Why teach a beginner to read first?

[dcstudio]

As a teacher--I would honestly like your opinions on this.
I am not trying to start a battle--but why?  why is teaching a student to read the most important thing?  Why do people equate good readers and good players?  They are not always the same.  Why is so little empahsis put on enjoying the act of playing the instrument while teaching the doctrines of theory, note recognition, hand position, etc..is the most important thing? 

I have simply found that teaching a child to enjoy banging on the piano first, will have amazing results later on.  If they are taught early that the piano WILL render music with very little effort, they will seem more likely to want to learn to do bigger things and take on greater challenges.

I teach my students to read (of course) but I also teach them to play by ear--yes, I teach my students to play by ear and I'm proud of it
any thoughts are welcomed

[perfect_pitch]

Why do we teach the rudimentary elements of the english language to students?

We do it, so they understand the basics of the language, so they can learn how those parts go together to form the words and sentences used. We are teaching them the skills to become independent learners of the language and to read themselves.

Why should the musical language be any different? It is our goal as a music teacher to teach them how to understand the musical language. What is the point of being paid every half-hour/hour if we are not teaching the students to begin understanding the elements of music and to help them become competent learners that can begin to understand the makings of music?

I have no problem to teachers who teach both, but to the teachers of the Suzuki method who rely on students learning solely by ear - I have much disgust for them. They are robbing these students of their money and their ability to understand fully the music.

Do we want students to read the language... or repeat it like a parrot does?

[keypeg]

Tbh, a child learns to read after he has experienced language, and that experience included experimenting and exploration.  The teaching of reading and writing is also full of controversy - especially of English with its nonsensical spelling.  We vacillate between "whole language approach" and "phonetics" and have lots of poor readers and writers and also illiterates.  Maybe it's not such a good analogy.   

Maybe what is taught in music should be balanced.  I learned self-taught and had some odd ways of reading and have had to relearn.  When I learned on my own, however, I was exploring: not how to play my favorite tune, but playing around with things like intervals, expanding small groups of notes into melodies, hearing patterns in existing music.  Isn't that what children do with language?  They get fascinated by the sound of "s", they say "I runned" and they make up nonsense words.  All of that is a precursor to formal language learning.   For myself, when I did finally learn music formally at a late age, all those explorations made the formal stuff make sense.

There seems to be this disconnection between what is taught in music, and the music itself.  Should there be a split between learning to read and learning to hear music?  I don't think that Suzuki is truly "hearing" either.  Listening to a melody and imitating it is not the same as exploring sound and playing with it.  This is also not how a baby learns either.  If they did, then children would not go through the stages in language that they do.

Like, is there really a split between reading and listening, experimenting and learning formally?  Isn't there some way to bring the various parts together?  So often there is this debate between "classical" and "non-classical", ear-people and reading-people, yet aren't they holding two sides of a same coin?  And is that coin complete without the other side?

I don't like the idea of "banging away on the piano".  But exploration - yes.

[fleetfingers]

There seems to be this disconnection between what is taught in music, and the music itself.  Should there be a split between learning to read and learning to hear music?  I don't think that Suzuki is truly "hearing" either.  Listening to a melody and imitating it is not the same as exploring sound and playing with it.  This is also not how a baby learns either.  If they did, then children would not go through the stages in language that they do.

What you describe in regards to exploring sound and playing with it is what I would call "playing by ear". It's more of a creative process, and as you learn more about music theory, the creativity and exploring yield an ability to improvise and reproduce musical ideas. Suzuki generally does not teach those things, but "hearing" is something that it does teach. Despite the many weaknesses in the method, training students to listen to the music they play is one of its strengths. Think about it: if you have no score (not even an understanding of how music is notated), you have to listen in order to play. Your brain learns to focus on the sound, the melodies, the harmonies, the progressions, the phrases, how the two hands are coordinating and relating to one another. Rather than "exploring", you are being shown how to play real pieces of classical music. A Suzuki student who is paying attention will begin to notice the patterns and will develop a basic understanding of how music is organized (at least aurally). Either way, I like to think of them as two separate skills, which are both beneficial in piano playing.

If they are taught early that the piano WILL render music with very little effort, they will seem more likely to want to learn to do bigger things and take on greater challenges.

I agree! I strongly believe that children need to be taught to play more challenging music sooner. If they can't read it, that's OK - teach it to them. They will learn to play it and will love it.

why is teaching a student to read the most important thing?  Why do people equate good readers and good players?  They are not always the same.  Why is so little empahsis put on enjoying the act of playing the instrument while teaching the doctrines of theory, note recognition, hand position, etc..is the most important thing?  

Similar to your approach, I separate the skill of playing the instrument from the ability to read the music and teach both concurrently, at different levels. There is a danger, though, in letting the gap between their playing ability and reading ability become too large. You are right that good readers are not always good players, and vice versa. It is so true. I'm not sure whether I could choose which is better - playing well or reading well. They are both valuable and any aspiring pianist should strive to be good at both.

As far as teaching goes, all students should learn to read. Depending on the age, I think it's OK to not start reading right away, but it should not be delayed for too long. Again, age is the factor here and makes all the difference. Especially in the beginning stages, I think too many teachers focus all of the lesson time on reading and don't always develop the playing ability of their students as much as they could.

[dcstudio]

Thanks y'all---I was truly just looking for someone who agreed that maybe those bastien and alfred methods--or whatever method you choose to use--is incomplete if you as a teacher do not add your own experience in learning music with your students.  I had a tough time when I first realized that those methods books were pretty generic and if I truly wanted to share my gift with others I would have to make an extra effort to do so.
As a professional accompanist--I rely heavily on my blessed ability to sight-read.  However, it seems that is the only instance in which I MUST read rather than "play by ear." For me, it is so much easier to rely on my ears than my eyes.

was just wonderin' who felt the same   

[perfect_pitch]

So basically you started this post just to find someone who agrees with you?

Seems a little stupid, don't you think!

[dcstudio]

So basically you started this post just to find someone who agrees with you?

Seems a little stupid, don't you think!

...and of course a few who don't 

have a nice day

[lukebar]

I have Suzuki certification but consider myself to be using a VERY modified Suzuki approach with my young students. In a nutshell, here is what I think on this subject...

1) Sightreading is one of the most if not THE most important skills I can develop in my students. If my goal is for them to continue playing into adulthood, they need to be able to read new music fluently without much practice.

2) Starting very young students learning pieces by ear is a great idea. You can start developing their listening skills and focusing on establishing good technical habits from the very beginning.

3) Learning a piece by ear and teaching it by rote are not the same thing. I know many Suzuki teachers resort to a "WATCH me and copy me" approach, in which students are using their visual and mental capabilities to learn a piece, but may not be listening at all. This is not helpful in the long run.

4) Delaying music reading for too long is a bad idea, ESPECIALLY for pianists. Our musical notation is more complicated than just about any other instrument's. By the age of 5 or 6, students should be learning pieces from the page as well as any ear songs they are learning.

5) If a student's playing ability advances too far beyond their reading ability, it will be very hard for the reading to ever catch up. It is frustrating for students who can play repertoire at a certain level and have to go backwards and struggle with much simpler pieces. The reading must not lag too far behind.

6) There are students who rip through difficult repertoire easily, but cannot sight read to save their lives. It usually takes them a very long time to learn big, long, difficult pieces. But once they do, they've got it down solid (typical of Suzuki students.) There are also students who rip through difficult repertoire easily. They can sight-read music a level or two below their playing ability quite well, and can learn new repertoire efficiently. However, many of them couldn't play Happy Birthday when asked if they didn't have the music in front of them.

Neither of these two situations is especially desirable. Students will generally lean towards one camp or the other. It is our job to help nurture both sides of the equation, ear and eye.

Just my two cents on the matter before I go off to bed. Hope this made some sense.

- Luke

[cjp_piano]

It's definitely better to focus on playing first, reading later. As children, we don't learn to read a language as we're learning to speak it. Only after we know how to speak do we learn the written form.

The Suzuki method does not focus on reading, but that's because they learn to read music in public schools!

[fleetfingers]

Hi, Luke,

Great post. I agree with all of your points, except maybe for number 3. I feel that teaching by rote has its place; as you say, students are "using their visual and mental capabilities to learn a piece". You wouldn't want to teach everything that way, but it's good for them to look down and consider the movements of their hands and fingers. I also think copying is a great thing - students can watch a teacher and mimick the technique he/she uses to execute passages and create sounds. Again, you don't want to do this all of the time, but it has its place in learning piano. I also wonder if there are many students who, while using their "visual and mental capabilities", aren't listening. Ideally, they should be looking, thinking, and listening at the same time. Rote learning combines these three elements of piano playing and creates a wonderful synergy, which has a positive effect on a student's practice and development. If it is the only way a student is taught, I agree it's not a good approach. But used as one of many teaching tools, it can be helpful in the long run.

[dcstudio]

People are so passionate on this issue. As a working pianist I am still waiting to be handed that piece of sheet music that I've never heard or seen so I can truly "sight-read" it and get paid for it. 

However I am asked to render music by ear on a daily basis -- this skill has proven much more lucrative for me, anyway. It is a skill that I am not sure I would have if I had been forced to read before learning to play....

[keypeg]

I think this part is important, even if it's not about reading:

You wouldn't want to teach everything that way, but it's good for them to look down and consider the movements of their hands and fingers.

I am thinking of the physical part of learning to use your hands and body efficiently.  However it is reached, this part is important too.

[dcstudio]

I think this part is important, even if it's not about reading:I am thinking of the physical part of learning to use your hands and body efficiently.  However it is reached, this part is important too.
[/quote/]



the point of my question was too poll the "crowd" on their opinions.    the point is to teach students to make music which has many facets.  Many feel that reading is "necessary," simply because they don't have any other way to achieve "music" unless it is "read" from sheet a of paper.  As I am a truly rare pianist who lives in both the "reading" world and the "play by ear" world--or more simply classical vs. jazz--I see both sides.  Clearly....

"However it is reached"  is my motto as a teacher AND AS A PERFORMER--the point is to make music.

[pianoplayjl]

In my opinion it doesn't matter which you teacher first: reading or playing by ear. I think it doesn't matter because one way or the other, you are going learn both along way. But I'd be teaching how to read so as to recognise which notes correspond to the keys being played.

[cjp_piano]

In my opinion it doesn't matter which you teacher first: reading or playing by ear. I think it doesn't matter because one way or the other, you are going learn both along way. But I'd be teaching how to read so as to recognise which notes correspond to the keys being played.

I disagree. Play first, read later. Just like language: speak first, read and write later.

[pianoplayjl]

I disagree. Play first, read later. Just like language: speak first, read and write later.

Ok I think you have me convinced. great point.

[benechan]

Thought I'd share this blog entry from the piano sage blog

 Essential Piano Sight Reading Tips: for exams, or learning a new piece
https://pianosage.blogspot.com/2011/11/8-essential-piano-for-sight-reading.html

[cjp_piano]

Thought I'd share this blog entry from the piano sage blog

 Essential Piano Sight Reading Tips: for exams, or learning a new piece
https://pianosage.blogspot.com/2011/11/8-essential-piano-for-sight-reading.html

This has some good tips, but it's a lot to focus on! Make sure you play the right notes, rhythms, dynamics, tempo, and emotion!

I focus on rhythm for sight-reading, forget the rest! haha

[keypeg]

When I read that blog, I thought that as a student I would expect that my teacher would have given me those skills over the course of lessons.  They are not things that you learn in isolation for the sake of being able to sight read well in an exam.  (We don't learn for the exams anyway.  We learn so that we can become adept at music.)  I would expect that over a couple of years of lessons, I'm given music in various key signatures, learn how they work, to recognize them.  I would learn about time signatures, my teacher would make sure that I play in the proper register and so forth.  Then when I sight read I am not quickly going to flash cards and things to get those skills - they're already there.

I did read some handy advice in "Keyboard Proficiency" by Guhl, as follows:
- notice key signature and time signature before you start
- scan the page with your eyes to get a sense of the music (Guhl has you also audiating etc.)
   notice where the music will be going, etc.
- then start sight reading after you have done this, not before.

[nyiregyhazi]

I did read some handy advice in "Keyboard Proficiency" by Guhl, as follows:
- notice key signature and time signature before you start
- scan the page with your eyes to get a sense of the music (Guhl has you also audiating etc.)
   notice where the music will be going, etc.
- then start sight reading after you have done this, not before.

These are all fair point, but this ought be pre-Grade 1 advice, to be honest. I find that most sight-reading tips are extraordinarily superficial. Instead of passing on the real wisdom, they leave it to whether the student can figure out the important things or not.

The real art to preparing for sight reading is having the ability to home-in on exactly what could cause difficulties and to completely ignore that which you can deal with as you come to it. Without the ability to do so, speaking of the concept of reading through is effectively meaningless. You can plan all you like, unless you know how to go about doing so effectively. Most students simply do not understand what planning entails and hence just end up staring blankly. To get to this stage though, you already have to have mastered all kinds of aspects of reading. I think this is actually where most students fall down. They can't read well enough to make an effective plan or to isolate what needs to be prepared (and because they are not great readers, they also struggle with bits that shouldn't take any planning at all!).

Personally, I tend to advise totally ignoring dynamics on the scan through (although this depends very much on the student). They are very easy to pick out as you come to them- provided that you have worked out the real difficulties. Those who waste their time looking at dynamics tend to do a very superficial job of preparing for the real difficulties. My approach to sightreading is perhaps rather unusual (and likely to be controversial for many), but I think I'll try to write it up sometime soon.

[dcstudio]

please do write it and post it.     you have some cool ideas...would love to hear more.

[nyiregyhazi]

please do write it and post it.    you have some cool ideas...would love to hear more.

Actually, I can give a brief summary here. At some point, I'm hoping to attempt to write up a blog post that covers techniques of reading in general, from absolute beginner to advanced skills. My belief is that the basic reading itself is actually the under-developed part of many sightreaders. Encouraging the ability to blag and keep going is important- but it doesn't develop any of the core reading skills in the long term.

Anyway, this may sound crazy, but a big part of this basically to get students to have two extreme opposite modes of practise. The first features literally zero rhythm. They have to imagine someone is holding a gun to their head and even a single wrong note is punishable by death. There should be no guesswork whatsoever- but they have literally as long as it takes to think between notes. There are a number of additional specifics- in order to ensure that while they think carefully but do the movements with confidence and ease. However, I won't go into the details right now. Anyway, it sounds counterintuitive, but it can actually improve upon the cautious movements that are often seen from sightreaders who are traditionally regarded as being "too careful".

If that sounds odd (compared to the traditional "always keep going" approach) it's cancelled out by a polar opposite that probably sounds even more bizarre. They also have to play through with a completely continuous sense of rhythm and pulse- but they're not allowed to play ANY of the notes correctly. They have to play anything, keeping to the rhythm- be it a randomly selected note or even a palm cluster. It's amazing how many students you have to remind that they're specifically banned from being allowed to play correct notes, in this one!

[cjp_piano]

Anyway, this may sound crazy, but a big part of this basically to get students to have two extreme opposite modes of practise. The first features literally zero rhythm. They have to imagine someone is holding a gun to their head and even a single wrong note is punishable by death. There should be no guesswork whatsoever- but they have literally as long as it takes to think between notes. There are a number of additional specifics- in order to ensure that while they think carefully but do the movements with confidence and ease. However, I won't go into the details right now. Anyway, it sounds counterintuitive, but it can actually improve upon the cautious movements that are often seen from sightreaders who are traditionally regarded as being "too careful".

If that sounds odd (compared to the traditional "always keep going" approach) it's cancelled out by a polar opposite that probably sounds even more bizarre. They also have to play through with a completely continuous sense of rhythm and pulse- but they're not allowed to play ANY of the notes correctly. They have to play anything, keeping to the rhythm- be it a randomly selected note or even a palm cluster. It's amazing how many students you have to remind that they're specifically banned from being allowed to play correct notes, in this one!

Yes, amen! I've been teaching this way for years, I love it and I'm so glad you agree! It's actually pretty fun too, for most students, to have to get every single note right but they can play any rhythm and any speed! Then, we switch it up and they can play any notes or fingers anywhere on the piano or even hit their lap, but they have to play all the right rhythms in a steady tempo without stopping.

[dcstudio]

Yes, amen! I've been teaching this way for years, I love it and I'm so glad you agree! It's actually pretty fun too, for most students, to have to get every single note right but they can play any rhythm and any speed! Then, we switch it up and they can play any notes or fingers anywhere on the piano or even hit their lap, but they have to play all the right rhythms in a steady tempo without stopping.

...funny   that is my approach to teaching jazz improv but it works for classical rep equally well--I compose that way, too.   Theme and variations worked for Mozart

[nyiregyhazi]

Yes, amen! I've been teaching this way for years, I love it and I'm so glad you agree! It's actually pretty fun too, for most students, to have to get every single note right but they can play any rhythm and any speed! Then, we switch it up and they can play any notes or fingers anywhere on the piano or even hit their lap, but they have to play all the right rhythms in a steady tempo without stopping.

Ah, interesting to know that other people have had the same idea! I think it's essential to have extreme opposites to learn from.

[cjp_piano]

Ah, interesting to know that other people have had the same idea! I think it's essential to have extreme opposites to learn from.

Yes, I love opposites! Another example is when something is fast and staccato, practice slow and legato! Or learn a slow melody fast! I did this with a student yesterday with "We Three Kings." I had them play the melody really fast to memorize it quicker, but then it sounded like a jig, try it!

[gn622]

i beleive that the best approuch is to let them get familiar with the keys first so they can instantly know what key is which. and as you said, let them play by ear.

and only then they should start learning to read, its how i did it.

[lukebar]

Anyway, this may sound crazy, but a big part of this basically to get students to have two extreme opposite modes of practise. The first features literally zero rhythm. They have to imagine someone is holding a gun to their head and even a single wrong note is punishable by death. There should be no guesswork whatsoever- but they have literally as long as it takes to think between notes.

I use this approach with my students too, but switch it around to positive motivation. In other words, instead of a gun to the head, I ask them to pretend they are appearing on a new TV game show. They get to pick the most outlandish prize they can think of, and then I explain that all they have to do to win the prize is to play from point A to point B with ZERO mistakes- not a one. Often times, I will tell them that rhythm doesn't count, and they can take as long as needed in between notes as long as they are correct. As they progress, I might say that rhythm DOES count, but they get to choose any tempo they wish. (Quarter note = 4 might not be such a bad idea for some of them).

Of course, this is just an exercise, but I really try to get them to imagine how concentrated and deliberate their effort would be if they did have some fantastic prize on the line. It's amazing the kind of progress that this concentrated effort can yield.

[lostinidlewonder]

The young mind needs the basic tools to be able to read music but forcing them to be able to read proficiently early on to me seems a little backward. When one learns to read the language you speak you learn to speak first much earlier than reading. You do not really understand what you read if you are taught to read very early on, you merely see shape pattern, color, or some other stimulus to prompt your memory, it is different to what a reading mind would do when they read letter.

A young mind must be able to play at least a handful of pieces and focus on muscular memory as well as using the score to remind them if they forget (even though it is a slow process to read the information). I try to encourage my beginners who try to read and lament that it is so slow and burdensome, the more they stick with reading the easier it will become, it is a very uphill struggle to begin with, but sight reading exponentially rises into tiers of improvement then flattens off for long periods before exponentially rising again.

Sight reading skill will always be at a lower level than playing ability. So to force a beginner to improve their sight reading early on may bore the great majority them to tears as they only focus on simplistic pieces. So although sight reading is important, really it should only be a part of a lesson, not form the entire basis for a beginners learning routine. Sight reading after all is one of the more difficult skills to acquire and even experienced pianists who can play the piano very well cannot do so well with their reading.

One needs to be able to know the form of the keyboard without having to look at it, a beginner can hardly play the piano without looking at their hands and staring at a score, sure we can get them to do it with simple music but really that is boring to do for too long. A beginner needs to learn lots of pieces so they get to know the piano well, once they become familiar with the piano they can then start to play more without looking at their hands, then sight reading can have space for improvement.

[dcstudio]

The young mind needs the basic tools to be able to read music but forcing them to be able to read proficiently early on to me seems a little backward. When one learns to read the language you speak you learn to speak first much earlier than reading. You do not really understand what you read if you are taught to read very early on, you merely see shape pattern, color, or some other stimulus to prompt your memory, it is different to what a reading mind would do when they read letter.

A young mind must be able to play at least a handful of pieces and focus on muscular memory as well as using the score to remind them if they forget (even though it is a slow process to read the information). I try to encourage my beginners who try to read and lament that it is so slow and burdensome, the more they stick with reading the easier it will become, it is a very uphill struggle to begin with, but sight reading exponentially rises into tiers of improvement then flattens off for long periods before exponentially rising again.

Sight reading skill will always be at a lower level than playing ability. So to force a beginner to improve their sight reading early on may bore the great majority them to tears as they only focus on simplistic pieces. So although sight reading is important, really it should only be a part of a lesson, not form the entire basis for a beginners learning routine. Sight reading after all is one of the more difficult skills to acquire and even experienced pianists who can play the piano very well cannot do so well with their reading.

One needs to be able to know the form of the keyboard without having to look at it, a beginner can hardly play the piano without looking at their hands and staring at a score, sure we can get them to do it with simple music but really that is boring to do for too long. A beginner needs to learn lots of pieces so they get to know the piano well, once they become familiar with the piano they can then start to play more without looking at their hands, then sight reading can have space for improvement.

it amazes me how much we all agree here sometimes   Sometimes I think we argue--and I am guilty of it---just to argue...lol   we all want the same things for our students...we want them to love our instrument the way we do!!!  some of us just use different routes to get to the same place..