SUZUKI TEACHING METHOD !!!!!!

[amy]

hi everyone! i need you help... im not sure if any of you are familiar with the Shinichi Suzuki teaching methods.. but i heard they were really good, and effective.  Alot of great musicians and pianists had studied the Suzuki method since children...(the aim)....

so... if you have any good qualities or feedback regarding this method, please write to me....and if u have any negative or concerning issues with this method... also please tell me.... I NEED BOTH SIDES to write a firm report on this method ....

thank you... please REPLY by this.... and copying and pasting it onto a PRIVATE message for me...
that way i can get back to you as soon as possible... THANK YOU

my name is :  amy.
just private message me  there too
thanks!

key conditions for ability development:
a) being as early as possible
b) create the best possible environment
c) use the finest teaching method
d) provide great deal of training
e_ use the finest teachers

[leeheidi]

Hi, Amy:

My daughter will start her first Suzuki Piano Program in 2 weeks.  I saw your posted topic and I would like you give me some advice what you have found out from other members.  Thanks.

Heidi

[pocorina]

What exactly is the Suzuki method? Everyone is talking about it, but i have no idea what it is

[abell88]

It's usually used for young children. It's totally ear-based for a long while (in other words, no note-reading).  Parents are supposed to play the Suzuki recordings for their children right from infancy, then formal lessons usually start around the age of 3. Parents attend the lessons with the child and give them lessons at home. There are also group classes. I believe it was originally developed for violin, but it now used for flute, piano, cello as well...maybe others, too.

It does produce very impressive results in terms of playing ability in very young children. Some may have trouble learning to read music, because their ears are so good.

Alice

[whynot]

I know a lot of Suzuki-trained musicians, and several teachers.  But none of them--NONE of them-- can read music at a respectable level.  I play by ear (by accident / experiment, no one taught me to do it or made me), and I certainly am strongly in favor musicians developing this skill.  But classical musicians also have to read, and the better they read, the more self-sufficient they are.  If they are not self-sufficient at the end of their training, how much of a success is the training?  I know this is not true of all Suzuki experiences, but I also know that it's not uncommon.  Sorry to be negative!  And to be fair, most musicians trained other ways also don't read all that well, although overall I'd still say the Suzuki people I know are weaker at it.  Please, nobody hate me.   

Amy, I'm not sure I know how to turn this into an e-mail yet.  I'm not completely brilliant...

[johnkeller]

Has it occurred to anyone that the reason there are so many former piano students (Suzuki-trained and others) that cannot sight-read, is that piano music notation is very difficult??!!! Think of it: 2 different staves (why couldn't they have been the same?), 15 key signatures, 5 accidentals, 4 sets of legerlines, many notes to be played at once, etc. I tell my students the truth - you will never be able to read and play any piano music like you read a book; it will always require practising to learn a hard piece of written out music! What can you expect, then? Well, you may be able to play some easy notated piano music at sight; you may be able to play from melody and chord symbols, you may be able to play some pieces by ear, you may be able to improvise, make up your own pieces etc. All this is possible if you keep learning and practising. I really disagree with the idea most teachers promote - you can become a classical concert pianist - what a lie!

[fred smalls]

I took the Suzuki teaching method for 3 years (of my 5 playing) and it seemed to help me quite a bit. I then started the 8th grade RCM Canada, which would have taken on average 6-8 years to get too. Suzuki helped me alot because my musical ability is my ear, which is the basis of the Suzuki Method. I was able to pick up the pieces by ear without any means of the music. It also improved my technique, althought I'm not sure how much greater an improvment it made over the RCM. It must have been better because I was able to fit into grade 8 just fine. One aspect it did not emphasise, which I later had to work hard on, was reading (especially sight reading). I learned how to read through an introduction to Chopin book, which if you are passionate about Chopin, works very well . I'd have to say the Suzuki method is very good, just remember to practice reading!

[galonia]

My only experience with the Suzuki method was when I accompanied a violinist who learnt via the Suzuki method.

Because I had to learn the accompaniment in a short time, she lent me her tape, and I learnt the accompaniment from both the score and the tape - the tape was very handy because I could learn to listen for when the violin solo figures were ending and the piano should prepare to come back in.

When I rehearsed with the violinist for the first time, though, I did not expect her playing to be EXACTLY identical to the violinist on the tape.  It completely shocked me - I was all prepared to be flexible and accommodate her phrasing or slight pauses and hesitations, etc.  But I didn't have to.  I could have been accompanying the tape itself!

It seems they are prescribed a single recording from which to learn their music.  When I asked her if she listened to other recordings, she did not know why that would be necessary.

After that, I haven't been very impressed by the method.  There is some school of thought that if you learn enough music, even if it's just by ear like this method, then you somehow develop your own musical "voice" - but that's only if the student is exposed to many different recordings, interpretations.  And this was a very advanced violin student I was accompanying, too, so I had expected more.

[thierry13]

Has it occurred to anyone that the reason there are so many former piano students (Suzuki-trained and others) that cannot sight-read, is that piano music notation is very difficult??!!! Think of it: 2 different staves (why couldn't they have been the same?), 15 key signatures, 5 accidentals, 4 sets of legerlines, many notes to be played at once, etc. I tell my students the truth - you will never be able to read and play any piano music like you read a book; it will always require practising to learn a hard piece of written out music! What can you expect, then? Well, you may be able to play some easy notated piano music at sight; you may be able to play from melody and chord symbols, you may be able to play some pieces by ear, you may be able to improvise, make up your own pieces etc. All this is possible if you keep learning and practising. I really disagree with the idea most teachers promote - you can become a classical concert pianist - what a lie!

Stupid post. Some pianists read better piano scores than books. Why do piano have two staves. DUHHHH!!! MAYBE there are too many notes to stand on one, and it is more clear and easy to see like that! Why did sorabji wrote on 4+ staves? Because it is only clear this way. And, in hell, WHY wouldn't some become concert pianists? You said like if NOBODY could. Some can.  In fact, a lot can, but some need more practice and hard work than others. What were you trying to say in this post? If I suck at sight reading, then it is impossible to be good at sight reading? Don't try to get down young piano students. Not all can, but SOME can, sight read as they read books, and become concert pianist. If I would have a teacher like you, firstly I would suck at piano, and second I would change piano teacher as soon as I can. Young students, as well as students of any age, need to be encouraged.

[vera]

I am very familiar with the Susuki method through accompanying many stringplayers and observing piano-students, who have been taught that way. I disagree with the delay in teaching reading, because it causes a backwardness in reading, hard to overcome.
Sometimes I compared my students, who were at a seemingly equal level with some Susuki students. The Susuki ones could rattle off a Sonatine with great precision, but rather mechanically. They would have worked on such a piece a long, long time. My students would have learnt the same piece in 2 or 3 weeks, would play may-be with less precision, but they would also be able to play a lot of music at that same level in a very short time of learning, whereas the Susuki student would take ages, to do the same. To me, playing the same music for too long, would lead to incredible boredom. If you are a good reader, you learn more complex music quicker than when it all has to be done by ear. You do not see much Susuki learning beyond a certain level. All students seem to revert to convertional systems later on, but find that then very hard.  I have never seen a Susuki student at diploma level.All the string players I worked with eventually changed to conventional methods. usually having trouble adjusting to understand the reading and theory.
This would be even more the case with piano, then with stringplayers, because of the greater complexity of piano scores.

I also take issue with the repertoire they use. Starting with "twinkle" does not seem such a good choice for piano. And to be restricted in the early stages to the Susuki books seem to be a bore.
Some parts of the philosophy are positive, like the group learning .The children stimulate one another. But the endless listening to the same records can be stultifying for the better than average student. It is possibly more suited to the less intelligent , but resonably musical students.

I would like to argue, that music reading is easier than bookreading. I have taught young students to read music before they read letters. No big deal. There are actually fewer symbols in music reading than in ordinary reading.   Seven letters and 10 lines, sharp and flat and a limited number of shapes to indicate rhythm.You could compare the learning of keys with the learning of telling separate words apart, and dealing with spelling and pronunciation.  The nature of language is inherently much more complex than music script. And just as there are slow language readers, there are slow music readers. That will always be so.
Young people are severely underestimated, as far as their capabilities to learn music script are concerned.
The problem is, that many do not get taught in the best possible way, to read music. And many beginner books are inferior. They spend too long in the same position, not challenging the student.
It are not always the best books that are the most easily available. And the best books are not always easy to get, unfortunately. Such is the nature of the business.

I did not mean to offend anyone with my criticism, and I am also unfortunately aware, that some in the Susuki camp think, that they have found the greatest method ever. There are some great teachers of that method, but teachers of an equal quality in other methods would do even better.

 

[sznitzeln]

Galonia: wow thats scary...
---------------

I think classical schooling with a good ear training is better than Suzuki.
Suzuki students have a very hard transition to make, because when they are done with Suzuki they usually start reading sheet music, and that is difficult for them.

[johnkeller]

Nice to get a lively reaction, Thierry!

Some pianists read better piano scores than books.

Do you mean play the Fantasie Impromptu at sight better than reading aloud? I don't think there would be many of those.

Why do piano have two staves. DUHHHH!!! MAYBE there are too many notes to stand on one, and it is more clear and easy to see like that!

You didn't read me carefully, I said two different staves. At one stage the clefs were moveable and the "French violin clef" was a treble clef with G on the 1st line instead of the 2nd, so it was read the same as the bass clef (which existed long before the treble clef). Now if this clef was used today it would immediately cut the learning effort in half for pianists. (There would be two legerlines, C and E, between bass and treble.)

And, in hell, WHY wouldn't some become concert pianists? You said like if NOBODY could. Some can.

Fair enough!

In fact, a lot can,

Who are you kidding? In conservatoriums, music schools, international piano competitions etc there are tens of thousands of brilliantly gifted pianists, but how many get to be recording or concertising artists, 10%?, 1%? 0.001%? Most just become teachers!

OK, I sounded as if I was discouraging all students of classical piano. What I meant was that teachers should not give students a false impression of their prospects of becoming a performer of classical music as a career. Do it for love, as a hobby, as spiritual nourishment, but be realistic! I feel I was misled when I was younger, had a lot of potential etc, but there is so much competition and so few opportunities; unless you can play all the WTC by memory by the age of 12 these days, there is not much chance you will have a classical performing career.

Now commercial playing is a different matter. But how many teachers teach this stuff? I would like to see many more, and I don't mean just giving students jazzy pieces. Teaching to play from chord symbols or improvising is not even mentioned in the main Australian Piano Exam system - I don't know about other countries.

I encourage my students, but I try not to mislead them, and most importantly I think, I try to give them a broad base in piano so that they can choose what they want to do, be it play and sing pop songs from a CD, make their own improvisations, arrangements, compositions, or play Chopin waltzes. I just feel that there are too many teachers who only know how to teach Chopin waltzes! (And the Susuki system only knows how to teach mechanical, rote-learnt Chopin waltzes, so to speak!)

My own original teacher used to say that if I learnt classical, I would be able to play anything I wanted to, but as much as I loved her, this is just not true! It took me a lot of other studies to become a more rounded musician and that's what I try to pass on. And by the way, I have had some students who have become professional musicians.

PS I still believe music notation should and can be simplfied. Look up MNMA.org!

[johnkeller]

Hi Vera,

I'm interested in your assertion that music (piano) notation can be easier to teach than reading words, and you can do it before kids learn the alphabet. How do you do it? As you see from my other postings, I find this hard to believe, but I'm willing to consider your point of view. I agree that learning in one hand position can seem effective until the kid has to change to another, and then you realise they have associated each note with a particular finger instead of the piano key, and you're up against a brick wall! Which method book/s do you use?

Cheers, John

[vera]

hallo John,
This is a bit off-topic, but will make it short. I have had to teach very young ones a nr of times. But I only take those, who have a kind of feeling for music and whose hands are ready. Forget about alphabet. Draw a very large grand staff on carton and position it sidewards on the music stand, so that it corresponds with the keys on the piano. You also need to make "notes",in various note values, out of carton to fit on the staff. Nowadays something magnetic would be ideal. I think, you will now realise, what I am driving at. You explain the up and down in steps, moving big notes on the staff, and go on to jumps. It is just like a game. It does not matter much where you start, just develop it from a certain point, and work from both staves at once. You also make middle c's
As soon as possible you go all the way over the whole grand staff to show how many notes correspond to how many keys. I should probably say, that it is good to start on the b and d, without naming them, and then explain the c, and how the hands can share that note.  I work from the centre outwards 5 notes, then go to the high and low c's, you have to make sure of them hearing well, that c's are the same, otherwise it does not make sense. And they will come to realise the look of the keys and certain places on the staff are the same. Do games at the table, moving big notes around. And then I will confront them with the book, first tilting the book, and then turning it the correct way, they will accept that. You may have to tilt it again occasionally.
I use: Making music, by Jessie Blake and Hilda Capp, and 8 easy piano duets by Capp. Before you know, they move away to the high c and low c position, working the notes around there and linking up to the middle notes, changing hand pos. constantly. That is after only a few lessons, depending how quickly you get the first 9 notes going. It is a fast book, you may have to compose some "padding" but the duets are delightful and very easy.
 I have sometimes taught young students, who spoke very little English, absolutely no alphabet possible. I have also taught Asian students without talking, because they had may-be 3 words, anyway they use do-re-mi. That is also an option.It is very musical. And you do a lot with singing. And a lot of aural work like intervals, rhythm clapping and recognising little rhythm patterns written down, both active and passive.
Does that give you enough to think about? You will have to be very creative, and adjust to the child, how they pick it up. If you want to try, and there are problems, let me know. Regards, Vera.

[johnkeller]

Thanks Vera. It's a bit of a coincidence, but I was recently told of a similar method by someone else (drawing a big stave sideways etc). In fact it's the reason I came across Piano Forum! I was told it was a Russian method called "Method for Teaching Young Geniuses" or something like that. I'll copy your post and try to get hold of the book. Thanks again. John

PS: As has been suggested, this is really another topic, so anyone wanting to contribute further, let's continue in "Best way of teaching notation" thread.

[takenote]

I have been teaching suzuki method in the UK for nearly 20 years now. Following this thread I hope my experiences may be of help.

I started as an experienced qualified infant teacher with no music training beyond grade 8 piano and was accepted into the piano teaching training scheme 18 years ago. I was encouraged to take students after an initial 6 months of training. My daughter then 4 years old was at the beginning of suzuki piano lessons so I have been a suzuki parent as well. The great thing I have found is that as part of the 'suzuki community' my early teaching was supported. Great emphasis was put on how to teach all aspects of piano (including sight reading). If I had problems with any issue there were many teacher trainers who would readily take my problem student and teach them with me watching.  I always felt well supported by a team of highly qualified musicians and teachers with many years experience so my teaching skills were allowed to grow naturally whilst the quality of the teaching open to my first students was not compromised by my lack of experience. Some of these trainers also work outside the suzuki world teaching and examining so the 'conventional' teaching system was never far away but I choose to teach only through the method.
I started originally with around 15 to 20 students ideally liking to begin with students around the age of 3/4. For most of these years I have specialised in beginners. I became qualified within the system to teach to around a grade 5 level, after this my students either moved to other local conventionally teaching piano teachers or went on to other more advanced suzuki teachers. Looking back I am amazed at what my early students have achieved. Many who have learned to love music this way are now doing music degrees at university or conservatoire. One of my first students has now, having completed her degree begun suzuki teacher training herself. Many of those who have not chosen to persue music beyond school have also gone on to play and perform at a very high level indeed purely for pleasure and this is an important point as my main aim is to teach students who will grow up loving their music. Now in my 50's, my children having 'flown the nest', I have just returned to formally train further. For the first time in my adult life I have time to practice very seriously myself and the same teachers that have supported me over the years are now supporting me in this too, I will take my next suzuki exam in two weeks time and I just can't believe how well I am playing. At present I am teaching 40 students (I have a waiting list of 15). Among the parents of the children I am teaching are at least 6 parents who are professional musicians and whose music skills are greater than mine. They are really with me because they trust the system that they are experiencing and although some of them are teaching themselves, they tell me that they may have been trained to play but not to teach, especially young children as I have been.
The issue of sight reading within the the system is often of concern. All of my suzuki teaching friends treat this very seriously. It is part of our training, however there is often a 'time-lag' between a child's playing level and reading level while in early stages and that can often appear to give a misleading impression. I also have 4 dyslexics on my books whose playing level will far exceed their playing level for a long time but at least these children are playing, playing well and learning to love their music if they had gone down a conventional route they may not have progressed so far so easily. I would expect a child who takes a grade 5 in my practice to pass that level of sight reading comfortably.
The only limiting factor in the system is the requirement of parental involvement in the early stages which means that I will not be able to take a student unless I have a parent who is willing to be involved in their child's practice on a daily basis (the parent does not have to have played the piano or be musically literate though). Demand from parents outstrips supply of places with qualified teachers hugely at present in the UK, making teaching in this way a potentially profitable form of teaching too. If there are any teachers interested into looking into this method of working they should contact (in the UK) www.britishsuzuki.com for details of observation days and training. In other parts of the world of course there are other training possibilities though links on the website. I would advise any interested parent to make sure that any teacher claiming to teach the method is accredited.
In my experience the training has been a wonderful experience and learning to teach this way has been simply great fun!!

I do agree that the most important ingredient if you are a parent wanting to introduce your child to music is to hunt out an experienced and committed teacher. There are of course many, many of those outside of the suzuki system. I just wanted to say that in my case without the wonderful support I have been given I wouldn't have started piano teaching let alone continually developed in the way I have and it has been a life changing experience for me.

[Laurana]

When my son was 4 years old I decided he should get a reasonably early piano training. Although I am a pianist and teacher myself I was looking for someone else. We found a teacher very quickly. About 50 years old, studied in Japan. He was raised in a family of musicians. Wile attending the lessons we had to come 1 hour earlier or stay 1 hour longer that was his rule ( oh I forgot we had to take our shoes off?!?) .

We heard  about 6 kids in different level of playing. His point of work was to teach one peace as long as necessary to be able to record it on a CD. The peaces were usually trained by ear.. usually far too difficult for their emotional  and spiritual level so poor kids never learned the notes at his lessons. They just listened to the tape-recording, and each lesson they were training another 2 bars or so…Wel it works if you and your kid have no knowledge what so ever about how it works. But Olalla, who am I to say anything? I never studied in Japan.

I didn’t want the guy to feel like having a judgment of a professional sitting there so I just “forgot” and didn’t say I was a pianist. 

The first month we were aloud to attend the lessons by listening ( had to pay anyway’?)…ok, after 5 weeks it was the mother’s turn to start with the “Twinkle” variation nr. 1. My son was all the time sitting and listening – he was very quiet  and concentrated….But the poor guy was telling me that my hand is not lying good on the keys, that I need a softer touch, he was really pooling my leg ( hands) all the time. Or was I the one pooling his leg?

He was  telling me how I should practice with my son. Oh boy , I don’t know how I survived his tyranny – training…do once again, softer, try more …the 3rd note should be harder… oh oh , almost.. once again…..your hand is too low.. no, too high…and all that only playing the first 2 variations!!!!

But after 3 months ( 12 WEEKS!!!!!) not putting my son to play I just couldn’t bare it anymore and when the telephone rang he went to the other room. I took the chance and started playing some of my repertoire to finally try the piano …since my touché was not satisfying him majesty… I did my best.  I played the opening passages of Rachmaninov concerto nr. 2…
I will never forget his look!
After the incident we went once more and never returned back.. even we had to pay another 3 months as it was written in the contract…

[dveej]

Suzuki is only good or bad if the teacher is good or bad.
I had very positive experiences growing up with Suzuki cello. The dynamics of playing Suzuki repertoire pieces in a group are rarely found in non-Suzuki situations. That is, if you have a good Suzuki teacher (I did) and a group of committed students, the group will have a special undescribable "feeling" that you don't get outside of the Suzuki context.
But I am now a piano teacher, and I don't use traditional Suzuki in my teaching. Partly this is because I am not certified, not having taken the time to go through the training which is required if a teacher wants to represent her/himself as a Suzuki teacher. And partly it is because I find that for Americans (I teach in America), Suzuki method works better for "group" instruments like violin, and not so well for "solitary" instruments like piano.
I have, however, met some American piano students who had great success with Suzuki. But it was developed in Japan, and the traditional Suzuki method as described in Laurana's post above is woven in tightly with Japanese culture: kids don't talk back, they do exactly what they're told, teachers are respected almost like gods, etc., etc. These cultural attitudes, common in Japan, are rare in America  where I teach.
Some of the things that most people don't know about Suzuki:
1) The greatest Suzuki piano teacher, Kataoka (now deceased), strongly urged that students of piano should be well into the process of learning to read music before completing the first year Suzuki book. She felt that piano students, more than students of other instruments, needed to be able to figure out the music from reading the notes as early as possible. She recommended that teachers use the Methode Rose books for introducing reading.
2) Suzuki teachers are acutely aware of the public perception of Suzuki as a method which allows students to avoid reading. While this is more true of non-piano Suzuki students, the very best Suzuki teachers insist on reading and teach theory and notes just as any good music teacher does.
3) If a student has a disability or a visual impairment, often Suzuki is used as a fallback method. The thinking is: Janie is blind/has Down's/has severe ADHD/etc., so let's teach her using a method that won't rely so much on reading. As a result, sometimes people associate Suzuki with the kind of students that have failed to learn to read. This isn't really fair to the Suzuki method: for some students, it's a way to get them to play at all, and therefore it's good for them, even though they may not be able to say the lines of the treble clef or spell out a first inversion C Major triad. For students like this, Suzuki is doing good things in the world and should be praised.
So I'm defending Suzuki against its detractors, but also I am aware that it has ... limitations, some of which are applicable to the difference between American and Japanese culture, and some of which are just teachers who allow their students to get away with not learning to read.
For what it's worth, I'll end this little rambling by noting that I, who started out with Suzuki cello and who played with that Suzuki teacher for over ten years as a child, am an excellent sight-reader, and starting at age 14 and continuing to the present day I make my living in part by my sight-reading skills (on piano, but it's attributable to my Suzuki training in which among other things I learned to read music).