Look, these books and methods are probably GREAT for the absolute beginner, who finds these pieces challanging and needs to practice and learn practice techniques to get their fingers sorted around them. I would have as a child. But for someone who can already play, requiring these pieces to be learned is a waste of time. I KNOW I'm getting nothing from them. I rarely even have stumbles on any parts of them, the odd stumble I play again slowly and it's all good (and the stumbles are always because I've either read it wrong or simply transcribed to the wrong key - never because my fingers got confused.
Teaching should never be a one-size-fits-all. Everyone is different and needs different teaching techniques, particularly if they are at various levels like I am. I need challenge at various levels: beginner level for sight-reading (hopefully to gradually catch that up), and probably intermediate challenge at the playing level. These pieces are close to my sight-reading level, but trying to combine the two levels when they are so polarised is ludicrous. I'm not going to become a concert pianist or do recitals or exams, and I'm probably not going to be a rabid sight-reader as I generally play by ear. There is no reason to halt all learning in order to 'balance' the skills as first priority, as someone suggested, just because 'that's the
correct way of teaching'. Particularly as I'm keen to work at my lower level skills to catch them up anyway.
This is why I'm concerned. I need the teaching to challenge me at MY level. There are also assumptions here - assumptions that because I'm a beginner I need to start at exactly the same level as an ABSOLUTE beginner. I am a beginner, but not an ABSOLUTE beginner, who is learning AGBDF and FACE for the first time. That's who these books are designed for. I learned all the basics years ago and used it for years, but apparently I have to "learn" them all again??. I've been through the theory of all three Alfred's books - there was nothing new at all. This is a one-size-fits-all attitude. This is why people quit learning. Reading between the lines, thats why a lot of the self-learners on these forums are self-learning - they've probably gone to a teacher with their practiced Bach piece to be told "Oh, No! To begin learning formally, you'll have to start on the beginners Alfred book and 'learn' every piece, page-by-page, to my satisfaction, so we can ensure that you can sight-read and can play the easy pieces first, and that all your skills are in perfect balance, to my satisfaction." And I've read here that people who move teachers also have start all over again, the same deal, to satisfy the new teacher. Really??
Remember I'm paying for lessons. They're expensive and I expect to get value for money, EVERY lesson - not pay for many lessons that I don't need, waiting for the day when the repertoire catches up to me and I actually get some value. I'm paying for a product. Financially, it's like having to continuely buy T-Shirts you don't want or need, until you're allowed to buy the ones on the top shelf that you do want.
There many skills that go into learning piano and sight-reading is just one. I shouldn't have to spend years not improving a single other aspect of my playing just because my sight-reading is not advanced. We don't do that in our workplaces either. We don't decide that someone is totally unemployable, simply because there is one aspect of their work that isn't up to scratch. For example, we don't say to a potential manager, "We can't employ you because you need to type fluently to send emails" - that's a minor part of his role and he'll probably get faster at his two fingered typing, besides he's a people person and manages people brilliantly. He can still perform and mature in the managing aspect of his new role while learning to type. But that's what you're saying to me. I can't work on any type of technical skill until my sight-reading catches up. That's ludicrous.
Children learning to read are not held back because their spelling is not up to their reading level. The two skills are related, but actually differ in teaching technique. A child who can't spell well learns spelling at their particular level (hopefully at a greater speed to catch them up), and they learn to read at their reading level. The two levels might be different. This was me as a child - my reading age was far beyond my actual age, but my spelling was age appropriate, mediocre
. I didn't stop reading until my spelling caught up to my reading age, but as you can see, it did.
And if I used this pedagogy to teach children in the classroom, I'd have half the class swinging from the windows in sheer bordom and the other half doodling with vacant stares, and their behaviour would be uncontrollable (and I'd be out of a job!).
If this is piano teaching pedagogy, as it has been for hundreds of years, it needs to catch up to recent research on how people learn.
. I think you've misinterpreted my sentence. It's probably the brackets () that make it a little confusing. The full sentence is:
