Yes, I have an opinion as I purchased that book with the recommendation of some forum members.
Phillips instructs that part of the difficulty of reading is the counting issue. Many teachers teach by using the numerator of the time signature as the counting pattern - id est: if Time Signature is 3/4, you would count
1, 2, 3,
1, 2, 3... and so on. I definitely agree that this can become very problematic as it requires your mind to keep the numbers in the correct order while performing another very complex task: sightreading. As such, this method should be abandoned.
Instead, just memorize the rhythmic patterns and voila! I speak French. This is actually a much improved method over the counting method which leads to the issue of performing these rhythms.
In performing these rhythms, Phillips prescribes mentally saying "hit" "don't hit", or "sing" "don't sing" etc. depending on the method of instrumental function but doing this in the back of the mind. It's not as easy as it could be if you were to practice it this way and I don't really think this is necessary.
At this point, I should mention that I did not finish the prescribed course and hence I cannot comment on whether this method would be very effective. However, in the meantime of not doing his course, I learned to read rhythms using a different method. Rather, it's using sylables but instead of using words like "twinkle, twinkle, little star" (1+2+3+4 ) which can be confusing if the fundament of sylablization is not understood, I used a modified French syllable system.
The French syllable system is saying "ta-aa-aa-aa" for a whole note, "ta-aa" for half, "ta" for quarter, "ta-te" for two 8ths, and "ta-fa-te-fe" for 4 16th notes ("te" is pronounced "tay"). This is actually more effective than saying "twinkle twinkle... etc." because these syllables are non-sense syllables which have no meaning, whereas "twinkle twinkle" immediately gives a mental image of a shining star which interferes with the purpose. I modified only one of them to give a more perceptive beat. Say "Ta-fa-te-fe". Now say "Ta-pa-te-pe." Notice the difference?
This method can be functionally learned by adults in one week. More advanced applications can be learned in 2-3 weeks which would cover most complex rhythms.
The benefits of using unchanging syllables are immediately apparent - these nonsense syllables develop their own meaning and reinforces each other with just a bit of practice and can actually be very fun and entertaining, especially when there are a dozen other students learning it.
This method is similar to Phillips as the student will think in beats (the correct way to think) and not notes (the wrong way). It also has a much improved relationship to syllablization by using set syllables that do not change. And it's easier to learn. But I don't know who else, besides myself, who teaches this method.
