Suzuki vs Traditional Methods

[andrewh973]

Hello all,

We'd like to start piano lessons (primarily classical repertoire) for our daughter this fall (she's turning 8 this November). We're a lirttle confused about methods of teaching. Some are arguing for Suzuki Method, others for Traditional.

We'd appreciate any advise, experiences and feedback.

Thanks much.

[kriskicksass]

Suzuki will be the death of all music! A true Suzuki program expects a non-musical parent to take as large a role in the child's education as does the teacher; this is my biggest problem with the program, as it is more a method for Asian parents to control their children than to teach music (and don't say I'm hating on Asians, I'm half Chinese).
Other than that, I've never met a Suzuki student who could sightread anything, and that lends itself to serious frustration, especially when working in ensemble. And as an odd bit of proof that it's the method that lends itself to poor sightreading and not the students, I know a pianist who learned Suzuki cello, and even though she's a fine reader on the piano, she can barely read anything on the cello.

[mipiacescarlatti]

My daughter has been learning Suzuki violin and piano since she was 7.  It's true she's not a great sight-reader - but she can read music, as both her teachers spend time ensuring this, and sight reading is done in group-lessons. You would need to talk to the individual teacher about how purely “Suzuki” they are. For example in addition to Suzuki repertoire my daughter’s piano teacher does scales, Dozen a day exercises, theory.

On the plus side, she has a great repertoire of classical pieces that she plays with great musicality. The Suzuki method encourages children to do a lot of listening to music rather than only being fixated by the written score. Children are expected to review their old pieces so that they can polish them and improve musicality. Technique is learnt largely through repertoire so that children are making music from day one. The parent is involved in attending lessons and supervising practice - providing encouragement and support and ensuring that assignments are done. In most areas there are summer institutes where children can have an intensive musical experience. It's not for the faint-hearted, you do have to be involved. That said, I don't know how it would be possible to not have the parent involved in helping their child to practice  - so it helps if you were at the lesson.  A plus for me was that I got so interested that I too started learning piano - the best decision I've ever made!

Have a look at this great website  www.suzukiassociation.org

Cheers

Natalie

[pianistimo]

too much handholding for me.  but, i think it depends on how the child/parent/teacher relationship works.  in most instances for me, i would be frustrated.

what i prefer - as a teacher - is to teach the child and help them to organize their own life, how they practice, and to start remembering things on their own.  i ask the parent to sometimes check in - and see if they are going thru the list of items we discussed.  but, as a student progresses -- it isn't necessary that the parent is keeping up pianistically.

i understand that suzuki trains the ear very well.  i am more oriented towards sight-reading asap.  it is hard work.  the sooner you learn it - the more you can focus on everything! 

some people focus on the sounds that the student makes first.  that is one russian technique that someone was mentioning - and probably has many advocates here.  mine is more dexterity and comprehension of well-temperedness of the piano.  then sight-reading.  then tone.  one thing at a time - but gathering steam as you go.  i am not an advocate of three  hour lessons for young children (1 hour listening to music, 1 hour theory, 1 hour practice - no mistakes allowed)  i'd rather the child just have fun for 15 or 20 minutes per day.  make as many mistakes as they want.  and basically start learning to just move their fingers around.

[ilikepie]

Suzuki will be the death of all music! A true Suzuki program expects a non-musical parent to take as large a role in the child's education as does the teacher; this is my biggest problem with the program, as it is more a method for Asian parents to control their children than to teach music (and don't say I'm hating on Asians, I'm half Chinese).
Other than that, I've never met a Suzuki student who could sightread anything, and that lends itself to serious frustration, especially when working in ensemble. And as an odd bit of proof that it's the method that lends itself to poor sightreading and not the students, I know a pianist who learned Suzuki cello, and even though she's a fine reader on the piano, she can barely read anything on the cello.

Weird, but true. I was in Suzuki for like 6 years. I'm now taking ARCT, assuming I pass grade 10; the text for sightreading was as simple as possible(probably because it was my first test ever with them), and I could barely read it. It is posing rather huge problems when I try to learn new pieces. The only advantage I got from Suzuki is that I can "sightread" it way faster if it was played at least once.

[alzado]

At age 8 she can either take traditional or Suzuki.  But bear in mind -- including the detractors on this thread -- that children can begin Suzuki much earlier than would be practical with traditional.  Children as young as 3 or 4.  That means, before most of these children can read a word.

We were in a violin Suzuki program for many years.  Two young women, sisters, advanced to the point that they actually became performing artists.  A number of the Suzuki kids went on the the area's "youth symphony."  The potential is very great. 

BTW - - - -  I hope I am not crossing any line, but the poster who was so hostile to Suzuki is using a forum name like "kick ass" or something.  Does this recommend this poster as an arbiter of good taste for the rest of us?  I leave it to others to make their own judgment.

[kriskicksass]

BTW - - - -  I hope I am not crossing any line, but the poster who was so hostile to Suzuki is using a forum name like "kick ass" or something.  Does this recommend this poster as an arbiter of good taste for the rest of us?  I leave it to others to make their own judgment.

From "Some Fallacies" (https://www.tektonics.org/guest/fallacies.html#100):

Ad Hominem

Ad Hominem is Latin for "against the man." One kind of this general fallacy is to discredit an opponent instead of his argument. For example:

    1. J.P. Holding claims that the ancient Israelites were a group oriented people.
    2. Holding quotes scholars to establish his point.
    3. I say, "Holding wouldn't know, he used to be a librarian at a prison."
    Therefore, Holding's claim is false.

This argumentation is in error because the character or attributes of a person almost always has no bearing on the validity of his claim. In this case, there is nothing about J.P. Holding's past job that affects Holding's claim, or the evidence he uses.

However, sometimes an ad hominem reason is justified. For example, if a politician is caught lying, that is a good reason not to vote for him. Or, if a skeptic knowingly uses an out of date, sorely obsolete work as a primary source, we should be suspicious of the rest of his work. If you see a certain Pope Leo X quote on a skeptic website, run for the hills.