Surely this is a gifted 3 year old? (In your YouTube video) I have a 3 year old student, but it is hard to even get her to do anything. I dont think the average 3 year old understands that they are supposed to do what the teacher asks. We do some singing and percussion and make bird (high) and frog (low) sounds on the keyboard. Today I did get her started on playing fingers 12345 but she doesnt do anything for long before shes off doing something else. I just flow along with her because I dont want to tell a 3 year old you must do this. I also did a vertical picture notation of Happy Birthday, and she sort of could play it with guidance. Thanks for the ideas.
b*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllsh*ttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttttt, rubbish both of you. You are trying to prove any human being is musically talented, but if you really need those kind of things to teach ... you are definitely not adressing yourself to talented people.
Just going to throw this out there, if the average three-year-old child, struggles to learn music, why are you trying to teach them it!?
But even if they love it, at age 3, how many will understand what they're doing?That's what I'm getting at. Why must we start them off so young, and have to use all these different methods to help them learn?Because it's not going to be easy for a three-year-old to learn how to read music, then to translate that into playing.
But even if they love it, at age 3, how many will understand what they're doing?
There are many reasons why we must start them off so young:1. They love it2. They develop ear and fine motor skills 3. They develop brain
I disagree that it is hard for them to learn how to read music My personal 30 years teaching experience also helped me to understand that reading a lot of music in fact translate reading into playing, because it develops 'music mind' and better understanding of music as a language.
I think we can both agree that it's difficult to learn to read music, no matter how you do it. It's like learning a new language.
Sure, some can learn it easier than others, but it's just like languages, some people pick them up easily, others struggle. But the ones who do it more easily, probably have innate (sp?) talent.
You can't say it's easy to learn something completely foreign to you.
And three-year-olds can only go so far. You teach them how to play a scale, but do they know what a scale even is? Do they know the basics behind it?
If you don't have the foundations for something, and you're only spouting it off from what you've been shown, it's not really the right sort of learning.
Why new? Kids hear music even before birth.
I teach kids with special needs with this system with no struggle. My colleagues have the same experience:---https://-https://www.softmozart.com/Site/discussion.php?discussion=172
If our kids would be from different planet, I would agree with you.
When they are ready to know, they ask. And I answer. Hand on practice goes first – theory second. Just the way it should be.
Foundation for learning any language is skills to read and write it. My students can read and write music down, they perform and compose, can pick up harmony to any melody, can transpose in different keys. This is foundation.
I'd like to see them pick up harmony for ANY melody (as YOU put it). Transposing is about the dumbest thing in music.
Are they reading it before birth?Again, you can't say they understand it! They're not properly reading it!If I said here's a computer program to learn Swahili, do you reckon you'd find it incredibly simple to become fluent?Now that's a large mistake, the theory is just as important. Sure, I could memorize a whole bunch of notes (or facts for science), but I wouldn't understand why I was doing it. For kids to learn you have to apply the knowledge. It's no good saying, "play a scale" if they don't understand the concept of tetrachords. If a child doesn't know what they're learning, they're not actually learning it!But it isn't foundation. I very much doubt if I gave a three-year-old a piece of music, and told him to transpose it into D-flat Major that he could do it. The same goes for an even older student. They might be able to do it, but do they actually know what they're doing with it? They need more than just memorisation and regurgitation. And even then, transposition is fairly useless unless you're a sax player, clarinettist, trumpeter, euph player, french horn player, english horn player etc.
That's simply memorisation and regurgitation again...Child is shown what to do, child does it.No harmonic understanding whatsoever.
Child listens to melody once and then hide the left hand. It is NOT a memorization
I don't have much time to discuss this matter with you in details.If you really want to know the main rules of didactics is: Concrete first – abstract secondPlease, learn more from John Amos Comenius. You may find a lot of useful and interesting ideas for your teaching benefits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comenius
Concrete first...the foundation of it, the theory.Abstract second...the playing and interpretation of it.Theory doesn't change, playing does.In no way can you possibly argue the child is learning from this. It's exactly like the Suzuki method, it just teaches them to do what they're told to do with no regard as to why.
Here about T S D
You're still not getting what I mean.If I were to ask one of your students to play me an Am chord, would they be able to do it?Could they explain to me what intervals it's made up of?Probably not, because they're just being shown how to play the chord. Your method is like Suzuki. Great for fast learning, but it's got no structure to it.
Probably not, because they're just being shown how to play the chord. Your method is like Suzuki. Great for fast learning, but it's got no structure to it.
If I were to ask one of your students to play me an Am chord, would they be able to do it?Could they explain to me what intervals it's made up of?Probably not, because they're just being shown how to play the chord. Your method is like Suzuki. Great for fast learning, but it's got no structure to it.
Now I understand your point of view. Your philosophy is known as Scholasticism, an approach to consider a theory or dogma to be more important than the world of real things around us. And if the theory is not agreeing with the world, it's worse for the world. So this funny confusion of English words - a theory became "concrete", and the real music playing (something that you can hear) became "abstract", though any dictionary explains "abstract" as "theoretical" or "conceptual" or "ideal".From your conception, you are not allowing a baby to learn how to walk before explaining to him the anatomy of his leg and body. If the baby does not know the mechanics of joints and theory of gravitation, his walk may not be considered as "proper".Again, you can not allow a child to learn how to speak and read before he masters all the rules of the language, and may answer any linguistic question. You really must be worried that the most people communicate and successfully use the language in everyday life having no notion of the complete language theory, relying only on their skills and memory. I do not understand why, what is so ridiculous in other human knowledge fields, may be supported in piano teaching. That's why the piano became either theorizing to the extreme, so only few can survive such teaching, or absolutely detached from the theory as in case with Sizuki.Theory is important, but just as a support for an effective piano playing and learning, and goes after real playing and reading skills.
Theory is as important as the physical result. It's like if you compared my french to the french of somebody who only learned it by listening to others and had no formal education in it. Of course it is incomparable, even if at first sight maybe the person looks like he is very fluent, he definitely lacks a lot of things. It's the same about playing the music without knowing actually what you are doing.
Im with MusicRebel here. What a lot of rubbish you others are saying. Learning French by grammar and conjugating verbs is NOT how to learn French! Learning it as a French child does, intuitively, without analysis.
My trainee and representative in Russia is making music sheets for beginners like this (we use different pictures in Russian):https://community.livejournal.com/doremifa_use/200473.html#cutid2 ,
there ARE stupid and incompetent musicians (*hrm* musicrebel4u *hrm* johnk *hrm*).
Thierry wrote:https://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Agy6PxmnHQELets see a YouTube video of YOU playing then!
Theory is as important as the physical result. It's like if you compared my french to the french of somebody who only learned it by listening to others and had no formal education in it. Of course it is incomparable, even if at first sight maybe the person looks like he is very fluent, he definitely lacks a lot of things.
Hellene, thanks for the latest links. I am wondering if you notice any difference whether the stickers are actually on the piano keys like in the YouTube video, or as a guide at the back of the piano keys like in the non-computer picture cited here.
Might that not suggest that the child is more, not less, ready to understand - and the theorizing comes afterwards to give more form (but no complete form - that lay in the action already experience) to what is already known in the place where body, mind, and experience meet.Later when I formally learned the patterns of the accusative and nominative case, I already "knew" it as a child would know it, because of the multiple experience of the word. This is a similar concept, I think.I do not see this as Suzuki-like. Might I venture the word "multi-faceted"?
Musicalrebel4, when you discuss language learning you come into my area. I like your music system and I have a feeling there is more to it than what first appearances show - it's quite deep and multifaceted. that's why I didn't want to say anything. You wrote before that the first step in learning a language is to read it. That was to link it with your program.But here is exactly where some differences lie. The written musical language is fresh and new to a student of any age. There are the sounds of music, the keyboard that produces the sounds, the singing of solfege syllables, and the symbols you use in notation. Those symbols only represent the music, keyboard and singing. The symbols hold no other meaning.But someone learning another language already has an alphabet and those symbols represent a set of sounds. If he begins by reading, he will impose the sounds of the old language onto the new language. He "reads with an accent". The correct way to do it is to immerse yourself in the language like a baby. Hear the sounds, rhythms, and patterns of the language. Without thinking, absorb the pattern "kafa", and "kafu" when the coffee is the direct object of being offered to you, and hold on to the warm feeling of friendship to go with those sounds. Or, for a different language, you absorb the femininity of the greeting "demedersh" as opposed to "deme" without putting much thought to the fact. That creates some native fluidity. After absorbing the language many ways, then go to your language books and begin drilling the grammar. It will already be familiar and known to you.What you are describing is known as "integration". Things taught in language learning are only useful if they can be used in real time and real language. Otherwise it is useless, dead information, an academic exercise. That is why I prefer to drink lots of "kafu", experiencing language as a real thing and employing all my senses, and doing the academic bit secondary. In the same way we experience music, live it, and absorb it, rather than it being a dry academic exercise.As to the purpose of education. I would hope that we begin with a purpose, and education fulfills it, rather than beginning with education and then wondering what it's for.
I can't see the point of your post. This guy has at least twice my age.
I don't know your French, but let's take a real case applied to many of students - a student in an average American school who for 5 or more years is learning French as a foreign language. He or she knows french grammar a lot, some french history, geography and politics - everything that helps him to pass his exams. And with this baggage of theory this student arrives in France - and suddenly finds out that he understands nobody and nobody understands his French. Even if somebody understands, his vocabulary is restricted to members of his family, weather or gardening, which hardly helps him to move around, find hotel or a restaurant, or make friends. He can cite by memory conjugation of irregular verbs or explain (in English) some fine points of French grammar, but nobody seems interested to listen.
And to the reference of Suzuki. They don't teach to read notation from the very start.
I keep wondering who would go to the concerts to appreciate all these oh so gifted people. Maybe the physicians. Or perhaps french poets. Or maybe the kids that were told they weren´t talanted enough to take piano lessons. Or even glance at a piano for that matter. Yes Im sure they would show up.
Dear Musicalrebel4,At first, when I saw your post and your video, I was suspicious about your method trying to sell your product and make as much as money as possible. I feel that you have vision about music, and passionate wanting to share your method and teaching music to young children. I am mother of 4 kids. (their age range from 10, 8, 3, and 8 months old )My son gave up 4 years ago. He was frustrated and painful learning the piano. He swears that he will never get near the piano again. My daughter has been learning the piano since 4 years old . The obstacle, the pain, tear and frustration to learn the music score, I feel like almost child abuse to put my child into all these anxieties. I just don't understand why it is so hard for kids to learn the music note, it's only 8 letters ( C.D, E, F, G, A, B, C). Your method I think my daughter will like it. Like you said " not everyone has computer system at home, do you do manual ( like books. some visual object to help kids to focus their music score). Honestly, I don't want to make the same mistake again, I also like my 3 years old son to learn the piano in fun way. He is quite cleaver, he can remember lots of dinosaurs' name. He can count from 1 to 10. But come to piano key, the trouble starts, first he doesn't sit still enough, he won't open his fingers. Do you come cross this situation. How to do deal with kids like this. Is he not ready to learn the piano yet? What is the approach dealing with hyperactive kids like mine? I like my son to learn the piano now, because he watches TV too much. He has lots of time at home. It will be wonderful like your students to learn and enjoy music . Do you find girl l easier concentration than boy? I can't agree more why shouldn't learning piano be as popular as learning football or other sports? I also play the piano I enjoy it and l love music. Music is fruit to the soul. I hope I can give it to my kids.
I learnt Suzuki from the very start. and I also learnt to read music from the very start.
Topic: How fast 3-year-old baby can learn to play Menuet in G minor by Petzold? 