Rhythm must be taught in isolation

[faulty_damper]

The best method of teaching the concept of rhythm and the related notation is by showing them without using the piano or any kind of repetoire.  This firmly establishes a generic understanding which can later be applied to actual repetoire.

If repetoire is used to teach rhythm, there is the extremely difficult task of extrapolation.  Students must take the concept out of context to apply their understanding.  This is a very difficult task because the concept was learned as a single unit with the music.  In other words, they must take out the support pillars of a building while the pillars are supporting.  It's best to teach them these pillars that the other materials can be placed with.

Here's a related article about the learning of mathematics which demonstrates this principle.
https://www.livescience.com/healthday/614815.html

[thierry13]

I think it's a pretty good idea to teach rythm in isolation. I don't think it's even a surprising idea or an uncommon one. You do not even need to back up this fact.

[faulty_damper]

There has been very little research done about the principles of teaching music.  Most of the teaching techniques are done without any evidence to support the effectiveness.  This is true even in methods such as Kodaly, Orff, and Dalcroze.  These methods developed from a pragmatic approach, not a scientific one.  This kind of teaching priciple comes from experience, not verifiable science which means there will be a large variability as to the results depending on the teacher.
This also means that any advancement in methodology will depend on previous experience, depending on how reliable that experience was.

Teaching rhythm in isolation is the more effective method to some but not every piano teacher actually teaches this aspect of music in such a manner; rhythm is usually combined with the playing of the written notes. 

Not every piano teacher is a music teacher.  As ironic as this sounds, the instruction of music can be learned and extrapolated to be applied to any instrument or voice, including the piano.  The musical concepts can simply be applied to another performing medium.  The only difficulty will be with the technical know-how of the instrument.  But i'm digressing.


Consider how many threads there are about rhythm in this forum.  Rhythm is a very easy thing to learn and the association with sound and written notation is not much more difficult.  Then why do so many piano students have such problems with rhythm?

Because the rhythms they learned were only associated with a certain piece of music - they could not extrapolate them and apply them to other pieces even when there are similar rhythmic patterns.  Therefore, rhythm should be taught in a manner that the student will be able to extrapolate and apply to actual pieces of music.

[Bob]

I'd think I'd still apply it to music as soon as possible. 

And do lots of music so they're not engraining just that one piece.

They will get bored to death if they do too many rhythm exercises without applying it to anything.

[keyofc]

I agree, Bob.
Rhythm in a vaccuum is an interesting as anything else in a vaccuum.


I do teach off - staff notation to beginners so they can focus more on the rhtym without being overwhelmed with the grandstaff at first, but they are still playing music.

But for those who teach it in isolation - what are some ways you do it creatively?

[faulty_damper]

Rhythm in isolation can be very interesting if the teacher knows how to teach it well.  It's music without melody or harmony and also the basis of melody and harmony.  It's also easy to grasp because our minds interpret electrical signals that sound like rhythms and beats which may be why percussion music is so prevalent, like minor 3rds in speaking patterns across cultures.

Rhythm must be taught in isolation before making an association with written notation.  This eliminates the possibility of aural-visual contamination which delays learning; only the necessary parts of the mind are activated to learn the rhythm.  When you introduce the notation simultaneously while instructing that rhythm, unnecessary parts of the mind work to comprehend it visually - sound is not heard from the eyes!

The application of rhythm (both performing and reading) to a piece should only be done when the student has displayed elementary mastery skills (confidence and ease of performing of the skill) so that when other aspects of performance are included, this is one skill that does not need practice.

Combining mastered skills is easier than teaching all the skills at once.  Unfortunately, most method books do not present the necessary skills that must be mastered in this manner; they are all crammed together.

[term]

Why make the analysis without the synthesis?
Its just like the discussion of technique vs music as two opposing entities rather than two that belong together and entail each other.
So why take out rhythm and isolate it from the rest, learn it, and then incorporate it again into the whole - the piece itself. You're increasing the work, since one needs to reassemble all those isolated bits to get the piece how you want it; plus by working isolated on anything you neglect how it works together with all the other parts. I'm not talking about rhythm specifically, this is important to know for every isolated study.
So i prefer understanding rhythm not as an abstract entity, but how it works within the parameters of the music that i play and in relation to every other aspect such as dynamics, articulation, harmony, line etc.

But these are just concepts, the actual subjective experience of rhythm as such or within a context is different and something such methods always miss out; that makes them not applicable to every student. So I'm not saying this won't work at all, just be careful to not declare it a general truth.

Concerning the article, that is a good example of a 'half-truth'. Depending on the individual, the respected work of these adept scientists is proved plain wrong by those who do indeed need to have the concrete element in order to learn math, just simply because they're not abstract thinkers. Abstraction is as important as concretion. By the way, simply through the act of observation and experiment, such as done by these studies, the outcome is influenced; which is why studies have lost credibility since there's not one thing that could not be proven by a study.

[gyzzzmo]

I agree with that 'half-truth'. Theories are always great, but theories only work in the right context. I wish you alot of luck getting this dry stuff into a kid who rather wishes stickers and midgets for his 'accomplishments'.

[Bob]

I agree with that 'half-truth'. Theories are always great, but theories only work in the right context. I wish you alot of luck getting this dry stuff into a kid who rather wishes stickers and midgets for his 'accomplishments'.

I assuming you mean toosie rolls?    "Good job kid!  Here's a small person for you!"

I was thinking if the kid isn't happy they'll quit lessons. 

And how dry the rhythm exercises were in college.  Ugh.  As a supplement, yes.  And at the beginning they can do a lot of rhythm exercise reading.  After awhile, thinge get more complicated. 

They shouldn't be memorizing pieces over actually learning how to read music though when they're starting.