Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Teaching students to read music

You know nothing about teaching, which is pretty obvious, and next to nothing about classical music, as is even more obvious from all your posts.

unfriendly / impolite ?

No, it is intended to be insulting and is directed at me by a member that dominates this forum and doesn't like contrary ideas.

On the contrary, I invite all ideas and am open to all opinions - from people with knowledge and experience. As a teacher, I learn from other long-standing teachers that I respect about their teaching methods, and incorporate them in my own teaching.

In my day job, everything I do has to be evidence-based (because lives are at stake), and I apply that to piano teaching too. What adults do with their piano/keyboard is their business - I've stated that ad nauseam. I don't even tell anyone (here in PW or in person): "Don't use Synthesia! It will fry your brain!"......unless they ask for my opinion, of course . After all, piano is just a hobby, and nobody gets hurt if you stop playing because you are unable to progress. (You might hurt yourself trying to play La Campanella without the requisite technique, but hey, you're still having fun, right?)

But what I'd never do is to stymie a child's development or future prospects as a teacher.

You, apart from specifically targeting me again and again in your silly posts (whether because of the green-eyed monster rearing its ugly head or just because I have the knowledge and expertise that you don't, and you can't stand it), keep repeating: "Well, it's never done me any harm in my ignorance, so it must be good for everyone too" which is just about the most nonsensical reason for anyone to give so-called advice to anybody.

Instead of all these unprovoked personal attacks on me, try learning from my erudite posts for a change, eh?

Bennevis - I have seen some advanced teachers and students, and the way they teach/learn is not really as you say. Several of them have told me, explicitly, that they teach technique very deliberately to young children, and it's not just assigning pieces, but developing and correcting a number of sensations and movements. The majority of teachers who do not do this don't get the same results from their students as the few I've seen who do. I have seen someone play, after around five years, a Chopin ballade quite competently. I have watched concert pianists talk about their early experiences, and while they might have given ABRSM exams, it involved developing a finger school, as they call it, as well as a number of other skills. It involves aiming for a far higher standard than those exams. It is very different from how average teachers teach, and it is definitely not the same thing. And these other teachers and students, the majority, still pass ABRSM levels (they are not difficult). But among them you will find very few who become good enough to enter conservatory. Those who do often do so despite not having good teachers, and not because of it, as they luckily pick up correct technique largely by intuition.

Again, why do you promote yourself as an authority on teaching methods when you haven't actually taught advanced students yourself? Many of the things I say here aren't my own opinions, but those of concert pianists and teachers who have students who win competitions, enter universities or even study at universities themselves. Why are you correct, and why are they wrong, in your opinion?

Extra questions - which are good ones are :

4. Do you mind if someone begins their piano experience with Synthesia (or related products), followed later by formal piano lessons?

5. Do you think that beginning piano experience with Synthesia will entice more people to begin playing the piano and enjoying it, which would then allow more people to become enthusiastic about piano, and want to progress further by signing up for formal piano lessons?

6. Do you think that Synthesia helps with memory exercising and memory work?

7. Do you think that Synthesia helps with hand and finger independence development when the users get to learn to play the piano with both hands and all their fingers?

8. Do you believe that people in general that begin playing the piano with Synthesia will be able to take formal piano lessons later and then become highly skilled and highly competent classical pianists? If the answer is no, then provide your reasons for 'no'.

These questions - and possibly a few more - would be very nice to have in a world-wide survey, or even country-wide survey.

I know your history of learning piano, and your advocacy of jumping before one can stand, in the belief that somehow you are gaining an advanced technique from attempting something your hands and fingers are unable to do.

That's your prerogative - as I've always said, adults do what they want to do, because they're adults - but you then seem to think that teachers (99%, I think you said, which I presume includes me ) just "assign" pieces to students and let them get on with it. I've explained several times in previous posts about how my teachers (all four of them) taught, and I'm getting the feeling of déjà vu again and again with your posts: how many times have I been through all this?

OK, this is the last time. I plonk the new score in front of the student, and watch him sight-read it there and then in front of me, and observe: what's causing him problems, what is he misreading and not realizing it, what is he doing with his hands and fingers........and start correcting and guiding him there and then, including writing in extra fingerings, marking up specific notes to emphasize (that he's not voicing properly or misreading etc), and so on and so forth. Expressive indications etc can be included. It's all about teacher observation and giving correct and relevant guidance. Nothing is excluded.

That was exactly the way my teachers taught me (from when I was able to read very simple music by myself, about three months into lessons) - and it worked.

Now - can you imagine, if you can't even read the music: what's the **** point of putting any score in front of you? Or if you're struggling with basic technique, what's the point of putting something like a Chopin Ballade on the music rest and watching you flail around like a beached whale??

Do you understand my previous post now? It's not rocket science - why on earth would Chopin give his Ballade to someone whose technical level is that of Petzold's Minuet in G? Why would any reputable teacher? (Again, adults do what they like if they teach themselves, or have compliant teachers who're just happy to take their money and tell them they are great, playing fantastically well blah, blah......)

The audience in this thread is local, private, piano teachers who do not the time or resources to organize and distribute a questionnaire. You will need to find another source for getting this done.

All that Synthesia stuff is far more complicated than reading notes. All of the problem of reading notes are artificial. Actually reading notes is one of the simplets things on earth to learn. I am talking about piano. You have middle C in the middle line between violin and bass clef and each white key is note note up or down. You show one octave down and one up. Tell the person to do this for next two octaves at home. Adult begginer will not need more. I am for the curiosity in few amateur piano playing groups (all far below my level, more often than not these performances while sometimes can sound good on digital piano, are often plain pain to watch). But noone never complained about difficulties in reading sheet music.

Synthesia looks cool on youtube, and this is where it's usability ends.

Point is people think that they are begineers, looking us professionals plays black pages of Rachmaninov and than thinking we do if flawlessly up from the first look.

Therefore they should start with beginner pieces written for them. One note in each hand, no articulation markings and so on.

I really do not know why this topic is always bringing so much of discussion that sheet notes are hard to learn. They are hard for lazy people. The McCartney and Elton is good example. And eventually all of the sweet Beatles melodies have been finally rearranged and written for professional musicians who actually played them. I truly believe that Paul can actually excellently read sheet music after all of the years spend in music. I think it just sells well.

The only true well known pianists who I know truly couldn't read music was (If I am not mistaken) Bill Evans. But hey, wanderkids are happening here in there. Richter and Godowsky were also self-taught (well, actually sort-of).

Again, Synthesia and other similar stuff like stickers on keys and so on are just distractors, not tools helping in development.

Notes are alphabet of music, period.

That's untrue. Notes are not alphabet of music. They actually have nothing to do with 'alphabet'. Notes are associated with audible frequencies - pitches. And on the piano, the pitches are arranged in particular frequency patterns that just so-happen provide a way for us to create our particular styles of music - from that arranged set of pitches. For example, the concert pitch set. And piano instruments have their own characteristic sound - timbre.

Here - the OP brought up the subject of synthesia for their own reason(s), which wasn't actually explained in the opening post - for the reason that the questions are being asked. But - as we know - this thread is a spin-off from the adult beginner thread called 'what the heck?!'

I'm assuming that the OP is gathering information that helps the OP to make cases against computer graphics - tetris type methods of learning some or many piano pieces, where people can remember note sequences after spending adequate time, as well as developing brain/muscle 'memory' - so that they can play particular pieces better than the way that you, bennevis or I can play ----- certain pieces -- of piano music - after having not just learned from synthesia, but also learning about hand/finger/body control and also drawing from their own music talent and ability. Noting that they do play the piano. Actually play. Yes ----- they do. Regardless of how little or how many pieces of music they remember and learn ----- they will certainly have exercised their memory, and also will have experience with the hand independence. And they will understand and know that they can proceed to the next stage - if they want ----- formal music/piano lessons.

So - one of the main questions for piano teachers is --- are you happy if many people started their piano journey synthesia, and happy for them to be playing tunes on the piano - and enjoying it, and then they will proceed afterward (if they want to) with formal piano lessons?

-Bill Evans studied music and could read and knew theory.

-I tuned a piano for a kid who had a piano class at a school. The mother told me he was very advanced and the teacher gave him material to learn different from the other students and was interested in me teaching him.
I meet him and asked him to play something. Forget what it was, but he couldn't handle it. I asked him some basic questions like can you play scales or arpeggios? Nope. Pointed to a note on the piano and he had hard time naming it. Couldn't name a note on music within the staff. Yet this kid wanted to work on Chopin etudes and the teacher had him get a copy of WTC. I liked his ambition but he's skipping building blocks and I wanted no part of this. Lacked technic and reading skills. I doubt he'd get through Fur Elise. Made no sense.

-The question of using synesthesia. Is this not rare? I've never had a student with it.
If I understand right a Japanese teacher discovered it can be taught if the child is 3 yrs old or younger.

JohgerJazz Synthesia
Could you possibly be confusing Synthesia with the Suzuki Method?
Synthesia is not a method, but rather a conversion of the notes to a falling display on a simulated keyboard. There is no notation and no recommended fingering. The student learns by placing his finger on the same note as indicated by the electronic display.

Suziki is an actual method where the student’s initial learning is by rote, with the focus on hearing the music snd learning to play with proper inflection snd articulation. Often, the teacher will begin standard learning to read after one-two years of Suzuki.
Of course, this is a simplified explanation of the method.

This is Synthesia

Even disregarding the personal attacks, what you've written has nothing to do with what I said. You're also misrepresenting me as some kind of adult beginner who knows nothing about "real" piano playing, which at this point seems very intentional --you just want to dominate others on this forum, and it's quite apparent -- otherwise you would actually respond to the damn point instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks.

Knowing the alphabet and reading fluently are different.

Not really. Reading sheet music somewhat fluently takes maybe 2 years at least. Imagine you're an adult who likes the Up theme and just wants to play that. If you're okay with coordination, you can pick it up from synthesia in a few weeks. It's much more frustrating to do so from sheet music, and ime it's also harder to remember if you don't easily recognize the chords (this was my experience trying to learn a Chopin Nocturne, for example). Now, if the said person was serious about playing piano for several years, you could argue that they were just being kind of lazy. But telling people to wait for a few years before playing simple themes is very likely to get them disheartened and quit playing entirely. And this isn't some complete hypothetical, I know that early successes were part of what motivated me to keep going. I know a number of people who taught themselves relatively simple pieces such as the Amelie theme using synthesia. They wouldn't have learned it if they had to teach themselves an entire system of notation in addition. These are people who probably wouldn't have learned piano at all if not for that. They were also busy with college, and if you told them that it would take them an hour a day for a year to learn it properly, they would quit, and who could blame them? A year of lessons runs into thousands of dollars -- and college students (as well as low-paid workers) just can't find that kind of money in addition to their other commitments in most cases. But once people realize that some level of achievement is possible for them, they are much more likely to invest in the piano in the future.

If something takes dedicated daily effort over years to learn, by definition it is hard! Otherwise, calculus would be "easy" too.

The link to the Synthesia screen shot is at the top of the post—- sorry for the confusion

I don't have time to read through all your past posts to find out how advanced you are, but what I'm seeing is very odd - you are asking about learning a Chopin Ballade and yet you're still using Synthesia to play a pop song.

My advice is, if you are serious about becoming good in classical, you need to stop learning anything via Synthesia. Those who are dependant on it never stop, and it is very unhelpful in your future development as a serious classical pianist, if that is what you hope to be.

I don't teach adults, but my colleague who does rolls her eyes at her students who started 'learning' with Synthesia, and they find it almost impossible to develop good reading skills, because they know they can keep falling back on it whenever they find reading music difficult.

The thread was certainly not intended to degrade pianists who play by ear since it was about standard notation and synthesia. Neither was it intended to denigrate teachers who use synthesia, if those teachers exist. I was simply trying to find out if any teachers teach students using synthesia.

Yes, that is exactly why I asked it.

None of what you wrote above disagrees with anything bennevis wrote. The exam system he follows has technical requirements at every level. He never said he doesn't teach technique to his students.

Some good teachers do teach technique in more detail then what might be required in the exams or at least to get a very high score on the technical part of the exams. But I think such a detailed approach is mostly suitable for the most highly motivated and talented students. Average students are not going to practice several hours/day and devote considerable time to perfecting technique with the goal of becoming high level classical pianists.

I agree with almost all of your post except the above. All three of those pianists could certainly read music. Bill Evans' had a degree in classical piano performance which may be one reason why his tone production was so terrific. There are some terrific pianists who never learned to read music. The only one, not including blind pianists, I can think of is Erroll Garner. I'm sure there are other terrific jazz pianists who cannot read music although the number is very small.

This summary of how teachers teach technique does not match my experience as a scrappy, no-talent kid beginning lessons. I was taught a great deal of detail from the beginning- long before my teacher knew my interest or capability. I still remember my first lesson in how key attack mattered—- of which I was initially skeptical and simultaneously awed with. That is the way she taught.

How is it decided what ‘most teachers do?’ Mine was just a normal neighborhood teacher.

Really?
I thought I was responding to every single one of your points (that 99% of teachers are rubbish, don't teach technique, only "assign" pieces, blah, blah.....and that only you know that, which means that 99% of students are too stupid to realize that.)

I thought I was responding to your point, but maybe I was mistaken.........so here's your chance to tell me again, clearly, without beating about the bush: what is your point that I haven't answered?