by ear first, reading later is historcally the more "traditional" approach anyways. SM is nothing new by any means!

Much more naturally than what? Than what you assume other teachers are doing? Who's making the assumptions now?

OK, but that leaves us in a bind, doesn't it. It seems reasonable to me to say that I am not prepared to teach it until I understand it, and you are saying we can't understand it until we've taught it.

I must have missed this particular bit of cant. What? A complex crazy machine like a piano and you think they'll just find their way? One can only assume your own skills must be pretty weak.

Watching the videos of students playing is all I need to do to not "assume."

I've been reading this thread in amusement, but I thought I should chime in.

I am definitely a "traditional" teacher. I make my students learn notes from day one, and they play nothing but "traditional" classical music. That's what I do, and I will never use SM for my private studio. If I ever get a call inquiring lessons of this nature, I will simply refer the person to a local teacher who uses SM.

That being said, I do think there is a place for this kind of curriculum. I teach chorus at a junior high school. The high school nextdoor has two "piano" classes, taught in the large choir room with 25 keyboards. I was hoping they would get off the Schaum books and try a different series. I think SM will be an extremely attractive program for this purpose. During passing periods, there are always kids trying to hammer out Fur Elise on the piano (horribly, I might add). A program like SM will empower these students--who are definitely NOT going to be piano majors--to learn the music they want to learn and have fun quickly. It's about instant gratification for these students.

Yeh, I wrote one and taught it for 15 years. In my school they were called 'music lessons'.

:b: :p

No, seriously, I just think these public-school kids deserve something better than Schaum (I think the teacher is trying to get rid of it, but the previous teacher ordered a godzillion copies of Schaum Level A red book). Since there are only 25 keyboards in the class, enrollment is limited. And there are always kids on the waiting list. The school's in a poor neighborhood, so parents often can't afford piano lessons. I have a couple of singers in my class begging me to teach them piano. I give them some tips during passing periods, but there's only so much I can show them in such a short time. I encourage them to take the piano class when they get to high school. I would give them free lessons if I lived in their neighborhood, but I don't.

Kids like this motivate ME to keep teaching despite all odds.

Nancy, any method is only as good as the teacher who delivers it. When you said you were not impressed with Suzuki could it be that the teacher rather than the method was at fault? The same will happen with SM or other traditional methods. If you have a good teacher then you should do well.

What you say about musicality leads me to believe that your teacher (or teachers) missed something very important. Of course musicality can be taught and nurtured. All this talk of traditional methods not teaching people to express themselves is rubbish. Expressing yourself as a musician has very little to do with busking 12 bar blues or making up jazzy versions of Fur Elise. It also has nothing to do with playing from printed music or not. If you play a Beethoven sonata you will express yourself through your interpretation. You don't have to be making it up as you go. I can play jazz and improvise. Given the choice I would prefer to express myself through the music of the great composers. It is very rare that I would sit down and improvise rather than play the music of Bach, Chopin and the like.

So you can't improvise if your life depended on it? Sure you can. You know your theory. Play a chord of C in the left hand over 4 bars. Make up a melody on CDEFG with the right hand and end on C. There you go, you are improvising.

You want to play 12 bar blues? Here is the chord structure:

C C F C
F F C C
G F C C

For the melody stick with the first 5 notes of the blues scale:

C, Eb, F, F#, G

Away you go.

Now the result will not be anything amazing to begin with. It will be nowhere near as good as the music you can play from the printed sheet. Like everything else you have to practice and spend time with it. It's just another musicianship skill. If this is something you would like to develop then all you need to do is sit down and try it.

Yes, seriously, with 15 keyboards you can teach 30 children blues, raga, Beethoven and composition. It also helps to have 15 computers on a network to go with them.

From my many years of experience I can tell you now that the piano is the least intuitive musical instrument out there. Without substantial input from the teacher from day one students don't have a chance in heck of gaining a good technique. I pity your pupils.

I know a few "traditional" teachers that take this approach on technique as well, basically they don't teach technique, allowing to have it happen "naturally." In otherwords this lack of technical training is not limited to SM instruction.

I agree with AZNpiano. There is a place for this type of instruction; just not in my studio! Group piano class, in a public school setting, perhaps.

I respectfully submit that such beliefs are what keep scores of people from ever playing the piano.

I suppose it depends upon your goals for your students. If my goal was to produce a crop of concert pianists, maybe I would spend more time on technique. At any rate, that's not my goal, because it's not the goal of the vast majority of people who want to learn piano. People want to play for their and others' enjoyment. That's just as noble a goal as the concert pianist hopeful.

The overriding Simply Music goal is to maximize the likelihood that our students will maintain music as a lifelong companion. As a musician, I wholeheartedly embrace that goal. Within that goal, we have four specific goals:
1. Experience playing as a natural self-expression
2. Have the ability to play a huge repertoire covering various genres of music
3. Have the ability to self-generate and progress independently
4. Have a self-affirming experience throughout the whole process

Thanks for giving me the opportunity to share all this. Even just looking back at these basic goals reaffirms that there is no better way to learn or teach piano! Anyone with a musician's heart can appreciate Simply Music's goals.

I don't see myself as an intellectually superior purveyor of the intricate secrets of how to sit and curve my fingers and use my arms and wrists so my students will ever have a glimmer of hope of playing the piano. I see myself as a human being sharing my immense love of music, especially piano music, in a way that people enjoy the process, learn everything more quickly and thoroughly and with more interest, and stay with it so they can enjoy the benefits for the rest of their lives. Absolutely nobody is incapable of learning to play the piano. The philosophy behind Simply Music is that everyone, without exception, is profoundly musical. It's just fantastic.

Not only that, the Simply Music teacher body is incredible. It is a worldwide network of caring, supportive, forward-thinking individuals who are excited to be part of a breakthrough. A few years ago I was in a horrible car accident and had several months of recovery ahead of me. My local Simply Music colleagues came to my house and taught all my classes for me without asking for a dime, every week for 2 - 3 months. A teacher in another state took up a collection, and teachers from all over donated money to help me during my recovery. Neil himself sent a nice check to help me out and called me regularly. I am so thrilled to be among a group of people like this, where love and support and concern replaces backbiting and competition.

I am very proud of my students and all that they accomplish. They are wonderful musicians, and they thank me all the time for bringing Simply Music into their lives.

Thanks again for allowing me to talk about this wonderful program!

Laurie

But your experience is only one. And to stereotype it because it being "traditional" is not fair. Much has to do with the teacher and with the student and how the material is presented.

To say SM is for all students and they all learn. Well it depends if this is really the right method for the student and the best way to learn piano. I, as a student, would run away from this type of instruction. For those that don't know any better, may think it impressive.

I know *anyone* can learn by rote. This alone is not learning to play the piano or learning music. Sure anyone can press down keys. Even my cat. So yes, I can see how you can say the majority learns to play the piano this way. So this person (Neil) bottled up an obvoius way to play some tunes and is making a fortune off of it. No thanks! I'm actually suprised he is getting away with this. Again, this is nothing new. Schinici Suzuki developed this same type of approach, although in a more refined way, back in the 50's. He did not make lots of money and/or market it in such a way. Even his philosophy was not original by any means.

Can someone please respond to the initial claim by SM that "...can be taught by piano players who are not advanced musicians, who have no formal musical qualifications, nor prior teaching experience." ???

If you, the teacher, don't know how to play a scale, then how would your students learn how to play them? If you, the teacher, don't know how to play chord progressions or inversions, and don't have a basic knowledge of music theory, then how will students learn these things?

I didn't learn scales and chords on my own from a self-taught method; I had to have 'formal music training' from a teacher. The impression that is made is that ANYONE can teach SM, no matter what kind of music background (or should I say LACK of) they may have. This is a marketing ploy that in my opinion is used to get a large number of people to jump on the bandwagon, no matter their qualifications, and generate $$ for the corporation.

I also teach a group method with a philosophy similar to SM (ear before eye, experience before formal instruction, etc...). However, one does have to be a competent musician to teach it. There is training but the fee is very reasonable. There are no monthly royalties to pay and the cost of materials is low enough for the teacher to purchase and mark up and not feel like she's raking parents over the coals.

Laurie,

I am happy you are happy. But you are way out of line talking about technique... curved fingers, etc... whoa!! Talk about assuming.

Thank you for sharing your SM way of teaching. I am happy that you like it so well.

Now off to my torture chamber studio to teach my students...

Booboric, how about an adult student like myself, who is classically oriented, wishes to learn the language of music (phrasing, articulation etc.) and the means to express it (technique) in order to bring out the best qualities in a piece of music by knowing that language? How about a self-taught student who has a way of playing spontaneously, never having been hampered by this note-paralysis I'm reading about, and has spent most of her years with written music in a relaxed manner? My needs are not at all in the area of wanting to be able to play something recognizeable. I already can. It just doesn't sound that great, because I do not have the proper tools or knowledge.

My needs are in the "traditional" area. In all honesty, would SM have a place for me? Could a teacher tweak the units to allow for more things such as phrasing and technique?

I am bothered any time that a generalization is made that puts all adult students into one basket, because some of us will end up being led toward goals that we don't have. Of course it seems that teachers are also poking their heads out of a basket wondering what they're doing there.

It's not about being a concert pianist. It's about reaching your full potential. i.e. not being hobbled from the outset.

Simply Music is NOT learning by rote. That would accomplish nothing. It is learning a different way of learning, using tools and strategies that are immensely helpful when they start reading music. I've had students who already read music come to my studio, tell me that they are able to read music so much more fluently now.

Keystring, for your particular goal, SM probably isn't the best choice for you. It doesn't meet all needs for all people, any more than any other approach does.

Sounds like there are a lot of very good teachers here that use a variety of approaches that work well. I applaud you and have absolutely nothing against that. Anything that students enjoy and continue with has merit, imho.

/QUOTE]It's not about being a concert pianist. It's about reaching your full potential. i.e. not being hobbled from the outset. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Amen! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Quote

Laurie,

I am happy you are happy. But you are way out of line talking about technique... curved fingers, etc... whoa!! Talk about assuming.

Wow, so many people here insist on picking apart one little detail out of my long posts instead of addressing my main points. As a classically trained pianist, I am well aware of what technique is, I just didn't think it necessary to include an exhaustive list on a forum full of experienced, classically trained professionals. It was just one silly little example.

Thanks for being happy for me. I appreciate it.

Laurie