suzuki/traditional

[lea]

wot one do ya reckon is best

suziki or trad.   i reckon that both r gud, but i learnt suzuki and i still am....but even though i go to a registered suzuki teacher and all that she still teaches me tradition on top of that........its quite a good combo....but wot do u think???

[natasha]

alot of gud musicians were suzuki trained...................like ben morrison
but trad. is gud 2
but im suzuki and i have done traditional but i prefer suzuki bcos u get 2 listen and im quite gud at picking things up by hearing them, not by staring at a sheet of music! i kno a girl who does trad. but really shud do suzuki, she listens 2 all the pop songs like avril lavigne and five for fighting (superman) and she can pick up the piano part by hearing the song only once or twice.
it really depends on ur learning style i think.
natasha

[amee]

Sorry guys - what is traditional?

I'm starting to understand Suzuki (thanks for your explanations, Lea) and it seems like a really good method.

Learning by ear is important.

[natasha]

traditional people r basically the pple who dont learn by suzuki, or yamaha or whatever. its basically just looking at the music and playing it, what most people do.
luv natasha

[lea]

well said natasha!!!!

i wonder wot i would be doing if i was learning trad. !!!

lea

[amee]

I've been wondering,

with traditional, wouldn't you get to play the pieces you want to play instead of the next piece in the series?  Wouldn't you have more freedom of choice that way?

[Mellbell57]

I prefer traditional, because Suzuki places less emphasis on reading music, which I think is important. Although playing by ear may be better for some people, in the end you'lll need to learn how to read, because you cannot be dependent on hearing others play. But I may be wrong, because I don't know much about the Suzuki method.

[amee]

Even though I'm not familiar with the Suzuki method, I think I still prefer traditional.  You have limited choice in Suzuki, since all you do is learn the next piece in the book.  You cannot choose what to learn.  Also, like Mellbell57 said, it places more emphasis on ear training than reading music.

[frederic]

Ear is important but it makes us lazy at reading. Especially with the rhythm. We play how we HEAR the rhythm. We don't actually KNOW there is a dotted quaver and a semiquaver or whatever it may have been. So i find it is harder to memorize. We first need to play what is written. What we can do with the music. Then we listen to see whether we were right.

[frederic]

Oh natasha. I don't think anyone here would know Ben Morrison. Maybe they might do. Do any of you know who Ben Morrison is? He's just released a debut CD with the violin. He's quite famous here in NZ. He's in my high school.

[amee]

I know who Ben Morrison is, but then again I'm from NZ...

[lea]

omg freddie did u say ben morrison?

FREAK(he is, not u)


hehehe i can fiddle way better then himm
well nyway

wot has ben got to do wit suziki

[amee]

Well Natasha mentioned Ben Morrison in an earlier post, and he is good on the violin.  Released a debut CD, like Frederic said.

[arigatuso]

Sorry, you are confused about Suzuki. Suzuki it's a method that was basically designed for kids, (so they can start piano at 4), since they are so little, they start learning by imitation: the teacher plays and then they play. Sightreading is not a priority at this level. Of course they learn to sight read, but this is not a priority at first. The Suzuki Repertoire it's well designed, you follow it but your teacher chooses what other pieces you need to solve your specific problems. Also, you learn to play in Public because tests are in public. There is a good approach. Read more on the internet and you will see. I started with the "traditional"method, but I'm on the Suzuki now. The fact is that there is no a "traditional"method when you have a really good teacher. Suzuki teachers are well trained. And there are others well trained too.  Suzuki is very different from Yamaha method.


Best wishes,
Alejandro.