Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Would like your thoughts about children and sightreading

And another thing. Music is not at all a dead language. The point of learning notation is so that you can enjoy hundreds of years worth of repertoire on any instrument you like.

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for one day. Teach the man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

(To be straightforward: teach her to play "Happy Birthday" by ear and you make her happy with one song; teach her to read notation, and you make her happy with as many songs as she can learn in a lifetime.)

As for the comment about music being a dead language... might I remind btb of the *huge* success of the popular music industry? Of the music in movies, on the radio, on television, in stores, in schools, in concert halls, at graduations and other public ceremonies, in religious worship, in the workplace?

This is a Piano Forum ... 99.99% of the population can't play the piano and yet the two gents are adamant that keyboard music is not a dead language ... time to get out the golf clubs.

Source for that statistic? (99.99%)

It seems like an awfully high percent, but if you can provide me a reputable source, then perhaps I will see that you are right.


Is playing the piano the only way of making music or listening to music? Might I remind you again of the *huge* success of the popular music industry? Of the music in movies, on the radio, on television, in stores, in schools, in concert halls, at graduations and other public ceremonies, in religious worship, in the workplace?


Edit: ah, now you are restricting your argument to *keyboard* music only. Is that a dead language?

Hardly not. Look at the number of students enrolled in conservatories. Look at the sold-out performances all over the country to piano recitals. Look at the success of Lang Lang, to pick an example.

Consider the number of people registered at the Piano World forums.

Keyboard music is not dead. And notation is not used only for piano music -- it is used as well for a whole lot of other music, too. And that other music is everywhere in western society.

Music of all kinds is extremely prominent in western society.

Believe it or not I happen to agree with a certain amount of what btb says.

Nursery rhymes are a great source of inspiration and learning for kids. There is nothing wrong with teaching kids to play them by ear. I have already said that sight reading is not the be all and end all. It is important to encourage and develop aural and memory skills as well as explore creative avenues of improvisation and composition. The trouble is that this approach alone will ultimately be limited. There is a wealth of great music out there which will only ever be accessible to people who can read music.

The reason that notation has not changed much over the years is that it hasn't needed to. It provides the musician with an accurate graphic representation from which they can recreate music and interprate in their own way. It is in no way 'dead' or 'antiquated'. When btb talks about 'Chris H and his miniscule following' I presume he means the thousands of musicians who benefit from being able to read music. Until he reveals his logical linear notation system and rewrites the repertoire using it I am afraid we do need to teach notation.


Quoted by btb:

I am reminded of the grim Dickensian headmaster Mr. Gradgrind from “Hard Times”

“Now, what I want is, Facts. Teach these boys and girls nothing but Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Plant nothing else, and root out everything else. You can only form the minds of reasoning animals upon Facts; nothing else will ever be of any service to them. This is the principle on which I bring up my own children, and this is the principle on which I bring up these children. Stick to Facts, sir!”


It is obvious that you are very much in to history, literature, music and the arts. What I can't understand is why you find conventional notation so offensive. Maybe you are one of the many adults who were deprived of this knowledge and training as a child. Could it be that you are frustrated by your limited understanding of notation and music theory and so choose to question its relevance all the time?

By this post it is clear that you have entirely missed the point. I would like to see more people take up the piano or any other instrument. What is needed is a proper music education from an early age. If kids were shown how to understand the way in which music works and unlock its mysteries then the take up of instrumental lessons would increase.

Did you not read what I said about my musicianship classes?

We have singing, dancing, fun and games as well as aural training, musical awareness and yes, NOTATION. The beauty of this is that they are able to compose music, write it down and give it to another child who can sing or play it. All of this long before the age of 7. If this kind of thing were delivered in schools there would be no need for me to run my classes. There is no mention of 'Bastien' or even touching the piano. Playing the piano (and other instruments) requires fine motor skills and coordination. It is so refreshing to be able to concentrate on the physical side of this with kids who can already read and understand music. What could you possibly have against that?

I don't know about piano statistics, but musical literacy is surely more widespread than that. An anecdote is not statistics, but I offer my sons' rather representative middle school. Roughly 1/3 of the school is from poorer families so it seems nationally representative. Between 1/3 and 1/2 of the school participates in band, chorus, or orchestra. The students who participate are representative of the population as a whole. Kids from wealthier families do not seem at all overrepresented.

I really do not understand what this disagreement is about, and anyway it seems rather tangential to Frank's original question. For better or for worse his daughter is learning notation. His daughter's teacher seems to want them to stay out of the process, and I think that is ridiculous. If they are trained in music they should be the teacher's ally in advancing the ball.

Asking this child to read music is not the same thing as subjecting her to a Victorian workhouse.

Parents teach their children to read in fun ways and they can certainly assist in the development of music reading skills. Every child is different, of course. Kids that are in any way advanced are likely reading quite well by age seven. Many of them are little learning sponges at that age. If you ask them to learn it, they will. If it is made interesting, they'll soak it up. Learning musical notation doesn't exclude other modes of learning at the same time.

I want to just sneak in here and clarify something I posted earlier. I mentioned or implied in my previous post that the next 7 yr. old students I taught, I would not expect as much as I used to from that age. I did not mean I wouldn't expect them to be able to learn notation or sight-reading. I've found 7 yr. olds to learn those things just fine. What I meant was that I would not expect a 7 yr. old to be able to practice their assignment every day completely independent of parental help. Before I was around very many 7 yr. olds, I would have expected a 7 yr. old to be old enough to practice independently the entire week without any parental involvement. Now I think, in general that age could stand to use more parental involvement in practice at home rather than be left to "figure it all out" by themselves for the whole week.

I didn't in any way mean that a 7 yr. old isn't capable of learning notation and learning to sight-read - far from it. I have found, however, from the small number of 7 yr. olds I have taught that they all have learned and caught on at a slightly slower pace than a little bit older child but they all have suddenly started catching on with lightning speed when they turn about 9. My point to the original poster was that he need not worry his 7 yr. old daughter can sight-read perfectly right this instant, but in short, keep working at it, give it time and it should become easier as with learning any new skill. Every student I've taught starting at age 7 has struggled in some area musically that in a couple years became no problem and you'd have never known the difference and it was forgotten they even had a struggle with it.

I really think Chris H.'s approach is a great one. I haven't taught any kids under 7 yet but even before I knew of his approach with that age, I had already planned to do very similarly with any students I do get in the younger age bracket, with not all the learning sitting at the piano for a 30 min. time. Even with the older students, I do similarly in the group get-togethers I hold and try to save a portion of the lesson for some musical learning aside from the piano keys.

Overall, I do believe that kids are capable of a lot more than we give them credit for.

The workhouse cap fits too well ... spare a thought for the poor little Annies.

"The girl curtsied, and sat down. She was very young, and she looked as if she were frightened by the matter-of-fact prospect the world afforded. ..... "
"So Mr. M'Choakumchild began in his best manner. He and some one hundred and forty other schoolmasters had been lately turned at the same time, in the same factory, on the same principle, like so many pianoforte legs. He had been put through an immense variety of paces, ....................

Ah, rather overdone, M'Choakumchild . If he had only learned a little less, how infinitely
better he might have taught much more."

I've come late into this interesting discussion and may only be repeating what others have said better:

I would never dream of letting my children practice alone - unless they specifically asked for it (and I from my hiding place could hear that they really did practice seriously). To let a child be alone at the piano is a recipe for disaster. In one way or the other. The teacher in question must be crazy.

As to note-litteracy in children: I don't think reading notes will help you in any way better than having someone - your Dad e.g. - by your side 'showing you the fingers to play' and listening to a recording of the piece. Music and piano playing is about imitation (now I talk about memorizing the music, of course; I do think you allways have to memorize it first to be able to play a piece properly).

My just-turned-10-year old son listens intensively to some master playing the piece untill he really knows it by heart - then he watches my playing a couple of bars, varying with difficulty, with one hand - and finally he imitates what he has seen me do and heard played.

He doesn't read notes - his teacher doesn't care!! - and he has reached grade 8 in three years. Currently he is studying Schubert's Impromptu op. 90/2 (the E-flat major) together with Bach's French Suite #5.

As to that about not knowing the notes means he risks being lost in the middle of a piece: I think that is wrong - in fact, I believe it is the other way round: If you know the piece and trust your musical memory - if you can sing the piece all the way through - that's a much, much better guarantee for not loosing trail. Never play a piece at a recital you can't sing all the way through!

The last year or so my son has not once lost trail while playing - not once! Not in recital, not at practice or by his teacher. Not even in the nearly 7 minutes long Mozart Rondo in D, where Mozart repeats himself with subtle varations over and over and over again.

When he gets older and doesn't want Dad to show him, he will learn to read in no time, because he will then be much more motivated than he is today.

(Homer couldn't read).

OK btb, you've beaten the Dickens out of this. :p

Thanks P*D,
As you can see we've just attracted yet another
M'Choakumchild ... if only proud fathers would play more golf and leave the piano tuition of their offspring to the specialist.

I don't see why this has to be black and white. I'm a trade economist, so I surely understand the concept of comparative advantage. The lawyer hires the secretary to do certain tasks even if the lawyer can do those tasks faster and better herself, because the hours spent doing those secretarial tasks would generate less income than if she specialized in what she was relatively better at (being a lawyer). This is the standard "gains from trade" argument, but it is of limited utility here.

As a pianist, I'm as good as (or maybe even better than) the teachers I hire to teach my son. Thus I'm like the lawyer described above. And I do hire these teachers to teach my son. But the reasons have only a little to do with the gains from trade.

My goal is to provide my son with the opportunity to excel at music. We can measure that outcome with rather objective standards. Turning the process into drudgery a la Gradgrind or M'Choakumchild would not serve my ends, would it? I understand something about the psychology of my child and about the dynamics of my own family. I know that for my son an outside authority (a teacher) is useful as a motivator. But I also know that my son and I get along very well, perhaps better than many parents and children. He takes direction from me quite well (so far) and he knows that working with me has accelerated his learning trajectory. Moreover HE CARES about that trajectory. He's competitive by nature and he's a bit of an extravert.

If I left the musical education completely to the specialists I think he would be at least two years behind where he is now. He would probably be starting simple Mozart sonatas about now and his technique would be as rudimentary as most middle schoolers whose parents know nothing about music, but who keep their children plugging away. I respect those parents, and those kids have a chance to enjoy a lifetime relationship with great music. That's wonderful. Instead of leaving it to the specialists, I use some of my "leisure" time at home to supervise my son's practice, adjusting dynamics here and noting shoulder tension there ....adding to his store of technical knowhow and to his musical understanding.

He's certainly no prodigy as I have noted elsewhere. He's a perfectly normal well-adjusted kid who just happens to be approaching the highest level repertoire instead of struggling with intermediate works. And he LIKES this fact. If I had chosen to leave things to the specialists I believe things would have turned out differently. We'll never know, of course, because I did intervene. That's what parents do. They make decisions about their children's lives. We just muddle through hoping they're the right ones or that they do no damage if they're the wrong ones.

Here I am coming a bit late to this thread so here's my 2-cents worth. I think it is really great when parents have the knowledge to assist their children with their practice time. This can help reinforce the lessons, and as P*D pointed out, help accelerate the learing curve for the student.

Now as far as sight-reading at 7 years-old? Learning to read music, like learning anything else takes time, effort, maturity, and of course personality. If one 7 year-old can do it, this doesn't mean another can with the same ease.

This means that the child will need extra help from not only the teacher, but perhaps the parents too should the parents be capable of helping. In my case, my parents were fine artists not musicians, and I was left only to my abilities. My mom had about a year, and my dad a few months of music lessons, so they were no help at all when it came to helping me practice. What they did do, however, was to ensure that I did practice for a reasonable amount of time, and did it everyday.

One of the things the teacher can do to help the child sight-read is to teach the notes inside and out. I did this through writing lessons. I had a notebook of blank manuscript paper. I was given writing lessons every week for the first year or so. I would have to write out the names of notes that were placed on the staff, sometimes the note values, time signatures, key signatures, etc. After awhile this stuff became second-nature.

Having said this, I would not expect a seven year-old child to do this. This young lady is barely in first or second grade at this point. She really doesn't have the maturity (there are exceptions) or the attention span at this age. The sight-reading and note recognition exercises should happen much later, perhaps at 8 years when the child has had more formal reading lessons in school, and has developed a little more intellectually.

As usual, I'm probably way off in the deep end on this, but this comes from a little bit of teaching experience I've had as well as my own life's experience.

John

I think maybe it would be good to clarify that, as in all areas of music, sightreading should be tailored to the age/level of the student. I start informally doing sightreading with my students within the first year of lessons. I don't see any point of leaving it out. I focus on note reading within their level, along with getting them to look at the direction the notes are moving and starting out with only steps, then adding skips and getting them to recognize the difference. With young students we are talking about two notes a step apart to start. I certainly wouldn't expect them to be able to sightread their songs. There are always going to be varying opinions on this depending on experiences. I have never had a 7 year old who couldn't handle learning the note names required for their music, or having problems learning to sightread two or three notes they should know well. In fact they usually use these ideas when learning their pieces. Everything in small steps. Realistically, if you don't believe in having students learn the basic principles to read music, along with all the other areas of course, from the beginning they are going to end up with a huge gap in their playing. Nothing makes a student more frusterated than having to go back and learn what they should already know.

Children learn to listen and speak before learning to read words.
Children should learn to listen and play an instrument before learning to read music.
The most natural and logical approach in my mind.
And parents should help, that is what parents are for.

Hi StephanieF,
Enjoyed your more tactful approach.

Poor little 7-year old Annie was deemed sub-par by the piano teacher for memorising ... at the cost of her sight-reading . Such insensitive judgment by a piano teacher deserves the boot.

It is during these primitive piano days that memorisation should be promoted ... that is, until memory is found to have limitations .
The pupils’s flagging memory is the opportune time to gently suggest the supportive role of sight-reading.

Nothing quite like a willing customer.

Hi P*D,
You fill the boots of Mr. Gradgrind rather well with comments like
“He takes direction from me quite well”.

If you boast being so fly at the piano why not compete with your son in the playing of a particular keyboard masterpiece?

Otherwise ... get out the golf clubs.


Hi John,
You are talking from a really high horse when you say of a 7-year old “Learning to read music, like learning anything else takes time, effort,
maturity, and of course personality.”

The child is playing with dolls and you mention factors relating to an old man ... time, effort, maturity, personality.

Strangely, you conclude with one of the neatest of summaries of the right tactics for little Annie which I heartily applaud ...

“The sight-reading and note recognition exercises should happen much later, perhaps at 8 years when the child has had more formal
reading lessons in school, and has developed a little more intellectually.”

So... no mathematics then? No trying to teach the poor girl how to read and write? No vocabulary lessons? No social studies or science classes in school?

Just let her sit all day and play with her dolls, and she'll worry about going to school and learning all this hard academic stuff when she's an adult?

Dithering.

Nu? So answer my question. Tell me why the academics are for children and music is way too hard.

Tell me why "time, effort, maturity, and personality" are "factors relating to an old man", and yet we have 7-year-old children sit for hours every day in school learning about math, science, reading, writing, grammar, and social studies... not to mention the homework (however small).