Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum 6-year-old wasn't taught left hand!

I just signed up two transfer students who have studied almost one year with another teacher, but literally have only played songs using their right hands. They are both 6 years old, smart, musical and seem to enjoy playing the piano, but their old teacher used a method book that doesn't address the left hand or bass clef at all in the first book (called "Piano-K: The Self-Teaching Piano Game"). Surprisingly, they have decent technique and know their treble c-position notes, as well as things like rests, half notes, etc. They've just never used their left hands at all(!!).

We've only had a meet-and-greet lesson so far, but I will see them again next week, and I'm worried about how to keep them interested/motivated while their left hands catch up.

I've never seen this before! Has anyone else had students like this? What did you do? Any suggestions?

Why don't you write some exercises for them using ONLY the bass clef?

My guess (from a non-teacher):

. . . Their left hands will "catch up" much faster than you expect.

The _conceptual_ work is all done. Only the muscles need to learn what to do. They're six, not sixty, with very plastic brains and nervous systems.

They aren't that far along. I'd just have them start in your fav method book from the beginning and tell them they're going to learn how to use both hands now. It should go quickly in the early pages for them since their reading is probably pretty good, so teach it as "review" and don't dwell too long on them.

And don't forget to congratulate their former teacher for what she did accomplish with them. Teaching five year olds is a dubious endeavour because they learn all you gave them and more in one third the time if you simply wait til they are older.

Do you always discriminate and pigeonhole the kids by age??? You should look at each kid as an individual. There are plenty of 5-year-old piano students who excel better than their 9-year-old counterparts.

I'm not going to congratulate any teacher for not teaching. Teaching only the treble clef is horribly bad teaching.

I spend most of my time with transfers undoing damage coming from clueless teachers who should not be teaching in the first place.

I would not go quite that far.

I'm pretty sure that out of every 100 young students, the 9 year-olds are going to play better, in general.

That said, a really talented five year-old who is eager will play rings around a pre-teen or teen who shows up for half the lessons and is looking for a Personal Piano Trainer!

Yes. It is extremely rare to find a five year old student who is able to handle piano lessons. If they are, it doesn't prove the point that a five year old should take lessons. Just wait til they're older, I say. You will achieve everything just as well. If you just wait til they're older, there is less risk of burnout in the student. They do better in far less time. It saves the teacher the behavioural challenges. It saves the parents money and time. In short, it's unwise to teach four and five year olds piano. And don't show me some youtube videos of four year olds. It doesn't mean a thing. Show me where they are at a much later age like eighteen and compare them to other eighteen year olds. Most students don't go beyond eighteen anyhow. I want to see long term gain. Where are all those prodigies? Do they show up at the university in music? No. I didn't see any of them at my university. Often their parents just want their kid's resume to look good for medical school. Do they play the piano as adults?

That's a generalization. Just as one case in point, there are plenty of pianists who went to conservatories who even started at 3 years of age, even in modern times. So because you asked to be shown, here is one:

Here is another who is completely different in style/approach, but who like the previous, also started piano at 3 and ended up going to the conservatory:

Within my circle of friends, the point of starting piano lessons at a young age is not to produce a prodigy, nor to put that accomplishment on a resume. It's not to get a head start on music so they can be ahead of everyone else. It's not to ensure they will still go back to piano as adults.

It is because the child is really enthusiastic about learning music right at that time.

This goes for any type of learning... ice skating, ballet, drawing.... it's just an outlet for learning, not that they must become experts, or that they do it for the rest of their lives.

The thing about piano that differs from the other activities you mentioned, is that it involves fine motor skills that a 3-year-old doesn't possess. I know Suzuki tries to overcome this, but I don't necessarily find Suzuki students ahead of traditional ones who start later - even at age 6 or 7 it's much better. Later for boys usually.

But every child is different. I have once in a while taught 5 year olds and they did very well, with the parent there during the lesson and helping them practice during the week. But again, as they grew, they sort of ended up where older students were who started later and progressed quickly.

I think this age discrimination thing hit a nerve in me. I never judge a student based on his or her age. There is such a wild gamut of abilities, even within one school year. The advanced kids are bored out of their minds. The struggling kids need more support and are hopelessly lost.

As private piano teachers, we get to cater the education experience to each individual student. None of this "one size fits all" approach.

I don't have a large pool of 5-year-old students in my experience, but the talented ones from that group can outplay many of the 9-year-old starters who are still trying to learn bass clef.

WRONG! It is unwise for clueless teachers to teach four- and five-year-old students. There are teachers who actually know what they are doing.


By your ludicrous argument, nobody should take up piano lessons. Medical school resume???

Little kids develop motor skills in a big mixed up bunch. Dividing them up into "fine motor" and "gross motor" skills is convenient for those of us studying and promoting development. Most activities require a mix of fine and gross motor skills. Piano, dance, skating, and drawing all have gross and fine motor components. All of these activities involve motor skills that students don't possess; that's why kids take lessons. Motor skills are developed by performing actions.

I asked NOT to be shown videos. They prove nothing. I love Valentina's playing, but she would have been just as good today if she had started at eight. We don't say of famous neurosurgeons, if only they had started their medical studies at 15, they'd be so much farther today. People study things at reasonable ages.

I have heard the five year olds of other teachers play. They look cute. They have no bridge in the hand. Their timing is terrible. They have no finger muscles. They get applause. If that's good enough for a parent, power to you. To me, it's foolhardy.

I'm sure you're right about 3-year-olds vs. 6-year-olds. When I talked about starting piano at a young age, I was referring to 5 and 6 year olds and not 3-year olds.

But my point is not how young students should start. My point is about the goal of learning piano (at least in my area). It's not to get applause. It's not to get a certificate, or to wow an audience. It's about getting 1-on-1 time with a teacher who is nurturing her excitement to learn new skills. That is exciting, and that is why they take lessons in the first place.

And yes, if they go on stage and perform, and fall short because they are too young, we will still feel proud and applaud. But I think you're missing the point if you think that performing and getting applause was the ultimate goal in the first place.

I don't mind agreeing that most 3-year olds shouldn't start piano at that age. Even qualify that by saying I can clearly see that the vast majority shouldn't. But every once in a while there is a Mozart or Alma Deutscher who actually benefit from starting earlier. If, for example, Alma Deutscher had started her piano lessons at 8yo, she would have hardly composed her first full-length German opera at 9 years of age! These examples are few in number, but some of these former prodigies, such as Mozart and Chopin have really given us a lot by their musical gifts. I would not wish that Mozart or Chopin start later, since I really can't predict what would have happened to their gifts if they did. So I am glad that some children do start earlier, because every once in a while it pays off enormously.

I think one of the reasons there is opposition to this is an underlying presumption that there is one way to raise children, educate them, and so on. But different cultures can't even agree on a standard, so clearly there isn't one way. I take this issue a little personally, since when I was in school, I wanted out of school, my principal objected, my parents were traditionalists and wouldn't consent, I was a year too young for emancipation, and so I came close to suing the school system to give me a diploma. Fortunately for me, the college of my choice was accustomed to children like me and decided I didn't need a diploma to be admitted rendering my school's recalcitrance irrelevant and they also gave me a tuition waiver which circumvented the issue of obtaining parental consent. With hindsight, I do realize I brought on myself problems of socialization since my fellow students were 5+ years older than me, but to this day, I see nothing inherently wrong in what I did, even if I might not do it again. I'm glad there are open minded institutions like that who do recognize the individuality of students and accommodate that.

My basic feeling is every child is different, and some probably shouldn't begin music ever and others are possibly good to go at 3yo, and for those, there may be other compensations for some of the fine motor skills they lack. Personally, I believe there many Mozarts out there that never happened because they weren't given the right educational opportunities, including perhaps getting opportunities early enough in life.

My sentiments exactly. How many Mozarts, Liszts, Chopins etc...have WE missed out on because they didn't have the opportunity early in life?

Not many. Even what Mozart wrote at 5, we can do without.