Music teaching and basic rules of didactics and cognitive development.

[musicrebel4u]

John Amos Comenius – 'the teacher of nations' set the basic rules of learning any subject. What do you know about these rules and how do you apply them in your class with students of any age?

[keyofc]

This sounds like an exam question...   How does one teach nations?  Much have a large classroom - and here I was thinking that massive amounts of students was too much to handle!

[musicrebel4u]

This sounds like an exam question...   How does one teach nations?  Much have a large classroom - and here I was thinking that massive amounts of students was too much to handle!

If it sounds like 'exam' question than I have to tell you that you failed 
Teaching music - is the same 'teaching' subject as teaching anything else.
Well, go Google!

[m19834]

John Amos Comenius – 'the teacher of nations' set the basic rules of learning any subject. What do you know about these rules and how do you apply them in your class with students of any age?

Why do I have to know them when I am quite sure you would be happy to tell me how I should be running my studio, no matter what I know or say ? 

*anticipates a link to an article or youtube video showing me what a sinner I am and the miracle that awaits me if I only repent from my evil, evil ways*

[musicrebel4u]

Why do I have to know them when I am quite sure you would be happy to tell me how I should be running my studio, no matter what I know or say ? 

*anticipates a link to an article or youtube video showing me what a sinner I am and the miracle that awaits me if I only repent from my evil, evil ways*

If you running studio with no knowledge about the basics of teaching, it is, honestly your  problem and problem of your students.
I am not going to provide you with any links.
Freedom of choice: to be ignorant and be proud being ignorant - or not to be

There are plenty materials on Comenius and if you think it does not deserve your time, Comeniuse cares less. 

[m19834]

If you running studio with no knowledge about the basics of teaching, it is, honestly your  problem and problem of your students.
I am not going to provide you with any links.
Freedom of choice: to be ignorant and be proud being ignorant - or not to be

There are plenty materials on Comenius and if you think it does not deserve your time, Comeniuse cares less. 

oh 4u, I was teasing you a bit !

[musicrebel4u]

oh 4u, I was teasing you a bit !

Thank you!
In fact, I am here to learn!

[keypeg]

I have found lots of history of Comenius that says where he was born, where he traveled, when he died, that he founded an educational system, and not much more.  Also that he was known "behind the iron curtain" but not much in front of it.
Finally I stumbled on an article by Piaget who seems to have studied his works, https://www.ibe.unesco.org/publications/ThinkersPdf/comeniuse.PDF  Piaget, or course, is one of the pedagogical theorists that is studied in the West.
Not knowing the specific principles of Comenius does not equate not having theories of education and abiding by them.

What I have gathered from the overview via the bias of Piaget, is that Comenius was reacting to the educational system of his time several centuries ago and sought to reform it.  He seemed to have broad universal principles.  If I interpret correctly from the little bit of information, he believes that everyone should receive a good education, not only some, and he extends that to women who at that time were considered incapable of learning.  The old ideal of finding the universal and cosmic in nature and knowledge seems alive in his thoughts - was that also a product of his time as well as Greek thinking?

He seems to believe in working in harmony with the natural development or developmental stages of a person and extends that into adulthood or lifelong learning.  Experience precedes theory and gives the backbone to theory which comes afterward, thus having substance and meaning.  Action and the practical have a role.

Autodidactism in the sense that the student has the curiosity, self-impelled (inspired?) exploration and curiosity and this is the seat of learning - which again would come from action, exploration, activity, followed by theory after the fact rather than before.

This is what I glean from Piaget's article.  Any corrections?

If so, I would say in my teaching activities as teacher and as parent playing a teaching role at one time, a number of these principles would have applied.  That is as much from common sense as Comenius, whose works I did not know.  In the public system, however, appealing to innate curiosity when it has already been killed off by reward and punishment to a large degree, did not work that well.  Not all schools function that way.

And I am not a music teacher - though a music learner - and self-impelled motivated exploration is definitely part of that.

[m19834]

Thank you!

You're welcome  .

In fact, I am here to learn!

Then perhaps you will get busy reading the forum archives and letting us know what you know about these posts here, and how do you apply them in your class with students of any age? 

Sorry M4u, I couldn't quite resist.

[ahinton]

John Amos Comenius – 'the teacher of nations' set the basic rules of learning any subject. What do you know about these rules and how do you apply them in your class with students of any age?

Well, no small interest of mine, since his Prodromus Pansophiæ suggested to me the title for my 1990 organ work Pansophiæ for John Ogdon - and it so happens that it is Comenius's birthday tomorrow (28 March)...

Best,

Alistair

[musicrebel4u]

You're welcome  .

Then perhaps you will get busy reading the forum archives and letting us know what you know about these posts here, and how do you apply them in your class with students of any age? 

Sorry M4u, I couldn't quite resist.

When I have to find answers how to teach, I am looking them by reading Greatest teachers as Comenius.
Here I am to learn how to teach teachers

[musicrebel4u]

The golden rule of natural cognitive learning proportion is 3/1
Here is an example
Student already know
1. what 'bee' is and how it looks like and can determine the 'bee' on the picture (imagine that alien from different planet has no bees and no idea what it is
2. how to say the word 'bee' (imagine that 'bee' in other languages has different names)
3. How letters of ENGLISH  Alphaber look like and can find cognitive link between picture and the abstract english words

Next natural step of self - education is B stands for Bee!

[m19834]

Here I am to learn how to teach teachers

And my recommendation is that you study your "audience" !

[musicrebel4u]

Here is another picture
How much information on this picture our beginners already adopted, when they come to our class?
What is their 'point of support' when we through these information on them?

[musicrebel4u]

And my recommendation is that you study your "audience" !

Thank you Karli, you, in fact, is very helpful in this regard

[keypeg]

In other words, M4U, you are saying that in teaching you move from the known to the unknown.  You move from the real concrete, to a symbol which is still concrete, to the abstract which is not known.

I believe that this is a very common principle, though at times it has been bastardized.  Nonetheless I would assume that this is how teachers proceed.  It seems a sine qua non.

[musicrebel4u]

In other words, M4U, you are saying that in teaching you move from the known to the unknown.  You move from the real concrete, to a symbol which is still concrete, to the abstract which is not known.

I believe that this is a very common principle, though at times it has been bastardized.  Nonetheless I would assume that this is how teachers proceed.  It seems a sine qua non.

Please, look at my next post

[keypeg]

Your next post does not address what teachers are already doing.  Your original post asked whether teachers us the teachings of Comenius.  You have defined that teaching now, which translates roughly into:
- proceed from the known to the unknown
- proceed from concrete, to recognizeable symbol (pictures for example), to the abstract.

The answer to your original question would have to be that this is what teachers do.  It is an overriding principle in modern teaching, and has been so for at least half a century or more.

Your next post does not address how teachers are currently teaching, or how the teachers reading this forum are teaching.

[musicrebel4u]

Your next post does not address how teachers are currently teaching, or how the teachers reading this forum are teaching.

Please, look again at my second illustration
this is exactly how all the music teachers are teaching today. teachers in this forum and all around the world

[keypeg]

this is exactly how all the music teachers are teaching today

Your next post has a picture of a keyboard on the bottom, the letters AB, an A in the treble clef on the left hand side, and a B in the bass clef on the right hand side.  It indicates some of the things that a student must learn over time, but it does not show how teachers are teaching this material.

Your question was whether teachers teach according to the principles of Comenius.  You have then said those principles involved a progression from:
concrete, to symbolic but recognizeable, to abstract

I imagine that at least some teachers would teach according to those principles.  They are basic principles of modern pedagogy and have been so for at least 50 years.

Do "all" teachers approach teaching the same way?  How is that possible?

[musicrebel4u]

I'm sorry?  "What" is exactly how all music teachers are teaching today?  Do you mean that all music teachers go from concrete to concretely symbolic to abstract?  Or are you refering to something else?

Please, refresh the page and find my post with keys, notes etc

[musicrebel4u]

Here is example from computerized traditional teaching approach:
How much concrete information on this page?

[musicrebel4u]

Your next post has a picture of a keyboard on the bottom, the letters AB, an A in the treble clef on the left hand side, and a B in the bass clef on the right hand side.  It indicates some of the things that a student must learn over time, but it does not show how teachers are teaching this material.

How? By drills, drills and more drills. You also can call them cramming

Your question was whether teachers teach according to the principles of Comenius.  You have then said those principles involved a progression from:
concrete, to symbolic but recognizeable, to abstract

 It was tricky question, because current music education completely disregard all the rules of didactics  .

I imagine that at least some teachers would teach according to those principles.  They are basic principles of modern pedagogy and have been so for at least 50 years.

Do "all" teachers approach teaching the same way?  How is that possible?

They just simply CAN'T teach  by these principles, because the foundation of traditional teaching has no point of support

[m19834]

It was tricky question, because current music education completely disregard all the rules of didactics  .

M4U, you are funny.  Do you really believe that your "trickiness" was undetected ?  Your "trickiness" is probably better classified as "ulterior motives" .  And, actually, that was kind of my point in my first response.  No matter who I am, no matter how I teach, you have already decided on my behalf that I am not doing it correctly and what I need to be doing instead -- so, why would I actually even entertain the idea of entering this "discussion" with you as though we are actually discussing anything at all ?  You have already a preconceived notion about how the world works and where you fit into it, and where everybody else fits into it.

[keypeg]

Musicrebel4U, are you not making a lot of assumptions?  I believe that you are trying to reach the teachers on this board and communicate with them.  I think many would be insulted by a "trick question".  

You state that teachers "drill, drill, drill" and liken this to cramming.  But DO all teachers "drill drill drill".  Do all teachers use the approach that you are surmising?

I am not a student of the piano foremost: it's my second instrument.  Because I am also an educator one of the piano teachers in another forum asked me to try her program which was written for self-learners but incorporates how she teaches youngsters.  The program was dynamic, interesting, and it created a deep understanding of a number of things through experience (guided activities).  There were no drills of the information provided in your diagrams.  In fact, note names did not feature at all initially.  I found it highly effective.

Above all: It used those principles that you have just outlined: the 3 stages.

I have been given a book called "Piano Proficiency" by Louise Guhl, and have since discovered that Ms. Guhl was a principle pedagogue of piano teaching.  There is no drilling in Guhl's system.  I am enthused.  Within the first four pages of the book, I am capable of sight reading without key signature but knowing that key signature, transposing while sight reading with both left and right hand.  This book was not written for children, but for music students for whom the piano is a second instrument so it is more abstract.  Nonetheless she does not drill, and she teaches by having students EXPERIENCE things.

Neither of the piano teachers that I have encountered does mindless drilling.  Neither of them fits the stereotype.

On my own instrument I have encountered teaching which is intelligent, well thought out, experience-based, progressive, and every much along the ideas of Comenius.  In my limited exposure I have already encountered teaching which does not follow the path that you say "everyone" follows.

Currently the main dialogue is happening between you and one student, with no teacher in sight, yet the dialogue is supposed to be among teachers.  One teacher has asked repeatedly for their actual approaches to be examined by dint of the content of this board.  I don't think that without such exploration there will be much of a dialogue.  Since I am a student musically speaking I am bowing out.

Are you sure that "all" teachers teach as you say?

I would say in my training that the ideas of Comenius are the prevalent ones, and that what I have encounterd among music teachers runs contrary to what is being attributed to them, and more in line with Comenius.

[m19834]

And, I have to say at this point that, something I find to be rather ironic is that you treat other teachers as pond-scum and the scorge of the world, claiming to be here to teach teachers how to teach, yet you throw your so-called teaching principles (as far as I understand them) completely out the door when dealing with "other teachers" ! 

You don't even bother to study other teachers individually, but instead put everybody into a particular class, where in that "class," nobody knows anything about music nor how to teach it.  Yet, in another post, you specifically claimed that students are not empty vessels that need to be filled but have already a relationship with music within them -- what about us ?  Aren't we still those very people you are talking about ?  Or, have we somehow morphed out of having our own relationship with music and life, and into this bottom-dwelling pond scum that knows nothing about anything of importance ?  C'mon, M4U -- you need to be smarter than that, or at the very least, you need to be more tactful !

You are essentially saying, over and over btw :  Hey !  Idiots !  You are idiots !  Let me show you why !  People are important and need to be taught that they are smart and able, but you are not !  Idiots !  Do you teach like this ?  No ?  That's why you are idiots !

And then you proceed to present your case, expecting that smart and talented people are going to fall right into your precious hands.  C'mon !  Seriously ?  You are either hoping that people can't think for themselves and will just believe everything you say, or you are actually seeing that nobody else is capable of developing anything of importance -- or at least not in comparison to you ! -- and start your pitch with this at the forefront of the whole thing.  Don't you want smart and talented people to come to respect you on their own deciding ?  Or, are you just afraid that they/we will not decide this on our own, so you must decide it for us ?

Well, don't be afraid M4U, I already think you are a genius  -- you just need to be smarter in how you handle it .

[musicrebel4u]

M4U, you are funny.  Do you really believe that your "trickiness" was undetected ?  Your "trickiness" is probably better classified as "ulterior motives" .  And, actually, that was kind of my point in my first response.  No matter who I am, no matter how I teach, you have already decided on my behalf that I am not doing it correctly and what I need to be doing instead -- so, why would I actually even entertain the idea of entering this "discussion" with you as though we are actually discussing anything at all ?  You have already a preconceived notion about how the world works and where you fit into it, and where everybody else fits into it.

Well,
Imagine yourself in shoes of Dmitry Mendeleev – a creator of Table of Chemical Elements.
How would he treat the other chemists in regard of what they are doing without his invention?

You may say: teaching is NOT a exact science – it is rather a 'philosophy'  ( I had heard this so many times!)

I would say – if the center, the core of our teaching is a human being IT IS  a science, because human beings happen to have precise limitations in their perception and these limitations suppose to be our foundation.

Apparently,  many music educators don't even have slightest knowledge about Comenius and rules of cognitive comprehension. So, here I am trying to bring this important message to you and learning from responses how to make it clear.

 

[musicrebel4u]

Musicrebel4U, are you not making a lot of assumptions?  I believe that you are trying to reach the teachers on this board and communicate with them.  I think many would be insulted by a "trick question".  

You state that teachers "drill, drill, drill" and liken this to cramming.  But DO all teachers "drill drill drill".  Do all teachers use the approach that you are surmising?

I am not a student of the piano foremost: it's my second instrument.  Because I am also an educator one of the piano teachers in another forum asked me to try her program which was written for self-learners but incorporates how she teaches youngsters.  The program was dynamic, interesting, and it created a deep understanding of a number of things through experience (guided activities).  There were no drills of the information provided in your diagrams.  In fact, note names did not feature at all initially.  I found it highly effective.

Above all: It used those principles that you have just outlined: the 3 stages.

I have been given a book called "Piano Proficiency" by Louise Guhl, and have since discovered that Ms. Guhl was a principle pedagogue of piano teaching.  There is no drilling in Guhl's system.  I am enthused.  Within the first four pages of the book, I am capable of sight reading without key signature but knowing that key signature, transposing while sight reading with both left and right hand.  This book was not written for children, but for music students for whom the piano is a second instrument so it is more abstract.  Nonetheless she does not drill, and she teaches by having students EXPERIENCE things.

Neither of the piano teachers that I have encountered does mindless drilling.  Neither of them fits the stereotype.

On my own instrument I have encountered teaching which is intelligent, well thought out, experience-based, progressive, and every much along the ideas of Comenius.  In my limited exposure I have already encountered teaching which does not follow the path that you say "everyone" follows.

Currently the main dialogue is happening between you and one student, with no teacher in sight, yet the dialogue is supposed to be among teachers.  One teacher has asked repeatedly for their actual approaches to be examined by dint of the content of this board.  I don't think that without such exploration there will be much of a dialogue.  Since I am a student musically speaking I am bowing out.

Are you sure that "all" teachers teach as you say?

I would say in my training that the ideas of Comenius are the prevalent ones, and that what I have encounterd among music teachers runs contrary to what is being attributed to them, and more in line with Comenius.

OK,
Let's go to facts.
What the healthy beginner CAN DO when he/she comes to class to use it as 'point of support'?

1. Student can hear
2. Student can recognize colors and pictures
3. Student have some coordination (able to push at least one key with at least one finger)
4. Student can speak and developed speech memory

How music educators ( the best of the best) are using these points of support to bield natural cognitive way to teach piano and literacy?

[m19834]

Well,
Imagine yourself in shoes of Dmitry Mendeleev – a creator of Table of Chemical Elements.
How would he treat the other chemists in regard of what they are doing without his invention?

Erhmmm... no .  All I have to do, in this case, is be in my own shoes.  However, I can imagine that you imagine yourself in many shoes that are in fact, not your own .

[musicrebel4u]

And, I have to say at this point that, something I find to be rather ironic is that you treat other teachers as pond-scum and the scorge of the world, claiming to be here to teach teachers how to teach, yet you throw your so-called teaching principles (as far as I understand them) completely out the door when dealing with "other teachers" ! 

You don't even bother to study other teachers individually, but instead put everybody into a particular class, where in that "class," nobody knows anything about music nor how to teach it.  Yet, in another post, you specifically claimed that students are not empty vessels that need to be filled but have already a relationship with music within them -- what about us ?  Aren't we still those very people you are talking about ?  Or, have we somehow morphed out of having our own relationship with music and life, and into this bottom-dwelling pond scum that knows nothing about anything of importance ?  C'mon, M4U -- you need to be smarter than that, or at the very least, you need to be more tactful !

You are essentially saying, over and over btw :  Hey !  Idiots !  You are idiots !  Let me show you why !  People are important and need to be taught that they are smart and able, but you are not !  Idiots !  Do you teach like this ?  No ?  That's why you are idiots !

And then you proceed to present your case, expecting that smart and talented people are going to fall right into your precious hands.  C'mon !  Seriously ?  You are either hoping that people can't think for themselves and will just believe everything you say, or you are actually seeing that nobody else is capable of developing anything of importance -- or at least not in comparison to you ! -- and start your pitch with this at the forefront of the whole thing.  Don't you want smart and talented people to come to respect you on their own deciding ?  Or, are you just afraid that they/we will not decide this on our own, so you must decide it for us ?

Well, don't be afraid M4U, I already think you are a genius  -- you just need to be smarter in how you handle it .

Karli, I got your point and agree with it completely!
Here I am also a student and need help, so I appreciate your help and patience with me.
Also, what is the most frostrating for me - is my English, when sometimes I miss a lot in translation.

[musicrebel4u]

Erhmmm... no .  All I have to do, in this case, is be in my own shoes.  However, I can imagine that you imagine yourself in many shoes that are in fact, not your own .

Yes, I have a heck of imagination 
Just came back from NY, where I met Soft Mozart teachers that I already trained.
Yes, they were professionals long before they met me.
Amazingly, they didn't lose any of their unique teaching styles and approaches!
The only difference - more fast and effective results (in their words).

[keypeg]

To be heard one must be able to listen.  I have nothing else to say.

[m19834]

So, here I am trying to bring this important message to you and learning from responses how to make it clear.

Here is another kind of ironic piece of feedback that I feel inclined to give you.  As I have read your posts (which, yes, I have bothered to read  ), I get the impression that one of your basic "rules" of teaching is that you don't push theory first, but only as questions are asked and as the need arises. 

This is another point where I observe you step out of your teacher's hat and stop abiding by your very teaching principles, when addressing other teachers.  For some reason, with other teachers, you start with theory first (this thread being a good example).  Why is that ?  In this case, I liken fundamentals of teaching as similar to fundamentals of music and will label them both as "theory."     

When it comes to pedagogy and teaching, you assume that questions are there before they are asked, and begin to address them with pedagogical "theory."  This leads me to believe that you are not actually aiming to teach, at least not in the manner that you claim that your teaching principles (and the ones that everybody else should follow) are built upon, but that you have something else in mind when you post.  And then you wonder why people don't just "get" your "claimed" message loud and clear ?   

What do you think about this fact-based observation I have made here, M4U ?

[musicrebel4u]

Musicrebel4U, are you not making a lot of assumptions?  I believe that you are trying to reach the teachers on this board and communicate with them.  I think many would be insulted by a "trick question".

One is insulted who wants to be insulted.

You state that teachers "drill, drill, drill" and liken this to cramming.  But DO all teachers "drill drill drill".  Do all teachers use the approach that you are surmising?

Yes, ALL the teachers have to drill with currently existing traditional music notation, because there are no way around due to eyesight limitations. They can do it creatively; they can be very talented in it and disgust the drills into games and stories. But there is an intimate relation between our senses and sounds of music and notation, where teacher has no control and just can't stand between.  

I am not a student of the piano foremost: it's my second instrument.  Because I am also an educator one of the piano teachers in another forum asked me to try her program which was written for self-learners but incorporates how she teaches youngsters.  The program was dynamic, interesting, and it created a deep understanding of a number of things through experience (guided activities).  There were no drills of the information provided in your diagrams.  In fact, note names did not feature at all initially.  I found it highly effective.

Above all: It used those principles that you have just outlined: the 3 stages.

I have been given a book called "Piano Proficiency" by Louise Guhl, and have since discovered that Ms. Guhl was a principle pedagogue of piano teaching.  There is no drilling in Guhl's system.  I am enthused.  Within the first four pages of the book, I am capable of sight reading without key signature but knowing that key signature, transposing while sight reading with both left and right hand.  This book was not written for children, but for music students for whom the piano is a second instrument so it is more abstract.

You referring me to the book that you successfully used for self-education. I asked you, how the author built the 3 stages upon basic beginner's points of support? You said that I don't read you. I do.

 Nonetheless she does not drill, and she teaches by having students EXPERIENCE things.

This is my question: how the students EXPERIENCE reading Grand Staff from the point zero?

Neither of the piano teachers that I have encountered does mindless drilling.  Neither of them fits the stereotype.

Music teachers have to deal with traditional Grand Staff, which is very difficult to comprehend. Only the most creative survive and make it successful. I am not doubting the creativity of teachers – I am doubting the existing foundation

On my own instrument I have encountered teaching which is intelligent, well thought out, experience-based, progressive, and every much along the ideas of Comenius.  In my limited exposure I have already encountered teaching which does not follow the path that you say "everyone" follows.

I am talking about music education in general. Why in order for us to learn music we have to be 'lucky' to find a good teacher? Because the system is weak.

Currently the main dialogue is happening between you and one student, with no teacher in sight, yet the dialogue is supposed to be among teachers.  One teacher has asked repeatedly for their actual approaches to be examined by dint of the content of this board.  I don't think that without such exploration there will be much of a dialogue.  Since I am a student musically speaking I am bowing out.

I am doubting foundation.

Are you sure that "all" teachers teach as you say?

Yes, I am sure. I researched the history of teaching literacy from Mid Ages to current time. 'Till people started using ABC with pictures and built gradual way, there were the same situation in your field: drills.

I would say in my training that the ideas of Comenius are the prevalent ones, and that what I have encounterd among music teachers runs contrary to what is being attributed to them, and more in line with Comenius.

Before Comenius came to existence, individuals were taught at some point. We are talking about mass education.

[musicrebel4u]

I get the impression that one of your basic "rules" of teaching is that you don't push theory first, but only as questions are asked and as the need arises. 

The basic rule of teaching is to add new knowledge to what is already mastered.

This is another point where I observe you step out of your teacher's hat and stop abiding by your very teaching principles, when addressing other teachers.  For some reason, with other teachers, you start with theory first (this thread being a good example)
.Why is that ?  In this case, I liken fundamentals of teaching as similar to fundamentals of music and will label them both as "theory."

In this particular thread music teachers already have their own
1.   experience with students,
2.   experience with music
3.   experience with pedagogy

I add 1 unknown point: Comenius

When it comes to pedagogy and teaching, you assume that questions are there before they are asked, and begin to address them with pedagogical "theory."  This leads me to believe that you are not actually aiming to teach, at least not in the manner that you claim that your teaching principles (and the ones that everybody else should follow) are built upon, but that you have something else in mind when you post.

The questions asked in this particular forum and my initial post came from such  thread. When I read about teaching problems: sight reading, hand injuries, aural training, students drop out, I decided that legacy of Comenius could be the answer to a lot of questions.

And then you wonder why people don't just "get" your "claimed" message loud and clear ? 

 
Well, I am not wondering. I know why and try to tune my explanations, but I also keep in mind that some would 'get it', when majority would 'get it'.

[m19834]

Well, I believe I have reached my current limit for pointing anything out and going back and forth in these "discussions."  This thread actually has little to do with what other teachers think and are doing, but rather it has much to do with what you think and what you are doing.  I know where to "find you" for that if I so desire, it's pasted on the majority of your posts on the forum.

I wish you the best !

[keypeg]

Music teachers have to deal with traditional Grand Staff, which is very difficult to comprehend. Only the most creative survive and make it successful. I am not doubting the creativity of teachers – I am doubting the existing foundation


....................
I am talking about music education in general. Why in order for us to learn music we have to be 'lucky' to find a good teacher? Because the system is weak.

M4U, I gave my comments primarily to act as a bridge so a dialogue could start, but since I'm a student I will step out.

I cannot identify with these things as a student.  No teacher, creative or otherwise, taught me to read the grand staff.  A piano came into my house.  I picked up my grandmother's books, and soon I was playing Clementi, Beethoven, Mozart.  Nobody drilled me.  I did not know I was supposed to drill myself.  Nobody told me it was supposed to be hard.  I had no idea until a few months ago that it is supposed to be difficult to comprehend. The grand staff is pictoral from the days of an illiterate people, and since I began young, I had the same mentality.  The voice goes up and down.  The notes go up and down.  We are accustomed to singing songs in the diatonic scale, and it is sitting right there in front of you.  Major chords sound happy, minor chords sound blue,  and cluster chords set the teeth on edge.  Cluster chords look like what they sound like.  There just, simply, is nothing earth shatteringly hard to comprehend, unless maybe you spend a lot of time trying to comprehend.  It's "just there".

I did not understand the key signatures because they were never explained.  I knew the last sharp was "ti" and the last flat was "fa" and adjusted what "didn't sound right.

But when I did learn the key signature, it was from one comment.  "It's all very simple.  F#.  F# C#.  F# C# G#.  F# C# G# D#.  Do you see?"  Yes, I saw.  That was it.  Not imaginative teaching, you might say.  But good enough to give me everything I needed.  And at the time I was not a music student.

[musicrebel4u]

M4U, I gave my comments primarily to act as a bridge so a dialogue could start, but since I'm a student I will step out.

I cannot identify with these things as a student.  No teacher, creative or otherwise, taught me to read the grand staff. 

Well, I want you to step out of your personal experience and start thinking about others' (if you are in teaching forum). I know many geniuses, concert pianists, conductors, who have no enough listeners. Enough is enough. Teaching – is something about people who can't. People like you, unfortunately, can't make any changes. Mozart played beautifully and died being poor. It is time to look at prodigies from different angle. Nothing personal! I am also a prodigy…

/quote]But when I did learn the key signature, it was from one comment.  "It's all very simple.  F#.  F# C#.  F# C# G#.  F# C# G# D#.  Do you see?"  Yes, I saw.  That was it.  Not imaginative teaching, you might say.  But good enough to give me everything I needed.  And at the time I was not a music student.

No, I don't see
F# F#C# etc is abstractabstractabstract
You can't teach someone to play tennis on roller blades.
Even if you find someone who can do it, I am not interested
My goal is – to teach 'average Joe'