New teacher, new student, difficulty teaching to read

[nyiregyhazi]

Niereghazi, you stated previously that a pre-grade 1 student should be able to sight read keeping in mind  key signature, time signature etc. (per the Guhl list I gave).  I'm wondering whether perhaps you teach older students rather than young children. (?)  I cannot see either of the things that you recommend for young children.  They are just learning their alphabet and how to do math up to ten at age 6.  They are not yet abstract thinkers.  I cannot see a child that young contending with "major third" let alone "diminished fourth".

I think you misunderstand my point. I'm not saying they should know the details. I'm saying that for them to understand the numbering system of intervals does not in anyway preclude understanding it deeper later or do anything to mislead. You can mention in passing that not all thirds are the same and say that more information will be passed on later. Then there's no reason at all why you would confuse anyone. However, I think students should understand the concept of intervals from a first to a fifth, very early on. Even with respect to aural training, it's the quickest way to identify the pitch. It's just that in sigh-singing, you then have understand some additional (not different!) specifics, to know exactly what note to sing.

The youngest students I teach are around 7. From the very start of getting students reading, I believe they should be able to think either in letter-based intervals, or in the letters themselves.

[cjp_piano]

The youngest students I teach are around 7. From the very start of getting students reading, I believe they should be able to think either in letter-based intervals, or in the letters themselves.

What do you mean by "letter-based intervals?" For my students, they learn to read by intervals mostly. They find the first note and then read distances from there. "finger 5 on G, down, up, down, up, skip down, skip down." This translates to fingers 5 4 5 4 5 3 1 and letters G F G F G E C, but the letters are actually the LEAST important in my opinion.

[keypeg]

nm

[nyiregyhazi]

What do you mean by "letter-based intervals?" For my students, they learn to read by intervals mostly. They find the first note and then read distances from there. "finger 5 on G, down, up, down, up, skip down, skip down." This translates to fingers 5 4 5 4 5 3 1 and letters G F G F G E C, but the letters are actually the LEAST important in my opinion.

I mean letter based intervals in terms of how many letters apart eg. a third- which could be major or minor or even augmented etc.. The point is that anything that is notated two letters apart (whether the letters are sharpened, flattened or whatever) is some kind of third. Not that letters have to be consciously involved to recognise one on the page, by any means, but it's the difference between the letters that define it as being a third. That's why C- Flat is a diminished fourth- regardless of whether it appears the same as a major third when played on the piano.

I'd have to disagree very strongly regarding the letters issue. In the past, I encouraged one student to work this way- and later came to realise that she simply didn't know what letters she was playing on any of the notes. It can be (almost) as bad as playing by finger numbers!

It's essential to work both way. Letters are only unimportant if you can identify them both on page and piano without a moment's hesitation. Although I rarely consciously think about letters, I can say what they are in an instant, if I have to. Many students who read solely by interval have to stop and ponder before they have the first clue what letter they are looking at on the page or on the piano. Anyone who can only read by letter or only by interval will necessarily be poorer for it. All good readers have full access to both- and read with a combination of knowing the absolute location of any single notated pitch and being able to cross-reference pitches.

[fleetfingers]

I also think they should know intervals AND letter names. Interesting - I just came from an event where I had to play a song transposed (for the singer) into a lower key. The highest notes of the chords on the right hand were A, B, and middle C. Even though I consider myself to be able to read intervals on the staff pretty well, reading intervals on the ledgers lines was hard to do. I actually did something that I haven't done in a very long time: I wrote letters beside my notes! What I realized is that I DO think about letters when I play. The low C didn't look like a C because it was hanging below the fourth ledger line down! It was just weird. I guess if I read it like the bass clef, it makes sense, but I'm not used to thinking that way.

I think that when I see a note on the staff, the whole picture jumps at me - the placement on the staff - and it has a character and look that I associate with a certain key on the piano. It's not like I'm thinking, "The bottom note is F, and the high note is six lines and spaces above it" and then automatically place my pinky on the D. I think of intervals as pairs of notes that work well together. For example, F and D are a sixth when F is on the bottom. But, when D is on the bottom, it's a third. So, the letter names take on certain characters and "get along" with other notes well. That was long, but what I'm getting at is that there's no way around the fact that anyone who learns to read music well becomes intimately familiar with the notes in all kinds of ways. I'm not sure you could be a good reader if you only think about letter names or if you only think about intervals.

[keypeg]

As long as the letter names/count are not associated with being the interval.  C and Eb give us the same sound and the same distance of piano keys as C and D# do, but we call one a third because there are three letters involved, and the other a second, because there are two letter names involved.  The concept of what an interval actually is, as opposed to what they are called, is at stake.  Two many things in theory are abstract and don't relate enough to reality.  A lot of theory is utilitarian - a quick way of being able to play what is written, without understanding what is really there.

[nyiregyhazi]

As long as the letter names/count are not associated with being the interval.  C and Eb give us the same sound and the same distance of piano keys as C and D# do, but we call one a third because there are three letters involved, and the other a second, because there are two letter names involved.  The concept of what an interval actually is, as opposed to what they are called, is at stake.

I don't think that reference to letter intervals makes that any more or less of a danger- especially if you make it clear that you are talking about distances between letters rather distances between pitches.

At the very outset, most students are unlikely to realise that the pitch distance between C and E is any different to the distance between E and G- unless you specifically make a point of explaining why. If you do nothing with intervals, the danger is every bit as much present- due to the very layout of the piano. I can't see any justification for omitting something so important as intervals, when they are not the source of the problem. All you have to do is give a brief explanation of why all thirds are not the same- which is already demanded by the nature of the piano's layout. Neglecting to bring them in does not solve the problem.

[cjp_piano]

I'd have to disagree very strongly regarding the letters issue. In the past, I encouraged one student to work this way- and later came to realise that she simply didn't know what letters she was playing on any of the notes. It can be (almost) as bad as playing by finger numbers!

Nah, I still disagree, it doesn't really matter what the letters are or what we call the notes. You could call C "purple" and D "penguin." The names don't really matter, what matters is that they see it on the page and they translate it to the piano. When I sight-read, and I'm quite good, I don't think of any of the letter names actually, I just see the shapes and patterns on the page and I play them. If I stop and you want me to name a letter, sure I can, but the letters don't help me read the music.

[nyiregyhazi]

Nah, I still disagree, it doesn't really matter what the letters are or what we call the notes. You could call C "purple" and D "penguin." The names don't really matter, what matters is that they see it on the page and they translate it to the piano. When I sight-read, and I'm quite good, I don't think of any of the letter names actually, I just see the shapes and patterns on the page and I play them. If I stop and you want me to name a letter, sure I can, but the letters don't help me read the music.

It really does matter. The fact that you can stop and name the letter puts you in a totally different position to a beginner who thinks letters don't matter. You have to put yourself in a position where you would not be able to do so and then ask yourself whether you could have already played the note quite so easily, without that ability.

It's true that the letters themselves don't necessarily matter. If you can unfailingly associate a note on the page with a note on the piano, the letters themselves slip into the background. However, there's no better way to be sure that this develops than to check that the student reads letters fluently. If I find a student habitually makes a specific mistake, then I typically point to the note on the page and ask what it is. Those who read letters fluently will tend to notice the mistake very quickly, tell me what the note is meant to be and then play it. Students who read letters badly will generally tend to play a seemingly random note on the piano and "ask is it that one"- before having a few more wild stabs in the dark and looking at me blankly. Until you know letters well, there's little hope of making adequate associations between the key and the notation.

It's a big mistake to take what happens when a person with experience takes focus away from the letters and to assume that students can afford to take the same approach.

[cjp_piano]

It really does matter. The fact that you can stop and name the letter puts you in a totally different position to a beginner who thinks letters don't matter.

My students who are beginners don't think letters don't matter, where are you getting this? I was just saying that they learn to read based on ups and downs and not letters. Of course they know what the letters are, but that's secondary.

It's true that the letters themselves don't necessarily matter. . . . . Until you know letters well, there's little hope of making adequate associations between the key and the notation.

I took out the middle of your paragraph, but don't those 2 statements contradict each other? You admit the letters don't matter, but then you say you have to know the letters in order to associate the key with the notation. My point is that it doesn't matter what the letter is or what you call it, as long as you can associate it! I personally don't associate the letters, I just see the notation and play it. That's what my students do as well. Maybe we just have different students as we are different teachers, haha!

It's a big mistake to take what happens when a person with experience takes focus away from the letters and to assume that students can afford to take the same approach.

Are you judging me as a teacher? Are you saying I'm the person with experience and I'm taking focus away from the letters which is detrimental to my students? Well then 

[nyiregyhazi]

Just to add to that, the problem with purely intervallic reading is that it may not develop an association between notes on the page and notes on the piano- which is exactly what those who can function without letters depend upon. Students get used to distances between fingers, but often rely so much on being in a consistent hand position that no association is made with notes on the piano. The only way to know that such an association is being formed is to train letters, just the same as intervals.

If a student thinks a third up from whatever note they played with their thumb, they may learn nothing other than what it feels like to go between those two fingers, on two white keys that feel the same as any other white keys. If a student think of a going up a third from the thumb on C to the third finger on E, they are learning in every respect. If they think that way, it doesn't matter whether they read the note E or figured it out based on the interval, as related to the C. However they did it, they will get to learn intervals, letters for notes and the direct association between which piano key is associated with each notated pitch. It cross-references all of the different aspects that go into good reading- guaranteeing the ability to associate without direct thought of letters (without falling into the trap of just feeling distances between fingers). It's a process of learning to walk before you can run.

I say this all from personal experience of having previously been very slack on training letters and having actively encouraged purer interval thinking in many students. I've since realised that this was a mistake that came from not realising how important what I already know is, in allowing me to ignore letters in my own reading. It's very easy to downplay things, after forgetting how well you've come to know them. Some students get so bogged down in letters they forget to use common sense. But many others depend so much on intervals that they get totally lost and cannot recover, if just one finger goes wrong. Both aspects need to be trained.

[mcdiddy1]

I think this is somewhat over-cautious. The distance between letters (prior to accidentals) is specifically what defines the numerical part of an interval. That's why harmonic minors technically feature an augmented 2nd- even though the interval as seen on the piano would more normally be labelled a minor third. Because the letters are adjacent, it's correctly classified as a type of 2nd. There's no need to avoid anything. To refer to a 2nd or 3rd etc. is merely to fail to be more specific. It could never be inaccurate (provided that it correctly reflects the distance between letters) and I see no reason why it would mislead.

Depends on the age of student. With students seven and up it is no big deal to explains the distance from C to D is a second and C to E is third is not a problem. But for younger students, dealing with finger numbers, counting,learning notes is more than enough for them without adding more numbering from intervals. They tend not to think in abstract terms at this point. A more important skill of learning is they are able to read note direction and staff placement. Understanding up on the staff means to go to the right is new for them and counter intuative. I like to teach what they need to know to read wel and will not condridicted later on. A skip will always be a skip and a step will be step until more accidentals become involved.

[nyiregyhazi]

Depends on the age of student. With students seven and up it is no big deal to explains the distance from C to D is a second and C to E is third is not a problem. But for younger students, dealing with finger numbers, counting,learning notes is more than enough for them without adding more numbering from intervals. They tend not to think in abstract terms at this point. A more important skill of learning is they are able to read note direction and staff placement. Understanding up on the staff means to go to the right is new for them and counter intuative. I like to teach what they need to know to read wel and will not condridicted later on. A skip will always be a skip and a step will be step until more accidentals become involved.

Yeah, I think we're fairly much on the same page. I think students at the age of 7 ought to be able to deal with thirds etc. But only a "skip" and only a "step" before that? How long could that last for? What happens when they get to a fourth and fifth? It's a good point about the countless numbers (with fingering and counting to deal with as well). However, I think it's more about getting them to notice distinctive features of each distance- ie. it's more about the concept than the numbering for intervals. Mentioning these would be about getting them sensitive to the character and feel of each interval- how far it is on the page and whether it involves one line and one space, or if they stay on a line/space etc.

Anyway, I wouldn't argue that it's essential to place heavy emphasis on the specific names of intervals straight away (assuming that they are prodded towards noticing relative distances), but my point was primarily about the fact that is won't cause any contradictions regarding more specific issues of major/minor thirds etc. The layout of the piano (and the system of representing distances between white key notes with equal distances on the page, regardless of tones and semitones) inherently puts these potential for confusion into the picture- whether you number the intervals or not. Personally, I think it's a good idea both to bring in the intervals quite early and to give a brief explanation of why not all seemingly identical distances are actually the same. Later on, you're only going to be adding the concept of major/minor etc to the interval- not changing the rules.

[cjp_piano]

Just to add to that, the problem with purely intervallic reading is that it may not develop an association between notes on the page and notes on the piano- which is exactly what those who can function without letters depend upon.

Is anyone advocating purely intervallic reading? I'm not.

[nyiregyhazi]

Is anyone advocating purely intervallic reading? I'm not.

Well, I was going on statements like this:

Nah, I still disagree, it doesn't really matter what the letters are or what we call the notes. You could call C "purple" and D "penguin." The names don't really matter, what matters is that they see it on the page and they translate it to the piano.

Perhaps you teach the letters perfectly thoroughly to all, before wishing to downplay them in your explanation?  I'm not wishing to imply anything about the quality of your teaching, here, but I do think these are very important issues to discuss, regarding what makes for truly advanced reading skills. I'm just going on the statements as you had presented them.

I'm curious, what do you do in leger lines? While I generally pick out the first 4 lines or so in either direction, without stopping to think of letters, once I get to 5 or more I have to quickly think ACEGB and then I have my note at once. What alternative is there, if you think letters don't matter? Assign colours and then memorise the sequence yellow, green, orange, black, brown- to correspond to this progression of thirds? Or are there many students who just know what note to press upon seeing such lines? I should just add, that I'm talking about getting a leger line from nowhere, as often happens- not the greater ease of having closely adjacent notes, previously.

This is just one vital role of knowing letters absolutely inside out. One thing I've recently tried with students is getting them to play slowly through with one finger, saying every letter before they play it- then to play through with one finger, saying every interval before they play it. I've actually realised that take huge benefit from doing this beginner's exercise myself. I'm actually "too good" at changing visual symbols into a physical feel for movements. By paying equal attention to both pure interval thinking AND forcing myself to think of every letter, I have to bring in much more conscious awareness of musical construction, rather than immediately translate what I see into what is simply a physical movement.

I also find it very useful to imagine the notes of a piece on the piano and to say every letter. Try this with a whole Chopin Etude. It's a great way to see how well you really know it. It's not about memorising letters, but about using letters to identify every note that you imagine. It's basically a test. By involving letters, while imagining the piece, my brain is forced to go into way more detail. It tests the quality of the mental picture. If I don't bring in letters, there's a danger that what I imagine is much vaguer and that I tolerate holes in the image. By having to identify them, any hole in picturing the notes is shown up immediately. Again, you could use colours instead (provided that they are consistent) but it's a lot quicker to use the standard labelling system. What this exercise does is to make me visualise the notes more on the piano- rather than simply remember the feel of a movement that saves me having to notice what I'm really doing.

People sometimes speak of how there are "different styles" of learning, but it increasingly strikes me that whatever style a person depends upon the most is the one that they should spend the least time feeding. When it comes to music reading, great readers are great readers because they have so many different ways into accessing the information.

[mcdiddy1]

Yeah, I think we're fairly much on the same page. I think students at the age of 7 ought to be able to deal with thirds etc. But only a "skip" and only a "step" before that? How long could that last for? What happens when they get to a fourth and fifth? It's a good point about the countless numbers (with fingering and counting to deal with as well). However, I think it's more about getting them to notice distinctive features of each distance- ie. it's more about the concept than the numbering for intervals. Mentioning these would be about getting them sensitive to the character and feel of each interval- how far it is on the page and whether it involves one line and one space, or if they stay on a line/space etc.

Anyway, I wouldn't argue that it's essential to place heavy emphasis on the specific names of intervals straight away (assuming that they are prodded towards noticing relative distances), but my point was primarily about the fact that is won't cause any contradictions regarding more specific issues of major/minor thirds etc. The layout of the piano (and the system of representing distances between white key notes with equal distances on the page, regardless of tones and semitones) inherently puts these potential for confusion into the picture- whether you number the intervals or not. Personally, I think it's a good idea both to bring in the intervals quite early and to give a brief explanation of why not all seemingly identical distances are actually the same. Later on, you're only going to be adding the concept of major/minor etc to the interval- not changing the rules.

The day the student gets to fourth you just simply call it a leap or a leap of a fourth or fifth. Having students feel the difference of feel between intervals is great but students at that age have difficulty simply identifing visually a skip or step.

For most students the explanation you give is one I do myself which most students get. For me the potential confusion comes when teaching theory in a piano lesson and you have to deal with teaching the black keys/ half-steps etc. Explaining that C to E b is a third ( but a minor third) while C to D# is a an augmented 2nd is not something easy to understand until you prior knowledge of enharmonics. Having students counting half-steps to determine what to call an interval is less important than hearing the interval  and understanding how it works harmonically. I am just imagining the senerio where the students says but I though you called it a third in this piece but now its something eles in this situation.

[nyiregyhazi]

Explaining that C to E b is a third ( but a minor third) while C to D# is a an augmented 2nd is not something easy to understand until you prior knowledge of enharmonics. Having students counting half-steps to determine what to call an interval is less important than hearing the interval  and understanding how it works harmonically.

Ah, but this is where it's actually so simple! If you teach them them to start with the distance in letters, it becomes blindingly obvious very quickly. It's not about counting the number of notes in between- but hearing makes no difference with regard to whether it's an augmented 2nd or a minor 3rd, either. The only way to determine the difference is to understand that the reference point is based on letters. Then if you count the semitones, you know it's not a minor third- because the letters are actually adjacent.

I always teach students to think of sharps/flats as starting with an adjustment from the letter i.e. think of the white key and go up or down. This cures the common habit of grabbing at randomly chosen nearby black keys and also sorts out the interval issue. Of course, when you're playing in D major, F sharp and C sharp have to be felt as "normal", not adjustments- but I think it's very important to be clear which side the black notes have come from to start with. Too many just remember which black keys to press, rather than keep a sense of the adjustment that puts them there.

[keypeg]

Explaining that C to E b is a third ( but a minor third) while C to D# is a an augmented 2nd is not something easy to understand until you prior knowledge of enharmonics.

This is the part that I was trying to get in the beginning.  If you know that an interval is a distance between sounds which has a quality that we can hear, and also is represented by distinct piano keys that are a distinct number of semitones or tones apart ---- and you know that the letter numbers (thirds etc.) is a NAME you give what you are playing presently, then later on enharmonics is easy.  It is like the guy next door is George, and Mr. Smith, and the volunteer fire fighter, and a father an an accountant.  But he is always that man with that face and voice etc.  If you know that he's always the same guy,then you don't get confused by George, Smith, fire fighter, father, accountant which are only titles and roles.

When I learned I was told that this sound I heard / notes I played were a "minor third".  Therefore I thought the name was the interval (sound).  I had to sort out the there was the sound / number of semitones on the one hand, and that there were names that had to do with number of note names, on the other hand.   I would have appreciated knowing this from the beginning.

[keypeg]

If you teach them them to start with the distance in letters, it becomes blindingly obvious very quickly.

I would feel more comfortable if you called this "number of letters (involved)" rather than distance.  Because the letters, precisely, do not connote distance accurately. CD#, CEb, and CFbb all connote the same interval (which is a distance) but they appear to be respectively larger in distance.

[nyiregyhazi]

I would feel more comfortable if you called this "number of letters (involved)" rather than distance.  Because the letters, precisely, do not connote distance accurately. CD#, CEb, and CFbb all connote the same interval (which is a distance) but they appear to be respectively larger in distance.

Both in letters and in notation the distance IS different. There's no question that a student might want to to view C-D sharp and C to F double flat as being the same thing. That's why I clarify that this is the ONLY respect in which the distance is different. It needs to have two ways of looking at it. Neither need in any way spoil the other. I think it's extremely important to go beyond the idea that sharps and flats are just a code to point to a piano key, or the sound it makes. They are notated as they are for good reason- and retaining awareness of the letter that they are attached to is usually very helpful. For example, a chord that has B flat and F sharp is a whole different issue to B flat and G flat. One illustrates stabilitiy, the other tension. Whether the note gets there from above or below is a big issue.

Also a third etc is much more than a mere "name". It directly reflects the distance on the page and the distance between the letters that you are adapting from, via any accidentals. Having this direct association is a key element of fluent reading. When you develop this element, it unifies everything in a way that makes it much easier. Every black note is tied to logically spaced out points of reference, that correspond very directly with distances in notation. Without that, the translation from page to piano can be much less direct and can end up taking much longer.

[cjp_piano]

Well, I was going on statements like this:

Nah, I still disagree, it doesn't really matter what the letters are or what we call the notes. You could call C "purple" and D "penguin." The names don't really matter, what matters is that they see it on the page and they translate it to the piano.

Perhaps you teach the letters perfectly thoroughly to all, before wishing to downplay them in your explanation?  I'm not wishing to imply anything about the quality of your teaching, here, but I do think these are very important issues to discuss, regarding what makes for truly advanced reading skills. I'm just going on the statements as you had presented them.

I didn't say I teach purely intervallic reading. I said it doesn't matter what we call the notes, as long as you can see it on the page and translate it to the piano. You even admitted that the point is to associate the note on the page with the key on the piano. That's not intervallic reading at all. Purely intervallic reading would not necessarily produce the correct notes because if all you saw was "start, up a 2nd, down a 2nd, up a third," where would you play it on the piano? Which key would you START on? So obviously I don't teach or advocate purely intervallic reading, that's ridiculous.

I'm curious, what do you do in leger lines? While I generally pick out the first 4 lines or so in either direction, without stopping to think of letters, once I get to 5 or more I have to quickly think ACEGB and then I have my note at once. What alternative is there, if you think letters don't matter? Assign colours and then memorise the sequence yellow, green, orange, black, brown- to correspond to this progression of thirds? Or are there many students who just know what note to press upon seeing such lines? I should just add, that I'm talking about getting a leger line from nowhere, as often happens- not the greater ease of having closely adjacent notes, previously. 

Good question. I still think by intervals. I can quickly recognize 3 lines as a 5th, 4 lines as a 7th and 5 lines as a 9th. So if I see a note on 5 ledger lines above the treble staff with nothing else nearby, I think "9th from A" rather than "A C E G B = B." So, once again, it's not purely intervallic because I'm STARTING from a letter name.

One thing I've recently tried with students is getting them to play slowly through with one finger, saying every letter before they play it- then to play through with one finger, saying every interval before they play it. I've actually realised that take huge benefit from doing this beginner's exercise myself. I'm actually "too good" at changing visual symbols into a physical feel for movements. By paying equal attention to both pure interval thinking AND forcing myself to think of every letter, I have to bring in much more conscious awareness of musical construction, rather than immediately translate what I see into what is simply a physical movement. 

This is a very good idea!

Just so you know, I like discussing these things and "debating" them with smart teachers. I hope you are not offended or think I'm picking a fight when I disagree. It's hard to tell what someone's sentiment is with just text on a page, but I'm saying all these things with a friendly smile   

But I've found that for a beginner to try to name every note as they are reading a new piece adds too much into the mix. Say they are reading "Mary Had a Little Lamb" in the key of C.

Name note then find it
1. Find the first note: E
2. What's the 2nd note? D
3. Where's D? here
4. 3rd note? C
5. Where's C? here
etc

OR

Just find it
1. Find the first note: E
2. Up or down? down
3. up or down? down

It seems to me like adding an extra step to translate the letter name and then find the letter name on the piano when all they really have to do is follow the ups and downs. Of course, they should know the letter names, and my students DO learn the letter names, but as far as quick response reading, they only name the first note of a phrase or group. That's just what I do and it works for me and my students.

[nyiregyhazi]

"I didn't say I teach purely intervallic reading. I said it doesn't matter what we call the notes, as long as you can see it on the page and translate it to the piano."

I just disagree slightly here. It was specifically about the idea of thinking step and jump etc. When in earlier stages, the different positions are so similar, that the student may only be feeling distances between fingers. After finding the first note, they may just think two fingers away etc. This may not develop any association to the geography of the piano. If they have to think of E being two notes away from C I believe they're much more likely to associate the symbol with the note on the piano- not just with a relative movement. They might be able to play it, but it doesn't mean they're building up any associations beyond the physical.

"You even admitted that the point is to associate the note on the page with the key on the piano. That's not intervallic reading at all. Purely intervallic reading would not necessarily produce the correct notes because if all you saw was "start, up a 2nd, down a 2nd, up a third," where would you play it on the piano?"

I don't "admit" this. I actively emphasise it. It's one of many important aspects. The problem is that once the position has been found, everything that comes AFTER this point can easily be purely done on intervals. It can mean a moments thought and then basically no more to follow. Keeping the letters involved helps keep many all important associations involved.


"Good question. I still think by intervals. I can quickly recognize 3 lines as a 5th, 4 lines as a 7th and 5 lines as a 9th. So if I see a note on 5 ledger lines above the treble staff with nothing else nearby, I think "9th from A" rather than "A C E G B = B." So, once again, it's not purely intervallic because I'm STARTING from a letter name."

Exactly. That's my point- there is constantly some form of recourse to absolute reference points. All it takes is one note to go wrong- and then you're lost, unless regularly checking. One thing I realised a few years ago is that, while I emphasised intervals in reading and though I depended almost entirely on it, I am still rubbish at reading the alto clef. I can go slowly and follow patterns, but the patterns aren't enough to give the fluency I have in regular clefs. Although I do not consciously think about letters while playing either treble or bass clef, it made me realise how much I am dependent on knowing them extremely well. Without that, intervallic reading is possible but rather hard work, in other clefs. This made me realise that concrete reference points play a huge role- including within that which I thought was scarcely related to anything but intervals.

The idea of thinking of the 9th is interesting. I can identify anything up to a 9th at one glance, when the notes are written. However, I'll have to think about the idea of trying to imagine it as a single entity, when one note is only imagined I find that thinking up in thirds has become pretty much instant, but split-seconds can make a difference. Also, I should stress that I see the letters and visualisation of the note as synomous. So, when I think through the letters I'm picturing the notes on the keyboard- not finding a letter first and then figuring out where it is on the piano as an extra step. When I say that students should continue to think in letters, I mean in the sense of relating each and every one to the note- not in the sense of letters as a separate thing. I think that's why the one finger thing is a great accompaniment to saying letters out loud.
 
"Just so you know, I like discussing these things and "debating" them with smart teachers. I hope you are not offended or think I'm picking a fight when I disagree. It's hard to tell what someone's sentiment is with just text on a page, but I'm saying all these things with a friendly smile   "

Sure- very much intended in the same spirit here!

"Just find it
1. Find the first note: E
2. Up or down? down
3. up or down? down"

I'd just add that it pays to think down= playing D and be reminding yourself what D looks like on the piano etc. Logically, it's easiest to figure out what to play with up and down. However, if you also keep track of letters, many more valuable associations are necessarily created than if you just think up/down. Also, any mistake and the student is screwed- unless they keep associating with an absolute. Something has to trigger alarm bells. Again this is the difference between an accomplished reader using intervals and a student. Students who go by interval frequently end up playing a whole series of notes too high or too low. If they are only feeling distances, they have no clue as to how far off track they have got. Accomplished readers can spot a slip at once, and pull everything back.

"It seems to me like adding an extra step to translate the letter name and then find the letter name on the piano when all they really have to do is follow the ups and downs."

Yeah, this is the big thing- I don't encourage that extra step of read and then find on the piano. That's the classic mistake in the wrong kind of letter thinking. I encourage the student to do the practical things in the easiest way i.e up/down etc. However I ALSO encourage them to have complete awareness of what letter they should be associating with the note on the page and how both that letter and notated is symbol is associate with a specific note on the piano- not merely a shift between fingers. Deeper associations don't necessarily form, when the student just takes the most direct and obvious route.

[keypeg]

Niereghazi, the part where we are probably on the same page is that you want to teach music from all of its angles.  I feel the same way only that my starting point is a different angle.

[dcstudio]

"deeper associations don't necessarily form when the student takes the most direct and obvious route"

that is a really interesting point Niereghazi...  I also like your point on "complete awareness." 

kinda makes me feel better about all that training I had.     I thought my teachers were just making it hard for me   --which they were...However, it is being "aware" that allows me to have enough confidence to disconnect a bit from the technical side of playing and concentrate more on the emotional context of the music.  This is not possible, IMO, without "deeper associations."  It is also not "fun" for me to play if I am completely immersed in technical issues.   

I believe this is the result of my training not taking the most direct and obvious route. 

thanks Nier--that was a cool post. 

[nyiregyhazi]

"deeper associations don't necessarily form when the student takes the most direct and obvious route"

that is a really interesting point Niereghazi...  I also like your point on "complete awareness."  

kinda makes me feel better about all that training I had.     I thought my teachers were just making it hard for me   --which they were...However, it is being "aware" that allows me to have enough confidence to disconnect a bit from the technical side of playing and concentrate more on the emotional context of the music.  This is not possible, IMO, without "deeper associations."  It is also not "fun" for me to play if I am completely immersed in technical issues.  

I believe this is the result of my training not taking the most direct and obvious route.  

thanks Nier--that was a cool post.  

  It was interesting today. After what I said before, I actually had to specifically tell a student today to forget about which notes he was playing and simply associate the direction of notation with going up a finger or down a finger! He was struggling with some of the easier introductory pieces and kept playing middle C with the wrong hand, rather than associating visual continuity with the physical continuity of going between fingers. Of course, I'll want to go back to encouraging deeper associations with the letters and notes on the piano, rather than purely the physical issue. However, I think I'm going to have to encourage him to make it purely physical for the time being. It was an interesting reminder of how far you have to tip the balance at times, in order to help with an individual case.

[cjp_piano]

It was interesting today. After what I said before, I actually had to specifically tell a student today to forget about which notes he was playing and simply associate the direction of notation with going up a finger or down a finger! He was struggling with some of the easier introductory pieces and kept playing middle C with the wrong hand, rather than associating visual continuity with the physical continuity of going between fingers. Of course, I'll want to go back to encouraging deeper associations with the letters and notes on the piano, rather than purely the physical issue. However, I think I'm going to have to encourage him to make it purely physical for the time being. It was an interesting reminder of how far you have to tip the balance at times, in order to help with an individual case.

 

[dcstudio]

   Cool ---  really cool!