Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum progression/level 10 year old

Try explaining this to parents who refuse to pay for anything longer than a 30-minute lesson, even for their kids in Level 5.

I don't offer 30 minute lessons, period. No explaining necessary. They don't get to pick an option that doesn't exist.

Yup, I agree. Or at least I did when I had more students than I needed and knew if I lost any by changing my policy to not doing 30 minutes lessons I could replace them. Now that I'm starting all over in a new state, I am finding that I have to compromise some things for an economy that is more affected and kids that are even more overbooked.

They probably have to get their Starbucks every morning - You know, that coffee adds up.

I wonder, would it be absolutely inappropriate to have in a studio policy ... "The teacher has the full right to trump the parent when it comes to the lesson length financed. If the student is obviously (stress obviously) advancing, then a 30 minute lesson is just no longer practical to piano studies"

Perhaps I should test it out first?

Goodness, I love this!

OR, what I like to do, is encourage parents with very young children to take more than one lesson a week.

I don't understand why one lesson a week is always the 'norm'. Kids go to school 5 days out of 7 and parents think their child can learn successfully only seeing a teacher ONE time a week for only 30 minutes!? It's insane.

I think I'll adopt your idea about not even offering 30 minute lessons soon enough - 6 more slots I have to fill before I really start testing my families to see what I can get away with lol

I understood "sight-reading" to mean "reading". I have noticed that many people put sight-reading and reading in two different universes, as if there is no connection. In fact, the quicker a student can sight-read, the quicker that same student will read, in general, and that means quicker learning. We can't play music we can't read, unless we are playing by ear, and we can't memorize what we can't play.

I don't use flash cards because I use a keyboard chart, but the real point is what you said above. There are "circles on the page" that have names, and there are "these things we press" that have names. I don't know if I get names from the keys on the piano or from the page, because those two things are linked in my brain. I can't look at a note on a page without instantly seeing the key it belongs to, and that is true just as well for large chords or the sweep of a scale/run.

We all know that when we master these things, we can't name notes at a fraction of the speed that we play them. It would be like reading from a book (language) and trying to spell out every word while reading. It would be absurd. But we as teachers know that all sorts of wonky things go wrong if the names are not mastered and made 100% automatic.

Again:
And that's exactly what I say to my students if they complain about saying note names will playing either hand alone (as they are mastering the letters). I tell them saying something while playing trains them to be able to say SOMETHING while playing, and I explain to them that this is why it is so easy for them to count. If they are used to saying "F A E G", while playing those keys, it is often easier for them to say "one two three four".

I spend the first 10 minutes of EVERY lesson doing note-name drills, using students music, hands separate, until I know that my students have entirely absorbed the names. But I always let them repeat anything they have played, saying notes, without saying anything, with one condition: if they miss anything, they have to correct it and TELL me what it is.

As a parent of a student, pretty deeply involved with my daughter's musical studies, I can't say enough good about this approch. And I am curious as to the "other things like that."

In a number of European countries, including France and Spain, beginning students typically have a half-hour instrumental lesson every week, and two hours of reading class. These classes mix students of various instruments, and often of various ages. These reading classes continue for many years. The students also participate in a choir.

Obviously, these classes aren't limited to simple note recognition.

My 11 year-old daughter is in her 5th year. Among other things they are reading the 3rd-line alto C-clef, the 4th line tenor C-clef, vertical reading and chordal patterns on the grand staff, harmonic analysis, dictations in two voices.

Years ago she learned to beat out the measure with her hand like a conductor while reading, and when there are difficulties in her instrumental lesson ( she's left the piano for trumpet this year, a two or two-and-a-half hour group lesson ) the teacher asks the student to read outloud and/or to sing from the score, notes and rhythm, always while beating out the measure. He insists that the student know what he has to play before he plays it.

Reading classes are mostly in municipal music schools, although there are private studios that have group or individual lessons following this same approach. Most kids who study an instrument with a private teacher eventually enroll in a reading class. It is not rare that parents of young music students enroll themselves even if they do not play an instrument.

I am not sure that there is really a point in recounting all of this. But I have to admit that I am very enthousiastic about the fact that in general reading is given such importance here.

1) No one performs anywhere from memory until they have total success playing in front of people 3-5 times.

2) I don't spend one second drilling from memory until I am SURE that memory is not REPLACING reading.

3) I won't teach dynamics until students can play one hand loud and the other soft. (Watch other members stone me for that last statement.)

Gary D, why would #3 be a stonable (stoneable?) statement?

I don't know about stoning, but I really don't understand. Wouldn't you have to teach them dynamics in order for them to play it? Or do you think students naturally come to learn to play forte and piano?

Because when BOTH hands play f, it sounds insensitive, all loud. When both hands play p, it sounds timid. When both hands play mf, it sounds average. Since I get to hands together very early, the first thing I stress is how to make one hand loud while the other is soft. Once students can do that, they can do just about anything with dnynamics, because it is really not only harder but also 100% necessary to play anything in a way that does not work.

There are a few exceptions, of course. Now and then block dynamics work well, and I do teach that concept. But not anything subtle. Not cresc. and dim., before teaching balance between the hands.

OK, you talked your way out of stoning there, but I reserve my stone for a later time. :P

just some thoughts...

i really like one hour lessons and really appreciate parents who recognize that they are valuable.

jmo but i hate the Fabien and Bastien books.. they seem so marketed to make money for the publishers.

I teach from many sources but i am surprised to tell you I really like the Suzuki books for younger students. I don't rely on the CD's.

i suspect my 10 year old will be really great one day.. and i treat her lessons as grooming for her next teacher. She has perfect family support, a knowledge base of performers and composers. I am introducing the notion of composing to her.. showing her how chord progressions can be changed, and showing her how to improvise a melody.. we don't spend a lot of time on this.. I'm just giving her ideas of how to spend 'nonpractice' time on the piano. She came in with a delightful piece of staccato notes in fifths above the chords Dm, Am, Em and Dm.. it sounded so good... and it was so simple. i adore her. Her older sister came back and will restart lessons.

My one problem is that I personally do not like romantic composers.. Debussey and the like. I really should learn how to teach... but there is so much to practice on the organ. i love reading this forum tho.. i learn so much, and thank you.

I personally am certainly not set in stone and have few parameters that i establish for students. they are all different and learn differently. I love it when a student actually starts really practicing because they love it.

Perhaps you should try playing Debussy, start listening to his music (and he is considered Impressionistic, which is kind of a style that occurred during the Romantic period), and choose something that appeals to you. Clair de Lune of course is very famous and for a reason, and might be good for you to learn to appreciate. If you don't like something, then that may rub off on your students and they may miss out on learning something they love. There is also Ravel, Satie (take a look at his Gymnopedie), Albeniz, Granados, and even some Grieg has Impressionist qualities to it (like his Nottorno).

I think it's worth the effort to figure out why these are considered great composers. Of course, you're allowed your own opinion, but if it is formed from ignorance of the music out there then that's not really being fair to yourself or your students.

and you get a red star for that post, Morodienne.

I am playing Clair de Lune now.. just to learn it properly.. I am a baroqist.. (how do you spell that?) .. and i know several Satie pieces, some Brahms and i actually really like Grieg.. i know they are not all romantic per se. I also like Bortkiewics. (?)

My older good student does love this period of music and i need to learn the pieces before i teach them.. so I am working at it.

Oh, then why not listen/look at to Ravel's Tombeau de Couperin? It's Ravel tipping his hat to this amazing Baroque French composer and the Baroque era in general. You also might enjoy his Menuet Antique, also similar to the Tombeau pieces.

Although I feel somewhat guilty giving advise behind his teachers back here are some ideas to add.

There are books known as "Notespellers" that you can buy online or at most music shops. They are written for all levels. The neat thing about these worksheets is that you can make numerous copies of each sheet and use it multiple times(alternate sheets)as the student "forgets" the series of notes (Of course, they may start to learn the pattern after awhile.) This may be an unobtrusive way to help your child with his reading. People who tend to memorize quickly and avoid note reading do need special care if they are going to acquire good reading skills. A balance is always what is needed. A good reader needs to be taught listening skills, likewise, a person who tends to play by ear needs to be kept solidly on the path of learning to read well.

As someone who uses the Suzuki method (certified, not just using the repertoire), it became necessary to develop a failsafe way to teach reading. While the ear is cultivated in this method, it is essential to never compromise the student's ability to read. Now, I blend in the Suzuki emphasis on ear development with everyone. So, playing by ear or memorization isn't a bad thing, but it can become lop-sided if careful attention isn't given to reading.

About reading: I have found that the more natural it is for young students to memorize, they more they tend to avoid reading for the simple reason that, for them, memorizing is easier. They develop from the start the habit of deciphering music, measure by measure, line by line, then speeding it up without or almost without the music. The only consistently effective thing I have found to counter this, early, is to give such students one or two new pages each week as a "challenge", to work out at home. Actually, there is another thing: continually bombard them with new music, because these really quick memorizers get things so fast that they may not be reading much at all after the second or third run-through. Transfer students are the most difficult challenge. Often they have become very good at memorizing and no longer think that reading is even a useful skill.

About developing the ear: it is terribly neglected by *some* teachers who stress reading but who do not the WHYS of how music is made.

will do thanks