https://www.ispci.timofeev.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=218&Itemid=227This is a very interesting article. Obviously, it's only one resource, but it does assert twice that Bartok did not regularly teach beginning students. In fact, it seems his only experience was working with his son, Peter, to whom the collection is dedicated. And, as keypeg said, the collection is old. The article below (again, I realize I am quoting secondary sources) indicates that Peter Bartok was 9 in 1933. A lot has happened since then, especially in the world of pedagogy. This article is by Elissa Milne, an Australian teacher who also has something to say about the collection:
https://elissamilne.wordpress.com/2010/04/27/mikrokosmos-heresy/I'm not saying never teach Mikrokosmos (okay, I did say that, but let's say I'm fine with you wanting to use it. Plus, you know what they say, "Never say never"). In fact, Elissa Milne makes some compelling observations that might persuade one to add the collection to one's teaching repertoire, though her conclusion isn't necessarily that you should use it. What I am saying is that it is not a first lesson piece. The first piece, while it looks very simple, is truly not for an absolute beginner. There are different note values and rests. 1) It is hard to understand a rest (silence) unless you fully understand continuous line in melody. 2) Understanding of rhythm must begin with understanding a steady beat. Therefore, the only natural start for notation can be the note which most often gets one beat, the quarter note.
It is written on the staff, so the student needs to be able to find treble and bass Cs. There is a bit of changing direction in ways that aren't necessary predictable. If you've worked with kids, you know they confuse up and down a lot and can be blind to changes in direction. My biggest problem is that the melodies are written in parallel unisons. 1) Let's start with the basic observation that the hands are not constructed that way, they are mirror images of each other. Therefore, if there is to be playing in both hands at the same time (and I would argue that should wait), the most natural way to begin is contrary motion. 2) What happens when the student figures out that all the pieces at the beginning of the collection are written in octaves? The student reads only the treble clef and just makes sure the left hand plays the same thing. 3) Go looking for melodies in octaves in actual literature. I am sure you can find it, but you're going to find many, many more examples where the hands don't do the same thing. And I would argue that's easier technically. It's just a matter of coordination.
(One of the silliest things that still persists in modern pedagogy is the teaching of parallel scales. Let's list some pieces that use parallel scales: Brahms Rhapsody in B minor, Chopin G minor Ballade, Bach-Busoni Chaconne. Notice anything? It's hard to come up with examples, and they're at the pinnacle of piano literature. Why then, is it required on so many piano exams?)
Finally, it just plain isn't catchy. It's not the kind of piece that a student runs home and says "Mommy! Look what I can do!" And I know that's a tall order, but there's also this: Even if you get the student to play the piece correctly with you in the lesson, what's to say they'll be able to remember how to do it when they get home? Already they're faced with defeat, and that kills motivation. Our big objective is to make kids feel like they can play the piano, like they are already good at it. Success builds motivation.
So, really, go ahead and teach the whole collection. I'm not saying don't. I'm saying it's not a good idea for the very first lesson. A student should always be studying a variety of music, and the pieces are definitely short enough that they can be taught alongside another course of study. It's great that the collection introduces students to different modalities early on (though this can also be done through improvisation) and that they get used to sounds outside of the major/minor system. I think his suggestion to stomp on the beat for tied notes is wonderful, and I will probably start using that myself.
I understand that I am a random teacher. I understand that seeing kids five days a week doesn't necessarily qualify me to understand how they work. I can tell you that I hold a master's degree in piano pedagogy which involves comparative study of most of the currently published methods, extensive reading on child psychology, development, and music education, as well as examination of a large body of teaching literature. I have observed and taught under master teachers, including a fellowship at the New School for Music Study, a division of the esteemed Frances Clark Center for Keyboard Pedagogy. I regularly attend conferences for piano teachers and participate in organizations at the local and state levels. My hope is to share what I've learned from all those experiences with as many teachers as I can.
I also would like to learn more that I don't know. I would love it if you would explain the rationale for your lesson plan in detail. How does it present the information in a way that's relatable to children? How does it sustain a child's interest throughout the lesson? How does it get them excited to learn more? You say that it is better to listen to Bartok than a random teacher. Well, the evidence suggests Bartok
wasn't a teacher, and certainly not a teacher of beginning children.
Topic: A beginner student's first lesson