How fast 3-year-old baby can learn to play Menuet in G minor by Petzold?

[musicrebel4u]

In one month (alone with other pieces, sight-reading, ear-training and theory games)!

Fluency in music reading (with elementary presentation of music notation and support of focus) is helping even toddlers to develop coordination and bring out all the aural music information collected in cerebral cortex from the very birth.

It means that all our students are not 'white paper', who can't do anything without us, but musically developed human beings. Our goal is to bring out the collected information and develop it further without damaging children's love for music and music making.

[johnk]

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.

[thierry13]

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.

[wotgoplunk]

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!? 

[musicrebel4u]

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.

This is pretty normal child from family that precisely followed my guidance what to do at home.
John, verticality alone is not a solution for music reading. Interactivity, focus support and animated hints in consideration to fingers movements are.
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 ,

because there people sometimes are making $200-300 a month and can't afford computers.

But the teachers testified that students without actual program are developing much slower.
You tried our games and maybe noticed how they interact with every move of the player. In my class even children with special needs gradually develop ability to focus for longer period of time and keep concentration. We are talking about healthy 3 year-old kids! She started with 5 minutes of practice and end up with 30 every day, asking parents for more.
BTW, did you miss new video of my 3-year-old 'remarkable' student?

I made plenty of video recording for the past 7 years and now trying to find the most interesting for music teachers.

[musicrebel4u]

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.

The fact that all human beings are musically talented had been already proved officially.

[musicrebel4u]

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!? 

Where did you get the idea that average-year-old child struggles to learn music?
Here is a short TV story with parents' little testimonies. They LOVE it!

Another testimony of Victoria Lopez Meseguer Piano Teacher and Vicedean
of the Conservatorio Profesional de Musica: 'I have seen three year old children waving goodbye to their parents without even looking at them as they left and begging for more after their lesson. And this is a very good start for any teacher.'
https://www.ugatu.ac.ru/~trushin/SM/18.htm

[wotgoplunk]

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.

[Petter]

Silly me. I thought social dysfunctioning neurotic spoiled upper class misanthropic white males were the only ones able to play piano.

[musicrebel4u]

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.

There are many reasons why we must start them off so young:
1.   They love it
2.   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.

[thierry13]

But even if they love it, at age 3, how many will understand what they're doing?

My point exactly. musicrebel, you are going to tell me every single human being who does the same amount of work with the same method will have the same rate of learning ? You are obviously in some kind of pink dream about your mastery at pedagogy. Explain me how I've heard 3 years old play WAY WAY WAY better than the students you show us ? Is it because they had a better teacher than you (of course that's impossible, with your amazing experience)? NO, it's because they have talent. OF COURSE every human being is able to learn how to play music. But the fact is that music is elitist and only the gifted should be initiated. Of course every human can learn what it takes to be a physician(doctor whatever), but why do they NOT initiate everybody ? Because only the gifted ones deserve it. Of course you'll tell me well it's normal, you are dealing with human lives ! Or you'll tell me there ARE stupid and incompetent physicians! Well I tell you, with music you deal with people's soul and there ARE stupid and incompetent musicians (*hrm* musicrebel4u *hrm* johnk *hrm*). I'll just say that the thing that is officially proved here, is that women who can't play should'nt make a career in pedagogy ... now she even has an ego trip about it 

[wotgoplunk]

There are many reasons why we must start them off so young:
1.   They love it
2.   They develop ear and fine motor skills
3.   They develop brain

Quite a few blanket statements there. And music doesn't necessarily develop someone's brain. I have many classmates who do brilliantly in music but struggle in other subjects. Even with these benefits, the poor kid has to work hard to do all that at such a young age.

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.

[musicrebel4u]

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.

Why new? Kids hear music even before birth.

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.

I teach kids with special needs with this system with no struggle. My colleagues have the same experience:
-https://www.softmozart.com/Site/discussion.php?discussion=172 

You can't say it's easy to learn something completely foreign to you.

If our kids would be from different planet, I would agree with 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?

When they are ready to know, they ask. And I answer. Hand on practice goes first – theory second. Just the way it should be

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.

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.

[wotgoplunk]

Why new? Kids hear music even before birth.

Are they reading it 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

Again, you can't say they understand it! They're not properly reading it!

If our kids would be from different planet, I would agree with you.

If I said here's a computer program to learn Swahili, do you reckon you'd find it incredibly simple to become fluent?

When they are ready to know, they ask. And I answer. Hand on practice goes first – theory second. Just the way it should be.

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!

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.

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.

[thierry13]

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.

[musicrebel4u]

I'd like to see them pick up harmony for ANY melody (as YOU put it). Transposing is about the dumbest thing in music.

[wotgoplunk]

That's simply memorisation and regurgitation again...

Child is shown what to do, child does it.

No harmonic understanding whatsoever.

[musicrebel4u]

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.

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 second
Please, 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

[musicrebel4u]

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

[wotgoplunk]

Child listens to melody once and then hide the left hand. It is NOT a memorization

It certainly is, they see the notes they have to do, they hear it, so they do it!

If that's not memorization, what could you possibly call it!?

[wotgoplunk]

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 second
Please, 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.

[musicrebel4u]

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

[wotgoplunk]

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.

[musicrebel4u]

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.

You jump into conclusion very fast.
Just read what world-renowned educators say about this approach.  Unlike you they work with it:

1.   A soloist of Moscow State Academic Philharmonic Society
A full member of Russian National Academy of Natural Science
The president of Yuri Rozum International Charitable Foundation
A national artist of RussiaYuri Rozum  (www.yurirozum.com )
-https://www.softmozart.com/Site/discussion.php?discussion=97

2.   Victoria Lopez Meseguer Piano Teacher and Vicedean
of the Conservatorio Profesional de Musica Joaquin
-https://www.softmozart.com/Site/discussion.php?discussion=89

3. Moscow conservatory (where Peter Tchaikovsky was teaching BTW):
-https://www.softmozart.com/Site/discussion.php?discussion=112

 

[musicrebel4u]

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.

And to the reference of Suzuki.
They don't teach to read notation from the very start. We do. Here is the video of a student who just turned 5 and he reads standart notation fluently:

[musicrebel4u]

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.

[thierry13]

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.

[musicrebel4u]

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.

But when people learn French grammar, they start with reading language first, don't they? 
I think, you just didn't watch this video to understand that we practically on the same page with you:

We just made theory a little more practical and desirable.

[wotgoplunk]

No, for French grammar you learn the basics before you apply it.

In our school system anyway.

You learn how to conjugate the verb before you read anything with that verb in it.

[johnk]

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.

Music is the same, we want to develop a musical brain, not a computer data log of everything. Who cares if I dont know what intervals are in a chord? But can I hear this chord and distinguish it from another , and know which chord I prefer to go in the melody?

By the way I will gladly test my ability against any of you, in both intuitive musicianship and theoretical knowledge!

[wotgoplunk]

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.

It differentiates if you're learning French as a second language as opposed to a first. It's much easier to know what it is that you're doing, if you've been taught the foundations of what you're doing.

Music is no one's first language, and you can't pick up music by immersion.

Perhaps a better comparison would be to compare music to drama. There's innate talent, but only through understanding can that talent be used. You have to know why you're using the strategies you are.

I(f you were in a play, it might seem natural for anyone to cross in front of someone else on their role, because that's what you see, but that doesn't give any reason as to why it's actually being done.

[johnk]

I guess we just disagree here. If you were teaching a 3 yo French as a second language, you would not do it by the grammatical method, you would do it like the mother tongue. Same with teaching music. I didtn really understand your point about drama. I should think that in fact some 'great' actors have had no formal training.

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 ,

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.

[johnk]

Thierry wrote:

there ARE stupid and incompetent musicians (*hrm* musicrebel4u *hrm* johnk *hrm*).

https://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Agy6PxmnHQE

Lets see a YouTube video of YOU playing then!

[keypeg]

Might I suggest that knowledge is not always something that is verbalized in linear progression of logical thought, and that true knowledge might be more deep seated?  It is possible to understand without complete conscious knowledge, and yet understand deeply.

It seems that one of the major hurdles of adult students is this propensity to wrap everything into theory packages and "understand" - in fact the lesson is transformed through the theorizing so that before hand ever reaches instrument, the main point is already lost.  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.

Language also has patterns, and young children absorb the linguistic patterns before they learn the grammar, because grammar is a formalizing of patterns.  I am a linguist.  I learned my sixth language (still learning) informally and used what I had learneda bout learning - as child like as possible.  I allowed the words and patterns to wash over me, and I followed that up with theory, in an interactive program, in fact.  I was invited for coffee by friends, and the object that was handed to me was transformed from "kafa" to "kafu" - so I experienced the phenomenon of something with an "a" turning into an "u" when it became a direct object, and I experienced the idea of femininity.  Being with friends was pleasant, so the emotional impact of the experience found itself into the word, so that I remembered it.  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"?

[thierry13]

Thierry wrote:

https://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Agy6PxmnHQE

Lets see a YouTube video of YOU playing then!

I can't see the point of your post. This guy has at least twice my age.

[musicrebel4u]

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.

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.

I hope this quite real example push us to the most important point of any education - the goal of education itself. What results we expect from educations, what goals we trying to achieve. Strangely enough, not many educators are worried about these, the most important, questions. For many educators, students and parents, the education become self-sufficient - we learn something just to pass the next exam.

In the case of our student, the theory helped him to pass French exams and get all the rewards he needed - teachers' and parents'  approval - so he achieved the goals imposed on him by school system. If he had never visited France, he would never realize that the French language is not designed specifically for torturing students as a unnecessary but required step to going to college, and would never wish to exchange all his theory knowledge for ability of a 3-year-old french child to express his thoughts in French. He suddenly understood that there may be another goal for learning French - to use it for communication between people and reading french literature, where theory is not so important as fluency.

If we return to music, I would like to ask all interested forum people:
 
What are, from your point of view, the goals of music and piano education, and what results you may expect from students, if any. In other words, what for we are spending so much money, time and our energy?

[musicrebel4u]

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.

Very interesting question, John!

As you probably noticed, our software has 2 measurements: amount of notes played correctly and amount of lost time to play them.

With the help of this precise feature I figured out that beginners are giving the best results on light weighted keys with stickers on them.

As soon as they develop their coordination I move them to digital piano with key guide behind the piano keys and for some time the results a worsen a little  'till students is getting adjusted to the new challenges.

It was also very interesting to watch how they 'outgrow' visual support on keys and before we start our lesson they remove key guide.

So, we developed gradual ways for students for their coordination and vision support:

Digital keyboard – Digital piano – Acoustic piano

Stickers – Piano Guides – Bare keys.

[keypeg]

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.

[musicrebel4u]

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"?

I can't agree more! Bravo!

I just want to add something that may be interesting to you.
Historically man first developed sensors. Ability to reason and abstract thinking came second.

Every human being have to go through the same evolution in his/her development when learning something new, especially children.
  
If the sensors are blocked in learning process, the abstract information could be learned forcefully by drills and the amount of effort is inversely proportional to the results.

[musicrebel4u]

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 want to share with you some thoughts about learning music as a language.

We teach our students familiar songs first and expend music information gradually later.  Why? Because their aural experience is the 'point of support' and they need it at the beginning.

As to pronunciation, I think, that 10 fingers of both hands and coordination of them are students 'vocal chords'. Most of the time the 'accent' comes from coordination difficulties. Students hear inside their mind how it supposes to sound, but unable to produce.

By playing Grand Staff disguised in piano keys, singing sounds of music Solfeggio and playing instrument with multiple sounds and perfect pitch (keyboard/digital piano) students learn all the aspects of the music language: they produce familiar music with help of vision (another point of support). Subconsciously they learn music Alphabet (order of music notes and keys in different patterns). Singing Solfeggio helps them to 'feel' the music emotionally and memorize it upon developed speech memory (established skill - third point of support).

Any spoken language has only one voice, does not have any time/pitch limitation and could be passed from one language bearer to another. Unfortunately such approach in music is physiologically impossible.

And here we come to the most innovative idea that many traditional music educators are not ready to except: the interaction with piano through computer with visual support available with computer graphics – is the only solution in learning music as a language adequately. The beginners should interact with notes and keys through their own sensorial experience and collected skills and the role of teacher in such a process is to be a guide, polisher, and interpreter – not an addition to the pointer between student's eyes, piano keys and music notes.

[dora96]

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.

[johnk]

Thierry wrote

I can't see the point of your post. This guy has at least twice my age.

Well you were implying that i and Hellene might be STUPID and /or incompetent musicians. Which is a rather rude comment. You are allowed to think my ideas are stupid, but as to my musical competence, the point is that my videos are there for anyone to judge. If you think this is incompetent, then I would assume you think you could do better. My age has nothing to do with it. I am challenging you to show your own musical competence on YouTube.

[thierry13]

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.

You didnt't prove anything. Of course you need fluidity and a large vocabulary to communicate freely with native french speakers. But the fact is that you will not attain it without FIRST knowing the base (the grammar, irregular conguation, etc. wich are frequently used in everyday language in french countrys). Let's take the example of a native speaker. Is he able to communicate with fluidity and a vast vocabulary ? Of course. But he can't do any ellaborate sentences with much sense before first going to school and learning all the exceptions and rules of the language. Same with music. You can learn to intuitively do basic things/pieces ... or even play some harder stuff with some ease ... but it will NEVER be a professional rendition. You, to communicate deep things to the others(the audience), you have to deeply know what you are talking about. You have to talk (for most pieces), "tonal". If you want to play Messiaen, you have to read his "dictionnary" where he explains his musical language. It will allways be an amateurish performance if you do not do so, or at least the better musicians will be able to tell so. The fact is that the "tonal" language is a human INVENTION and therefore it is not more "intuitive" than say french or english or whatever. It has to be learnt. You CAN learn a language by simply hearing the people speak around you, you will be lacking in quite a few areas of that language. Why should it be different with music ("tonal")?

[keypeg]

Thierry, I have the impression that you are a musician and/or music teacher.  Are you also a linguist with training in language acquisition, and do you have experience in the field applying such training on which to base your statements?  I did base my own statements both on my training and experience.  I would not want to teach grammar as the very first thing, and I do not believe that the complexities of language cannot be acquired without formal instruction.  I do believe that what was naturally and wholistically acquired should be backed up with formal insruction.  I can guess, but I do not know for certain, what aspects of language learning apply to musical skills.

Musicalrebel4, are your students limited to what they acquire through the software, or do they at some point also learn formal theory in a non-shallow manner?

[pianochick93]

And to the reference of Suzuki.
They don't teach to read notation from the very start.

I learnt Suzuki from the very start. and I also learnt to read music from the very start.

watgoplunk, Good to see you again. You have been saying exactly what I was tyring to say on another thread. That not everyone has a gift for music, and that not all of those that have that gift wish to learn it.

Also, I think that 3 years old is too young to learn music. A child is more likely to understand what you are trying to teach them if they are 5 or even six.
I know some excellent pianists (for their age) who started when they were 8 or 9.

[Petter]

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.

[wotgoplunk]

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.

We're not saying they shouldn't take lessons, anyone has a right to lessons. But if a kid's not getting it, then they need to let be until they can understand it.

People don't like doing things they can't do, to an extent.

And once the enjoyment is gone, what's the point?

(And good to see you too pianochick )

[Petter]

If playing piano like this would help develop motoric skills and other essential things in a childs development, would that be a bad thing even if the music is compromised?

[musicrebel4u]

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.

Dear Dora,
Thank you very much for you nice and sincere comment!
First, let me start with personal story.
I also a mother of soon to be 21 year old daughter. I started teaching her piano traditional way, when she was 5, but it didn't work well.
After that we immigrated to the USA and I was practically trying to survive teaching music and piano 6 days a week from 6 AM (yes! Some daycares open that early!) 'till 8 PM and had no time or strength to give lessons to my own child.
Later on we developed a computerized version of my system. At this time my daughter was a teenager. Every time when she got in troubles, I took her car keys and instead of TV offered her to practice on my program. At first she was very rebellious, but had nothing else to do and learned one music piece after another. One day she came to me and asked: 'Mom, you forgot to remind me that I have to practice my piano'.
Today she developed huge love for music. She loves to sight-read new pieces, to learn Chopin and Bach, she also is a part of Indonesian orchestra and she is collecting more and more CDs of classical music. She told me that the ability to interact with computer without anyone watching over her shoulder was the big plus for her piano development.
Now things changed and he insists for me to be at her side during the lessons and explain many professional things to her.

Now let's return to your comment. I want to tell you that to teach your own kids is a big challenge, because they consider you as a 'mommy' and act accordingly. I was witnessing during my piano lessons how kids behave with their parents around and without. So, it is not your fault that your kids were not as successful as you want them to be as your piano students. But let me assure you that your 10 and 8 are not lost for music education! My daughter was 15 when she fell in love with music.

As to teaching 3-year-old, there are some 'tricks' that I have to make them cooperate. Small children LOVE to do something with their hands and fingers. Remember how they love the song Eency-Weency Spider? Development of fine motor skills in this age is very important for their overall development. Take the hand of you 3-year-old child and say: 'Oh, your fingers are locked! Let's unlock them with a key!'

Take an imaginary 'key' and pretend like you are 'unlocking' his fingers. He would love this game! Everything has to be a play and the game at this age! I also use 'music money' for  my lessons, because toddlers think concrete and every time they make successful move they SEE the reword. After the lessons they buy with music money some goodies (it's up to you what to chose – party favors, candies etc)

Here some exercises that you can teach you son. Toddlers love these exercises. As soon as they get them, they try to play them everywhere!
-https://www.doremifasoft.com/frvipiex.html

You also can download and try my free Demos of our program and try them with your older kids. The main page is here -https://www.doremifasoft.com/dopr.html.
You just have to go inside of every program and find free download link.

Boys and girls are the same in learning, if to do it wisely. Attention span and ability to concentrate also can be developed. b

And at last I have to tell you: yes, we are not offering our program for free. I would love to, but I can't. In order to keep the project going, we have to sell our software. But I dedicate my time, knowledge and efforts to any educators with no charge and help as much as I can to expend their horizons. So, feel free to contact me  any time by phone or email. I always respond and help as much as I can! Here the contact info: -https://www.doremifasoft.com/info.html

[musicrebel4u]

I learnt Suzuki from the very start. and I also learnt to read music from the very start.

Brava! Way to go!