Explaining Treble and Bass to Young Children

[rgh55]

Any ideas on explaining when to use the right hand and when to use the left? I have several students who continually confuse treble and bass. I explain when stems go down...left hand and when stems go up..right hand.  Also, high notes use right hand and low notes use left hand. The children are betweeen 5 and 7 years or age.  Any ideas?  thanks

[stevebob]

I don't understand teaching a correlation between stem direction and the hand used to play a note, as there isn't one.  Notes played by both hands usually aren't printed on the same staff, and stem direction is irrelevant.  This could be create a misunderstanding that will be difficult to overcome—or perhaps there's something here that I've misunderstood instead. 

I am guessing that if playing with right and/or left hands is even an issue, the grand staff would already have been introduced to the grand staff.  Isn't the simplest (and, incidentally, the most accurate) explanation that the upper staff generally corresponds to the right hand and the lower staff to the left hand?

[Bob]

RH generally plays the treble.  LH, the bass.

The treble clef is just a fancy G pointing to G.  The bass is an F pointing to F.

One of my first teachers said the staff used to be eleven lines and then they took out the line where middle C is. 

Remind them to listen to themselves playing and ask if it sounds right.  Playing the wrong clef would sound a little off.

[honeywill]

Turn the music 90 degrees clockwise and show them that the treble clef is on the R, bass on the L. This is also quite useful for getting across the idea of up and down on the staff and keyboard.

[mcdiddy1]

Completely understand this post because as many times I explain treble clef is with the right and Bass clef some students struggle with the concept. Possibly because when we read we just read from right to left and they do not understand how to understand clefs. I agree stem direction has nothing to do with the hands. One possible way to cure them of this bad habit is to have them tap the notes in their laps or have the students point to the notes either with their right hand hand or point with their left hands.

[john90]

Turn the music 90 degrees clockwise and show them that the treble clef is on the R, bass on the L. This is also quite useful for getting across the idea of up and down on the staff and keyboard.

Thanks for this honeywill, especially the up and down on the staff corresponding to the keyboard.

[slane]

What happens if you rotate the page the wrong way .. seems too error prone for a 7 year old to me!

Is the problem that they are say, playing an F in the right hand, instead of a G in the left because those two notes look the same when reflected through the plane of symmetry between the two staves?

My daughter does the same. Its not that she doesn't know that the top stave is (generally) played wiht the right and the bottom with the left, but the notes look the same to her in the same way that in the alphabet, the b and d look the same to beginner readers, and she still writes them wrong at the ripe old age of 7. In other words its a developmental perception thing where symmetric objects look the same to them. And why not? How often in the "wild" would a caveman have to distinguish the mirror image of two otherwise idential objects??

Its probably worth discussing the sameness of G and F, B and D etc. with them so they have more awareness of the issue. I think I must have had similar issues when I learnt, because I remember noticing the sameness of F&G etc. myself at that age.

Anyhoo ... I find all I have to do is say, "which hand are you playing first?" before she starts. She's only just starting to play two hands togethor now, so generally her pieces start with one hand or the other. And if she's playing two hands I say "What's your right hand doing first?" and "What's your left hand doing?". Once she starts she *generally* gets it right all the way through. If she doesn't I get her to play the bars she mucked up again.

[dbmusic]

 Many children at this age still confuse left and right.....in fact statistics say that many adults do too! Bearing this in mind a colleague of mine came up with the following strategy for overcoming left/right confusion with Bass and Treble clef/notes.

She calls the treble or 'G' clef the girl's clef [it's the one with all the curly, girly bits!] and the bass or 'F' clef the boy's clef, then as notes are learnt she and the student assign names corresponding to each note. They choose family names, friend's names, names that make them giggle and so on. All notes on the treble staff have girl's names and bass notes boy's names. No note in one clef has the same name. Of course the boys live in the bass - they have deep voices like Dad - and the girls live in the treble. Since the left hand is closest to the boys it gets to play those notes and vice versa. She might ask her student where 'Fred' lives - who lives next door to him - who lives two places away - which hand is in charge of Fred etc. The terms left and right have been taken out of the equation for the moment so one layer of difficulty has been neatly removed.
A list of the names chosen is kept in each student's diary for obvious reasons!

I was sceptical at first but have since tried it with my young students and had 100% success rate. They 'own' the notes because they named them. They never muddle up which hand plays middle C because it is either 'Charlotte' or 'Charlie'. If a student is lucky enough to be able to name a note after themselves, it's never forgotten! I've found that by the time the students have mastered the notes an octave below and above middle C [and mostly earlier than this] their ability to both read the staves correctly and use the appropriate hand has been established and the notes are referred to simply as letter names - Charlotte, Charlie, Fred and Emily die natural deaths!! The terms left and right sneak back into use and seem to be absorbed with less effort.

Give it a try - I'd love to know how it works for you.

[fleetfingers]

dbmusic, I find your idea intriguing. I have done something similar with my three-year-old student.

One day, she was playing twinkle during her lesson, and when she got to the A, I reminded her to use the 5 finger. She thought for a second, put up her pinky, and said with a smile, "This one is a baby...like me". So, on the spot, I named her pinky after her. We now refer to it as "Baby Holly". She was so happy about it, that I helped her assign a personality to each of her fingers. They are:

1 - Anna (my other 3-year-old who takes classes with her)
2 - Ms. Rachel (me (this is not really my name; in fact, all of the names are changed, of course))
3 - Daddy (cause he's the tallest)
4 - Mommy (cause she's between Holly and Daddy)
5 - Baby Holly

It sounds silly but - seriously - it works. You could use siblings, too, but she doesn't have any. We don't use numbers at all anymore. It's always, "Now it's Daddy's turn! Daddy gets to play now!" and stuff like that. She loves it. She does know the finger numbers since I did that with her first, so hopefully she'll transition OK as she gets older. But the names keep her interested, and her responses to my prompts are so much more instantaneous.

Anyway, I will think about trying your idea of giving each note a name. I'm a little nervous to try it because if it doesn't work, I've wasted time and embarrassed myself in the process. But if you're guaranteeing success...hmm...maybe.

[mcdiddy1]

I love the ideas about naming fingers after family members and  naming the clefs a girl clef or boys clef. Its very cleaver and wish I had thought of it all this time, it could have helped a whole bunch of kids. I am definetly going to use that when I go teaching this week.

[nyiregyhazi]

What happens if you rotate the page the wrong way .. seems too error prone for a 7 year old to me!

Is the problem that they are say, playing an F in the right hand, instead of a G in the left because those two notes look the same when reflected through the plane of symmetry between the two staves?

I doubt if that's a symmetry issue. More likely that they are associating what they see with a finger instead of with a letter- then forgetting which of the two options to use. Thinking about letters above fingers would fix this very quickly. Turning the page the wrong way is not a problem. Simply explain that is l is for both low and left. When the two are associated (which hardly takes advanced learning skills), there's not a problem at all.

[dbmusic]

Hi Fleetfingers -  interesting to hear your strategy with naming each finger. I understand how that would work with a 3 year old so much better than finger numbers. Whilst a 3 year can count to 5  easily enough, knowing the order of the fingers -  thumbs 1, little finger 5 etc isn't as easy as it sounds. Our LH is 'back to front' compared to the RH! Many times I've seen a young student hold up their hand and count on to find the number that belongs to a particular finger. How frustrating and time consuming when you're trying to do several other things at the same time!!!

As you say - your 3 year old relates easily to your method and that's the key. It uses information they have already internalised. That, in turn,  frees up the brain to focus on other parts of the music reading task.

Look forward to progress reports from you.

[gerryjay]

children that age can't understand what you are talking about. music notation is a code with many rules that represents a highly abstract concept of music sounds and music making. so, no matter what your approach, your kids will not understand until they are 10, 11 years old.

notwithstanding, they can learn what to do. so, the best approach is to give little chunks each time and let them memorize each one.

best regards!

[dbmusic]

children that age can't understand what you are talking about. music notation is a code with many rules that represents a highly abstract concept of music sounds and music making. so, no matter what your approach, your kids will not understand until they are 10, 11 years old.

notwithstanding, they can learn what to do. so, the best approach is to give little chunks each time and let them memorize each one.

best regards!

Hi gerryjay. We obviously have different experiences in this area. I agree with your second statement but disagree with your first and third statements. Some children may not understand until they're 10 or 11 years old but I have 5 year olds who most certainly do. They demonstrate their understanding through independently reading the notes from the music, finding them on the keyboard and playing them to make music. Mostly they will have heard the piece played before they start so on those occasions they will have had an aural 'jumpstart' but at times I just get them to read for the fun of it and have them listen to what comes 'out of their fingers' as one child put it! I can't imagine how this could happen unless they are actually decoding with understanding.
Does your last statement imply that young children can only learn how to read by rote or we should be teaching only via an aural method such as Dr Suzuki advocates at this age? From observing teachers using the latter, they can certainly achieve great outcomes however I don't think it's the only way - just one way.  Personally I like to use a mix of learning modes. Fascinating topic.....



 

[fleetfingers]

I like to use a mix of learning modes, as well. However, with this particular 3-year-old, I have only been using the Suzuki Method and have not begun teaching her to read; I've had her for about 3 months. I've never taught one so young and wouldn't know what materials to use for reading. I have thought about starting her on a pre-reading book, but I'm not sure if I should yet.

OK, a quick progress report: I have been working to gradually increase her attention span while at the piano and playing pieces. I start the lesson with that and will keep it going until I've 'lost' her (she will usually start talking to me about her pretty shoes - that's my first clue that her attention has wandered ). Then, we do rhythm games, puzzles, singing, dancing, etc. I was thrilled this week during her lesson because she focused at the piano for 20 minutes and played all of her pieces by herself! There were a few diversions, but they were piano-related. She asked me where the sound was coming from, so I opened the piano and showed her the strings and hammers. I let her peek in there while I played, so she could see how the music was being made. It motivated her to get back to the piano and play something herself. I've had some difficult times with her (you know, 'cause she's 3), but that was a great lesson. Made me feel good.

[gerryjay]

hi db, fascinating topic indeed.

I can't imagine how this could happen unless they are actually decoding with understanding.

well, that's the point. children 5 years old can play, there is no doubt about it (although i don't like the idea teaching an instrument so early, but that's another question). they can be taught to find the notes, to look at the symbol at the score and to find the proper key, to use the right finger, and so on. but they are not even near understanding what is going on. this is a most theoretical question, and i think we won't get anything good there, but i must stablish a parallel between music and maths. although a 5-year-old can reproduce the order of the numbers out loud, s/he will not have a clue about what counting is. that's my point.

then, i think that notation can be a fascinating game to them, but a most useless one. i'm sure you have tried this before: let the child learn a piece by ear without any notation, and let the child learn a piece by score without any listening. what works better? what is funnier? what does really make sense to s/he?

Does your last statement imply that young children can only learn how to read by rote or we should be teaching only via an aural method such as Dr Suzuki advocates at this age?

my last statement is quite simple: with anyone (teens, adults, children) who does not understand music from an analytical point of view (or point of listening, for that matter), i like to work with little pieces everytime, and find a sense there. for instance, a phrase is something manageable (a child can sing it, can memorize, can explore); a period is out of reach, and a complete work is far beyond that. so, what i say is that - without an analytical ear - it is actually impossible to go beyond a bunch of seconds each time. and i am not original: any neuroscientist or pedagogue will agree.

last, but not least, you wrote the most important thing about this: a good teacher will try many methods, combinations of them, even creating her/his own to every single child or pupil.

best regards!

[mcdiddy1]

h they can be taught to find the notes, to look at the symbol at the score and to find the proper key, to use the right finger, and so on. but they are not even near understanding what is going on.

I would have to respectfully disagree with you on that. Frankly I have seen some kids around the age or 8 or 9 play better than some adults believe it or not. As far as Kids not being able to understand what is going on, in my opinion if your are able to consistently achieve musical results you understand it, consciously or subconsciously. Take a look at child prodigies such as Sara Chang who debuted with New York Philharmonic at the age of 9 ! She was such advance music understanding beyond most teachers. Of course this is a rare, extreme case but my point would be we should be careful the limitations we place on children.

[gerryjay]

dear mcdiddy,
we don't disagree at all. some children 9 years old are, sometimes, able to understand it. and there are one-in-a-million children that just don't follow our basic human plan. i don't know any study about them, and i never knew any in a daily basis, so i can't talk anything about them.

i said we don't disagree because i was talking about regular 5-year old children.

then, i accept your invitation to walk out of topic: i did also see youngers playing very well. nevertheless, the ones that i knew the teacher as well were precise replicas of s/he. i feel that it is a great waste of a precious time that won't never come back. but i'm way out of bounds...

best!

[dbmusic]

I like to use a mix of learning modes, as well. However, with this particular 3-year-old, I have only been using the Suzuki Method and have not begun teaching her to read; I've had her for about 3 months. I've never taught one so young and wouldn't know what materials to use for reading. I have thought about starting her on a pre-reading book, but I'm not sure if I should yet.

OK, a quick progress report: I have been working to gradually increase her attention span while at the piano and playing pieces. I start the lesson with that and will keep it going until I've 'lost' her (she will usually start talking to me about her pretty shoes - that's my first clue that her attention has wandered ). Then, we do rhythm games, puzzles, singing, dancing, etc. I was thrilled this week during her lesson because she focused at the piano for 20 minutes and played all of her pieces by herself! There were a few diversions, but they were piano-related. She asked me where the sound was coming from, so I opened the piano and showed her the strings and hammers. I let her peek in there while I played, so she could see how the music was being made. It motivated her to get back to the piano and play something herself. I've had some difficult times with her (you know, 'cause she's 3), but that was a great lesson. Made me feel good.

Hi Fleetfingers - if the 3 year old were my student, I wouldn't be teaching her to read yet either unless she was exceptionally advanced. Having said that - each 3 year old is different - in fact each child is different. I liked the flow of your lesson as described - as teachers we have to tune into the child's attention  span and be ready to change directions according to the signals they provide don't we! Keeps us on our toes but it's manageable with thorough lesson planning. The reward for teacher and student is when you're both in the same zone as in your lesson above
Getting back to a comment from <jerryjay> that teaching a young child of 3,4,5 is a waste of time because they don't understand any of it  --- they should be experiencing other things---the only time I agree with this is if the child absolutely does not want to be involved in the music making process. I haven't come across a young child like that yet but I guess there are some. It doesn't mean that because a child is not attentive one day they/ or you  should give up - it might just mean they're out of sorts on that occasion. We all have our off days!!

[dbmusic]

hi db, fascinating topic indeed.
well, that's the point. children 5 years old can play, there is no doubt about it (although i don't like the idea teaching an instrument so early, but that's another question). they can be taught to find the notes, to look at the symbol at the score and to find the proper key, to use the right finger, and so on. but they are not even near understanding what is going on. this is a most theoretical question, and i think we won't get anything good there, but i must stablish a parallel between music and maths. although a 5-year-old can reproduce the order of the numbers out loud, s/he will not have a clue about what counting is. that's my point.


best regards!

Cheers

[dbmusic]

. i accept your invitation to walk out of topic: i did also see youngers playing very well. nevertheless, the ones that i knew the teacher as well were precise replicas of s/he. i feel that it is a great waste of a precious time that won't never come back. but i'm way out of bounds...

best!

  Ooh ouch! If I were turning out little replicas of me I would consider myself a dismal failure as a music teacher. I like to think of my teaching as sharing of music - of course my job is to quide and develop technique and introduce repertoire amongst other things, but equally I will validate their personal interpretation of a particular work. It may differ from mine but as long as it reflects the style of the work then their opinion has value and I respect that. I have much to learn as a teacher from my students and hopefully they will also grow as music makers with my input. Now I might need to video my next lessons to see if I actually practise what I preach!

[nyiregyhazi]

then, i accept your invitation to walk out of topic: i did also see youngers playing very well. nevertheless, the ones that i knew the teacher as well were precise replicas of s/he. i feel that it is a great waste of a precious time that won't never come back. but i'm way out of bounds.

Could you just clarify, you were talking before about learning by ear without understanding how to read music? But now you're complaining about "replicas"? Isn't that somewhat at odds with suggesting that a teaching method based solely on leading by example is better than training students to read things for themself? What better way to avoid replicas than show a student how to actually do their own reading and thinking?

[dbmusic]

Hi nyeregihazi - interesting comment. In my experience to date Suzuki students sound very much like the CD's they listen to every day in order to to their practice. That doesn't mean to say that they will continue to play like robots but they appear to  start out that way.

[dbmusic]

hi db, fascinating topic indeed.
well, that's the point. children 5 years old can play, there is no doubt about it (although i don't like the idea teaching an instrument so early, but that's another question). they can be taught to find the notes, to look at the symbol at the score and to find the proper key, to use the right finger, and so on. but they are not even near understanding what is going on. this is a most theoretical question, and i think we won't get anything good there, but i must stablish a parallel between music and maths. although a 5-year-old can reproduce the order of the numbers out loud, s/he will not have a clue about what counting is. that's my point.


best regards!

Hi gerryjay do you think it's essential that we fully understand everything before we try it? I don't have any idea about how a computer works and probably never will, but I still use it successfully for a myriad of things. As a primary teacher of young children I observe those who count by rote because it is a sequence of words they have learned but I also observe the use of numbers in a purposeful way. My 5 year old twin grandchildren are fairly 'regular' kids and they readily manipulate numbers in an abstract way.They can add, subtract and work out which is more than or less than without having concrete materials in front of them. If I ask them to go and get me a certain number of objects they are able to do that with ease. I think they have quite a few clues as to what counting is because they use it.

To take the concept of counting a little further as it applies to music  I have 5 year olds who are able to count out the beats of say 4/4 time and when they see two crotchets [1/4 notes] followed by a minim [1/2 note] understand that they will be saying 3 - 4 for the last beat and that that means it has 2 counts. If a child can articulate a concept in their own words, to me that demonstrates understanding. If they can then apply the concept in another situation - they have internalised it. What do you think?


Cheers

[dbmusic]

hi db, fascinating topic indeed.
well, that's the point. children 5 years old can play, there is no doubt about it (although i don't like the idea teaching an instrument so early, but that's another question). they can be taught to find the notes, to look at the symbol at the score and to find the proper key, to use the right finger, and so on. but they are not even near understanding what is going on. this is a most theoretical question, and i think we won't get anything good there, but i must stablish a parallel between music and maths. although a 5-year-old can reproduce the order of the numbers out loud, s/he will not have a clue about what counting is. that's my point.


best regards!

Oops - my server went down twice in the middle of this comment and now it's appeared twice.  Not sure how or whether I can delete it - not that it really matters. db

[gerryjay]

dear db and ny,
first and foremost, let me present my deep respect for the teachers and parents who believe in early training. it's a way of facing childhood and life.

the point is simple: i don't believe in that, both as a teacher and as a forthcoming father.

that said, we have basically two points to share our opinion: the understanding of children, and the performance of music by them.

the first point may be resumed in a very simple statement: people learn different things at different rates in different moments of their lifes. in my experience, children 5-year old don't have a clue about counting and, even more, about the representation of counting through abstract notation. of course, i'm based on my own experience and in the literature i read. it's perfectly possible that your background is completely different, and you are used to children that age that do counting and the like. so, it's pointless to proceed: you will say yes, and you are right; i will say no, and i'm right either.

the second issue is more delicate, and perhaps i must apologize for the way i wrote earlier. again, if your students have an independent voice, i can't know that. the ones i knew both the child and the teacher, as i said, actually were replicas.

here i must explain what i was talking about: i don't believe in listening to one CD, as i don't believe in the teacher as THE role model. if you have only one recording - or example, for that matter -, it's probably best not listening to it. but that's need another statement: people learn by contrast and repetition. that's the path to abstract reasoning and to stronger neurostructures (choose the theoretical approach you like, they all agree about that). so, if there is no contrast, there is no actual learning. well, another discussion could start about the term learning, but now i reach my point: i think our understandings of what learning is are completely different. period.

i wrote all that for the sake of our discussion, but i must resume it and ask you one simple question: are your pupils happy? they are able to - anyhow - manage rhythm? i think i'll read two yes, and i believe in you. that's the fundamental point. the rest is probably theoretical overcomplication.

going back to our topic, and to what interest our original question, there are many approaches. for a newcoming teacher, it's probably to try a lot, if not every single possibility, and discover on his/her own what do work and what do not.

well...what a post! hope you are still awake! best regards,
jay.

[dbmusic]

Hey Jay

Great post. Reading between the lines it seems we are often on the same page, even though your views are from the perspective of a forthcoming father and teacher and mine from a mother of 3, grandmother of 10 and teacher - and I think, opposite ends of the globe considering our waking hours!

The brief answers to your two questions are yes and yes.

Will reply more fully in a later post when I have time to do your effort justice.

Perhaps we should start a new topic - the adverse effects of pushing young children/readiness for learning.......?

Cheers Di

[gerryjay]

Dear DB,
I think a new topic about this matter, starting with your next considerations, would be absolutely nice. It's delightful to learn with you (all).

Btw, grandmother of 10?!? Congratulations indeed!

Best regards,
Jay.

[nyiregyhazi]

the first point may be resumed in a very simple statement: people learn different things at different rates in different moments of their lifes. in my experience, children 5-year old don't have a clue about counting and, even more, about the representation of counting through abstract notation. of course, i'm based on my own experience and in the literature i read. it's perfectly possible that your background is completely different, and you are used to children that age that do counting and the like. so, it's pointless to proceed: you will say yes, and you are right; i will say no, and i'm right either.

Even if the child does not count, I think it's very important for them to begin to understand the concept- otherwise what happens when they get difficult rhythms in later life? They listen to recordings and hope to copy it? In general, those who struggle the most with rhythm make a lot of improvement if I count out loud for them. From there I build up to them doing the counting themself. If a kid has little sense of rhythm, they need to understand what they are fitting things to. I don't think any child would struggle with the notion that a certain note goes on beat 1 and the next on beat 3 etc. It just isn't very complex. Some kids can do it simply by listening, but in such cases I'd argue that they might as well at least have an idea what they are lining up around- to start preparing for advanced skills. Especially when it comes to syncopations, feeling where the beats are can be even more important than where the notes themselves are landing. Copying doesn't cut it with some rhythms (as the ear often tends to make inaccurate assumptions about where the beat is in such rhythms), so it's really important to set the grounding in beats. Some kids can't even get simple rhythms by listening at the start- in which case it's a big help to show them the framework they are fitting everything around. It takes them out of the idea that certain notes are pretty long and others are pretty short and puts a genuine pulse into it.

Also, one of the best things about counting is that it reveals errors to the student. All too often a student fails to notice have stuck a 3/4 bar in a 4/4 piece etc. Next thing you know, they've done it 10 times and it's a difficult habit to remove in a lesson. A student who counts and judges by beats in a bar simply cannot fail to realise such an error. Even the youngest students require some degree of self-suffiency and independence- as more often than not there's no teacher to put them on track during their practise. Arguable it takes more talent to only "feel" before foundations are set than to count.

[gerryjay]

Even if the child does not count, I think it's very important for them to begin to understand the concept- otherwise what happens when they get difficult rhythms in later life? They listen to recordings and hope to copy it? In general, those who struggle the most with rhythm make a lot of improvement if I count out loud for them. From there I build up to them doing the counting themself. If a kid has little sense of rhythm, they need to understand what they are fitting things to. I don't think any child would struggle with the notion that a certain note goes on beat 1 and the next on beat 3 etc. It just isn't very complex. Some kids can do it simply by listening, but in such cases I'd argue that they might as well at least have an idea what they are lining up around- to start preparing for advanced skills. Especially when it comes to syncopations, feeling where the beats are can be even more important than where the notes themselves are landing. Copying doesn't cut it with some rhythms (as the ear often tends to make inaccurate assumptions about where the beat is in such rhythms), so it's really important to set the grounding in beats. Some kids can't even get simple rhythms by listening at the start- in which case it's a big help to show them the framework they are fitting everything around. It takes them out of the idea that certain notes are pretty long and others are pretty short and puts a genuine pulse into it.

Also, one of the best things about counting is that it reveals errors to the student. All too often a student fails to notice have stuck a 3/4 bar in a 4/4 piece etc. Next thing you know, they've done it 10 times and it's a difficult habit to remove in a lesson. A student who counts and judges by beats in a bar simply cannot fail to realise such an error. Even the youngest students require some degree of self-suffiency and independence- as more often than not there's no teacher to put them on track during their practise. Arguable it takes more talent to only "feel" before foundations are set than to count.

I think you are right, but I must clarify one point: I don't advocate any copy of anything. Just the contrary!
Best regards,
Jay.

[mcdiddy1]

This post has definetly turned into something other than treble and bass left and as shocking as this may sound I thing "coping" is a good thing!

Coping , also called rote learning is a fundamental way we learn. If the students do not learn from the teacher as a role model where eles would they learn. This is ,of course, assuming( which is not always the case) the teacher is an excellent model. If both the student and the teacher play the correct notes, rhythms, phrasing, dynamics, articulation, and style of the piece, where is the harm?  That is how we learned to speak anyways, by imitation of a role model. When we reach higher cognative levels, we are better capable to for our own unique thoughts and ideas just the same musically.

I advocate listening to recordings in the beginning as long as it is correct and not heavily relied on. It is a good idea to know what your ending goal is to be and where you are going in the music before you get there. Learning is basicly based on discrimination. We need to learn to be able to hear what is the same or different compared to what we know in order to learn. Students should hear different interpretations of their piece, as well as how what they are playing currently is different from what their end goal should be.

A far as counting in my experience it is best when rhythm is felt in the body rather than trying to figure out the numbers of beats. One the student has learned to feel steady pulse in the body then the numbers could be introduce. Most children are very capable to keeping pulse in their pieces, the teacher just has to be persistent and relentless in doing everything in rhythm. For example I have an 8 year kid who we have been drilling rhythm and counting out loud before we play and eventually I stop counting and kid this past lesson played perfectly in rhythm and all I had to do was start the beat. Pretty ordinary I know but my point is I believe we get to caught up in repeating numbers instead of instilling a sense of pulse and subdivision in students. Just a personal opinion though

[fleetfingers]

I agree with your comments on copying, mcdiddy1. Especially with children, just like with anything you teach them, they are sponges and will soak up whatever's in their environment. Whether you want them to or not, they will copy you. It's amazing how much my kids remind me of . . . well, me. Sometimes it's good; sometimes I cringe. Anyway, when they become teenagers, they will go through a stage of discovering who they are independent of their parents and hopefully find their own way. With piano students, it could be the same process. They copy and follow the teacher's instructions, then eventually they'll want to explore their own ideas and go their own way. That's the natural course. If someone starts lessons as a teenager or adult, it's different. But, with kids, they will do what you say and copy what they see and hear. There is nothing wrong with that, especially if you are an excellent model.

[slane]

Today my daughter was playing one of her pieces very nicely but each time she came to the 2nd last measure she'd play left hand instead of right! Finally she threw herself forward in frustration and banged her nose on the music rest and that was the end of the lesson.   

Perhaps tomorrow she'll take my advice and start with the tricky phrase first .. but I doubt it.