Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Sudnow

RC - The beauty of the course is that video tutorials are not needed. Unlike video instruction on YouTube, it is not necessary to see fingers on the keys.

Are you familiar with guitar tablature? There is no need to see fingers on the frets.

Also, since the method is not video based, the only way to demonstrate the method is to listen to songs voiced by Sudnow students.

Hi Tony,
I can't help but make a post here for your consideration. You have been with PM for a while now, departing and re-joining, for more than half a dozen of times. In fact, the last time you rejoined was less than 2 months ago, and you stayed no more than 2 weeks, to return to your live lessons. Your reason was you couldn't focus on both at the same time. (Now it may be that PM is not really the right thing for you, thus you aren't really "hooked", resulting in your frequent departures and returns. But that's not the issue here.) In fact even your current live teacher, you've declared at various points, on and off, that he was working for you, and then he wasn't anymore. Then there has been other times on ABF that you've declared you've found some method that is the one for you, e.g. PianoJohn. But it seems like after a short time, you leave it in search of either diversity, and/or presumably greener pastures. I just want to bring up the question for you if you may not be currently repeating this trend again, looking for yet another better method, this time feeling quite sure that Sudnow is the silver bullet. (Of course it just may be, but then again, you've great praises for other sounds or methods before, only to leave it behind after a short while.)

You say you have a 2-month summer break with your current teacher. From everything that's been said here, 2 months with the Sudnow method will certainly not get you very far at all. What happens after the summer break? It seems like from your PM experiences, pursuing 2 methods at once (online course and your live teacher) doesn't works for you. So you would need to evaluate Sudnow and decide whether you'd stay or leave, much like you did with PM. Would you start to think that Sudnow just isn't yielding you worthwhile enough results after 2 months? That would be likely as 2 months simply doesn't sound like enough at all based on what all the Sudnow members are saying here. So that's something also for you to consider.

Finally, I just want to say in the last several months, your recordings here have been sounding better and better, and there are marked improvements in all aspects of your playing. It really sounds like your teacher is doing a great job with you. Yet you are always looking elsewhere - OK, perhaps simply to supplement your lessons. But the truth is many (or all) of these methods require great commitment. To use them as supplements, you may be actually setting yourself up for unreasonable expectations and results, and thus disappointments, and then the search fo the next better supplement/method starts all over again.

OK Tony, you never asked me anything, so I apologize for crashing your thread with perhaps some unsolicited comments.

Rosanna, I don't have the same time to write a lengthy post but here goes.

At the moment I can confidently say that my weekly lessons are going very well and my teacher is so good. I am his only pupil as he has no interest in teaching full-time. He enjoys the lessons because we have similar musical interests.

If you read my earlier post, I said that I discovered that I really enjoyed jazz piano after I worked on a piece by Pam Wedgewood. I simply asked about Sudnow as I saw a relationship in the style of play.

However, I have no intention of getting into a whole new learning discipline with Sudnows dotted notation so my questions are purely, out of interest!

I will instead be sourcing similar jazz piano pieces in standard notation.

Your comments on my history at Piano Magic are correct but perhaps there was a reason - I tried to adjust but I simply couldn't turn off what I had learned in the past.

You are also correct in saying that my recordings are getting better. Yes, I am currently owking on 'Canon in D' and it is really challenging my ability. Over two weeks I have raised my reading and playing ability on this piece alone.

My journey continues....

Hi Ragtime,

Just as a point of clarification: The Sudnow Method's goal is NOT to have someone learning by using the dotted notation! I have only used the dot stuff to learn two songs, and I no longer play those two songs. Some folks seem to really fall for the dotted stuff, and use the Sudnow method only using that notation. But the course is about so much more than just learning the dots. I can clarify more if you want.

By the way, I think we have a lot in common, looking for the One Great Method!!!!

Angelo

Angelo, yes I'd like to know more! I'm curious.

Would I be correct to assume that if I was able to take every possible chord required to play a song and applied the open voicing technque that I have the basis of Sudnow?


By the way Angelo - what part of PA are you in?

Hi Ragtime,

I know your question was directed to Angelo. I am up early this morning so, you get to first hear my take on your inquiry.

Those jazzy open voicings...what delicious sounds. You can learn open voicings in a couple of chapters in the Mark Levine Jazz Piano Theory book.

The basis of the Sudnow course is hand's on experience in playing those voicings in our own songs. For me, reading theory is boring - like eating a dry piece of toast. The Sudnow Method is a banquet of motivation leading me to play with a jazzy sound reading straight from a fakebook.

Hi RC:

Utilizing my tiny brain, (here in South Central PA :))I'll have to say "I don't think so" to your question. Folks like Swingin Barb might be better able to answer that.

Ang

You kind of have the process backwards. The Sudnow approach is not to "learn stuff" then apply it to songs, rather it's to play songs and "learn stuff" from that. The sound takes precedence over the intellectual constructs. Some students learn a lot of music theory (most do) but not as a prerequisite, rather as a result of the way the Method is structured and their own curiosity.

To Rosanna's comments, I certainly agree that many students are always chasing the piano student's "holy grail". I guess I have no real issue with that, I'm always happy to find people trying to make their own music, by whatever means. Too many people have decided it's not worth chasing anything - that's much more distressing to me. But to her point, two months probably won't make you a "Sudnow-ite".

To answer your question about student play, send me a private email and I'll point you in the right direction. I'm reluctant to post a URL here because I don't know that all those students would be thrilled about having their work made quite this public.

I just purchased the Sudnow course last week.

My initial impression is that this is basically a highly structured systematic method for you to quickly be able to learn how to play from lead sheets (fake books). It works because you spend 95% of the time practicing going from chord voicing to chord voicing in the context of learning a song. A couple months of that and you will know a ton of good jazz chord voicings! The other 5% is practicing scales in a unique way that I like.

The one negative is that the chord voicings you learn have a particular "jazzy" sound. For example, most blues and pop songs will not sound very good with maj7 chords.

"The one negative is that the chord voicings you learn have a particular "jazzy" sound."

When you're learning to play the chord voicings with Sudnow, is that mostly with the right hand? How does the long melody note affect the voicing rules? Do you learn to voice 13th, 11th and quartal chords? Thanks.

Alex is correct that the more dissonant voicings don't always "fit" to our ear's notion of some popular songs (although some students have re-harmonized Christmas carols in interesting ways). Until you can do your own reharmonization, it doesn't help much with songs without much harmonic movement. Not that you can't learn to play those songs but as solo piano vehicles they're not the best to start with.

To Elssa's question, you don't "learn chords" in the sense being implied. The "rules" get your hands in the right place to start to think more about what things sound like rather than any particular chord structure - it becomes rather liberating, in truth.

Melody notes held for a long time present some challenges, which you're encouraged to ignore (or try a different song) to begin with but eventually aren't an issue.

Remember the goal is not to teach you everything you need to know to handle any circumstance, but rather to get you playing songs in a particular fashion as quickly as possible. You can figure the other stuff out when you're ready.

"To Elssa's question, you don't "learn chords" in the sense being implied. The "rules" get your hands in the right place to start to think more about what things sound like rather than any particular chord structure"

So it's more like general hand shapes than voicings? Do you analyze chords, though, such as using a flat 9th in a chord, etc?

Yes, students who do their own voicings can tell you all about b9ths, #11ths, b5ths, and all sorts of arcane theoretical stuff but the truth of the matter is that the analyzing is more after the fact as a consistent means of notating stuff they want to remember.

I remember talking to Bobby Peterson once when I was trying to learn the "secret" of improvisation. I was asking a lot of theoretical questions which he patiently answered for a while, then he interrupted me and said, "Man, I don't analyze, I just let the sounds out."

There's a fascinating "piano lesson" on Bill Carrothers' web site: http://www.carrothers.com/pianolesson.htm

Bill's a little "out there" but I love his perspective. He told me once, "Anyone can learn to play fast, I'm not impressed by that sh--. I'm impressed by the cats that can play one note really, exquisitely well."

I went home and played a single note for an hour, trying to see what I could coax out of it - it was the most productive practice session I've ever had - one, I'm embarrassed to say, that hasn't been repeated nearly enough.

I am fascinated by the exchange of q&a between Elssa & Markham. It gives me a clearer understanding about Sudnow's method, (even though it's just a glimpse based on verbal discussions - and not actually experiencing the course for myself.) Also it gives me a bigger view in general of approaching playing-by-ear.

So this is what I am thinking after reading the last several posts:
In playing-by-sight, one learns to associate a note on paper to a key on the piano. IOW, one is learning to make "eye"(or notataion)-to-hand_placement associations. Also locating the key physically doesn't imply whether one needs to knows what that note sounds like.

In playing-by-ear, and specifically in the Sudnow approach, one is learning to make handshape-to-sound associations. Presumably with time, one also starts to know the reverse: sound-to-handshape associations, so that when hearing a sound in one's head, one knows which handshape would produce that sound. (The theory of what chords those handshapes happen to be is explained, but it's more an afternote, and not the starting premise for learning.)

So there is a huge difference between play-by-sight than by-ear, as the former in a way totally bypass the "sound" aspect.

Also the Sudnow method emphasizing the handshape-to-sound association seems one of its uniqueness and strengths, as many so-called play-by-ear courses only teach people chord constructions and variations, and rules of usage; but much like by-sight training, some of these by-ear courses actually also overlook the "sound" aspect in their approach.

So Markham, would you say the above perspective is accurate re:Sudnow and its relationship to other courses?

Oops, apologies to Ragtime Clown, (again!) I am taking this thread off topic. Yikes.

Rosanna, I'm delighted to see that you have been able to see that you CAN sample various methods of learning. I bet you are really interested in Sudnows method!

What you must realise is that PM is not specifically how you play by ear but how MikeA plays by ear and how he developed his method to be interpreted by others.

Thanks again for the info, Markham. I always thought Sudnow's method was mainly following dots, but nice to know it also uses some type of hand shapes (as does PM). They give a lot of freedom to playing IMO. Does Sudnow also get into the study of "chord movement" at all, such as the Circle of Fourths/Fifths, ii-V-I, and other chord progressions?

The "dots" are simply a mechanism that virtually anyone can use ("no experience necessary") to get started. While I think there are some other benefits of that approach even for people who "read", it's a little off-topic to the matter at hand. If you send me a PM I can forward a more detailed description of the course contents.

The sound/position/notation questions, while intriguing, are neither unique to Sudnow nor essential, in an intellectual sense, to using his approach.

David Sudnow was an endlessly fascinating man and his writings and recordings touch on an impressive array of topics but the underlying genius of his Method is that it evolved from a pretty simple premise developed from his own studies and from his experience trying to help people learn to play. To whit:

1. Adults are busy and not inclined to spend a lot of time on preparatory work
2. If you're not interested in hearing what you play you probably won't play it

He felt that traditional pedagogical approaches were largely designed for teachers, not students, and were especially ineffective for students who just wanted to learn how to play some songs.

He further felt that "starting simple" seldom evolved into "more complex" for amateurs and thus starts "in the deep end" and encouraged "practicing what you want to play". His one exception was learning the major scale paths (as visual constructs) since they form the basis for virtually all the important relationships to follow.

All of this being said, his approach instills in those of us who "grew up" with it, more attentiveness to sounds, regardless of the "rules". He always said (as have others) that the goal was to "learn the rules well enough that you can break them".

My question to everyone would be, if you sit down in front of your piano in the dark what happens? What does it feel like? Where do your hands go? Play something - what do you feel? What do you think about? Do you feel closer to the instrument or further away?

When you can really hear what you're playing I think that's a great success - whatever "skill level" you may decide you reside at.

To David, playing the piano was, at it's core, an act of thanksgiving to the music itself, to the artists who wrote that music, to the artists who play it, and to the artists who build what many of us consider the single most iconic representation of human art and science - the modern piano.

Sounds like a great course/method. I especially like the idea with Sudnow (as with PM) of being able to sit down almost right away and clomp down on some lush chords and make a nice full arrangement without too much thought and analyzing. BTW, Does the Sudnow method encourage to think about chords and progressions in terms of Roman numerals (I-vi-ii-V)?

Sure, the circle of fourths and the Roman numeral conventions in connecting chords to modes are discussed but again it's not prerequisite stuff. Harmonic progressions are certainly helpful in the memorization process (if you're into that), or when changing keys, or as aids in trying to "guess" the structure of a song you only know the melody to, but the fact of the matter is that you don't really have to know any of that to play songs from a dot song - or a fake book. People a lot smarter about this stuff than I am have thankfully created some decent fake books so we don't have to buy the Real Book under the counter anymore. If you're into improvisation it may be helpful information but the world's full of terrific players who don't pay much attention - at least intellectually, they certainly do aurally - to such matters.

Just for clarification: I am of no help to anyone who aspires to be a serious (whatever that may mean) musician - I'm just talkin' to song players here.

"I am of no help to anyone who aspires to be a serious (whatever that may mean) musician - I'm just talkin' to song players here."

I don't know what it means either, really. I enjoy listening to all "styles" of music, but I mainly seem to end up playing "cocktail" music for some reason. I took some lessons from a great jazz piano player once, and all he did was shake his head and wag his finger at me and say I should stop playing that "cocktail style" music (lots of arpeggios?). I love the George Shearing style of lush, block chords, but I hear that done both in jazz and cocktail piano, so the terminology is a little confusing to me. Guess the main thing with jazz, though, is the improv.