Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Anyone heard of/use the Simply Music curricula?

Don't get me wrong - I do believe strongly in knowing, when teaching adults or even teens, what they want out of lessons. I have particular goals, the primary of which is to optimize the likelihood that my students will have a relationship with the piano that will last their lifetime. It has nothing to do with their musical preferences, since I've already said that we teach music in several genres and skill sets, and it has nothing to do with the position that piano music will have in their future - I just want to make sure that there IS a future.

These are most definitely student goals. I already mentioned above my overall goal, which has never been a problem for anyone. More specifically, I want my students to have a very large repertoire in a variety of styles. I want them to have a positive, self affirming experience at lessons. I want them to be able to self generate - ie - to be able to progress independently, which includes building a strong foundation in music reading and theory. I want them to to experience playing as a natural self-expression. As teacher goals, these really have no bearing on what plans a student may have for using what he learns - but on the learning process which is what the teacher is involved in.

Cindy, that makes a lot of sense to me. I also tend to forget that not every student is an adult student.

I agree with that last statement. However, sometimes one must give their student a little of what they want along with what they need. It may help them when they get frustrated, and it will add to them being well-rounded musicians too. How embarrassing that a piano student of many years could not play Happy Birthday, or improvise, or even figure out something by ear? These are skills that while need not take up the majority of lessons, can be incorporated to help keep students interested. [/QB][/QUOTE]


Certainly true Morodiene. I agree. And yes my students can and do play Happy Birthday by ear and I do show them different ways of arranging the song after they first master playing it with basic harmony.

What I'm saying is you can develop excellent trained pianists and still give them the freedom and knowledge to play what they wish, without being a Simply Music instructor.

Personally I feel SM doesn't do much for developing the student technically to be able to play the piano at its full potential et, quality of sound, balance between hands, etc... Components needed to play classical music (and other genres) well.

Yes, I feel a teacher does need to know what direction they want to take there students.

The fact that I am being paid to teach music and knowing that I have the responsibility to develop the skills necessary that if a student of mine decides to major in music he/she has those skills to do so.

IMO, teaching jazz chords at the beginning is like teaching popular fiction before learning classic literature. Hey I love jazz, but I want my students first grounded or at least have some good sound knowledge and experience with classical music. Not that I think it is "better", but lets get real, it is harder, and takes a lot more discipline and technical ability to be able to play classical pieces well. There is the music history component as well.

I think nothing is wrong if you feel comfortable teaching this method. There are a lot of teens and adults that this would be great for, but they will need a lot of remedial help if they decide to become serious musicians and want to major in music, I would assume.

It is just, respectfully, not for me.

My experience is that teaching the classical [edit: traditional] way - reading music from day one - puts a huge wall between the student and the instrument and the act of making music - the wall being the written page. That wall is a double edged sword - while it builds a way for the students to access some of the greatest music ever written, it also slows down to a snail's pace and interferes in the intimacy and comfort with making music at the piano. To me it seems logical that if we ultimately want students to both build that comfort and intimacy AND learn to read, the comfort and intimacy should come FIRST - like learning to talk vs. read. Cindy has made it very clear that SM DOES teach reading, but that it delays it and instead starts with associating rote-taught pieces with cue sheets. How can we criticize this approach when we don't have first-hand experience ourselves using this approach? Do we think that if a student spends, say, a year playing dozens of songs before they get deeply into reading, that because of that they will never be able to become classical musicians? What proof do we have? How do we know that the SM program doesn't encourage students to WANT to learn to read music?

I have to take issue with some of the comments made here. Classical music is very complex and demands a high level of reading skills, accuracy, technique, expressiveness, etc., etc., but jazz has its own complexity and demands that are completely DIFFERENT from classical. The notion that "classical study will prepare you to play any style" is very misleading - take it from this classically trained pianist who at 49 years of age decided to take 2 years off to study jazz piano - it's like starting all over from scratch. My jazz piano teacher SPEAKS music. The keyboard is like a toy in his hands - he can say anything he wants with his fingers. He instantly knows how to add a flat 9, sharp 11, or 13th to the chord coming up NOW. Hey, why not INSTANTLY decide to substitute it with the chord a tritone away, AND add some of those extensions. What's more, he knows what all these things SOUND like even before he plays them, and he makes decisions like these in split seconds while keeping a steady pulse and creating one of a dozen different grooves. What about simultaneous melodic improvisation? Ever heard of the diminished scale? Hey, I think I'll use it over this quarter note beat. Easier than playing classical music? I'd say different hard.

It seems logical to me, playing first, then reading, or both from the get go. Neither of these is the typical classical approach. Do we NEED SM in order to do this? No, but I see it as a valuable, ready-made, carefully and thoughtfully crafted curriculum saving the teacher a lot of time and trouble.

Go Cindy!

Jerry, I agree with a lot of what you are saying. But if you read the 'about us' link on the SM website it talks about the 'culture of traditional lessons'. It is highly critical and explains exactly why you are doomed if you take traditional lessons rather than SM. If you have a system which works well then it will sell itself. You shouldn't have to bad mouth other methods especially when 'traditional' teaching can't be defined so easily.

I don't care for that either, Chris - it is an exaggerated claim to be sure. On the other hand, though, they do make a point that should be considered. What is the drop-out rate of classically-trained students? What is the percentage who continue to play in their adulthood? How many classically trained pianists dropped out, but would have been inspired and gone on if they had been taught creative piano skills early on? If they had been taught to improvise blues? Read chord symbols so they could play Rock music or Jazz? What percentage of kids want to play classical music? (Not saying SM will not prepare students or precludes students from going on to play classical - just that it exposes them to a variety of styles from the beginning on). If we believe that classical is the best basis for playing anything, when will they get to the "anything?" What percentage would have stuck through the learning to read by having the experience of playing and enjoying playing many pieces first? No, they shouldn't bad mouth traditional lessons in such harsh terms, but neither is it beyond criticism. From your description of how you teach, Chris, I would not consider you a typical classical teacher.

Does traditional teaching mean the same as classical training?

I guess that most would think this to be the case. However, if you look at most of the modern piano methods on the market you will soon find out that they have very little to do with the study of classical music. I can't believe that many teachers nowadays use nothing but classical repertoire or techniques in their teaching. Maybe I am wrong about this.

Good point, Chris. The main point is the timing of learning to read, and learning skills that go beyond being able to play ONLY from a written score.

And not just when you learn to read but how you learn to read.

I am not sure how many people are ONLY able to play from the written score. I know a few who lack the confidence to play without the score. I also know some who couldn't care less that they can't improvise or play from lead sheets. I suspect most of these people could learn to do it if they wanted. Nobody showed me how to improvise or play by ear. I joined a band where I needed to do these things. It certainly had nothing to do with my piano lessons which were quite stuffy and traditional (for want of a better word). That's not to say they shouldn't be included in lessons. It is nice to see that many (traditional?) methods like Hal Leonard, piano adventures, Alfred's etc. do include these things. I do think that the SM marketing plays on the ignorance of those who don't know what alternative methods have to offer.

I believe HL, PA, and Alfreds all start reading right away. Not sure how much improv. they teach, and don't think their core materials teach lead sheet "faking." (that's such a misleading word, "faking," perhaps "realization" or "arranging/improv" would be better terms?) Most of the traditionally trained pianists I know cannot play by ear or from a lead sheet or improvise.

You guys are missing some points here. Good sight reading is very much a mixture of aural, theoretically, technical as well the taken-for-granted semantics. It's more like reading a detective novel than assemble-your-wardrobe instructions.

Jerry S88,

LISTEN UP!!! I teach classical piano and I delay reading.

What I am saying is SM is not the *only* alternative approach to learning piano. There are other methods that are at little or no cost to the teacher that I feel, imo, are BETTER than SM.

I also know some EXCELLENT traditional teachers (those that do not delay reading) where their students are playing at a higher level of quality than what I see on the SM videos.

I agree with Chris H. What is traditional teaching? All I know or would want to know is how the teacher teaches and what are the results.

It really doesn't matter what the approach is, it is what the results are.

Listening (most importantly)to students playing and seeing their form at the piano, as well as an enthusiasm for the music they are playing will give you the correct indication of the teacher and his/her approach.

Just an added note:

Traditional teaching to me, is , teaching to read notation from the beginning.

There are a lot of programs (methods) or just teachers' approach that teach classical music without teaching reading first.

Back to the first few posts. SM is EXPENSIVE new wine in old bottles. And not very good wine at that, imo. There's better wine our there, but it's what ever your taste is.

Aha, I knew it all along.

Pianobuff - if you are a classical teacher who delays note reading, then I believe you are one of the exceptions, not the rule. Can you describe why you delay reading, how you go about it, what materials you use, how long you delay reading, and perhaps share some general comments about how well (or not well) it works for your students?

I never said there are no other delayed-reading programs out there, simply that I find the approach has a certain logic, and that the SM program appears to be well executed. I am not aware that there are a lot of others out there. All of the traditional methods that I've come across use note-reading from the beginning - some pre-staff, some not. Can you share which other reading-delayed methods you know of and recommend for young beginning students and why you feel they are better (beyond just cost)? I am genuinely interested as I myself will not be using the SM program because of the cost - I only intend to return to teaching part time.

I don't know how you can compare what you are seeing in the videos with the results of traditional teaching, Pianobuff. It seems to me students being taught by rote would be playing more complex music than their note-reading counterparts in the beginning stages, so it would be difficult to determine just how long each has been playing.

Wow, I think we've hit a few nerves.

I want to try to clear up some things, and hopefully not step on anyone's toes while I do it. :-)

First, SM doesn't teach by rote, or as I understand "rote" to be, note by note, sheer memorization. We give patterns, musical sentences, things that are more abstract until they're actually shown. But those patterns, etc, are what the memory hints refer to, the idea in part being that students will eventually be familiar enough with the instrument as to be able to source their instructions from the keyboard itself.

On the topic of sight reading: to be able to sit down with a sheet of music never seen before and play it nearly perfectly - correct tempo, inflection, etc. - really is an amazing ability. Can it be gained through hard work or is it a gift, I'll let you decide, but this is not SM's goal. We give them the ability to read (I would never have started teaching SM if reading had been left out), but it isn't our main focus. Our main focus is getting them into a relationship with the piano such that they will play the rest of their lives, whether they start as children, teens, or adults. Then again, I doubt that our students' reading abilities - because of the way they learn to read - really suffer as a result.

I am deeply sorry that the website is seen as bashing traditional methods. That isn't the intent. (For clarity's sake, let's define "traditional" to be any method of learning that begins at the page.) Maybe my own experience might be a helpful example. I began lessons around the age of seven, using a program that begins with notes, albeit not immediately on the staff. I loved most of the teachers that I learned under, all gifted ladies. But I never learned to accompany, improvise, compose, etc. I wasn't sure/aware that those things could be taught. I thought some people were just gifted that way, and anyone else who wanted to learn these things had to really slave away at it. (Disclaimer: I realize that we have some excellent teachers here on the forum who are teaching these components. To them, bravo! You are giving your students an amazing gift. I wish there were more of you.) But the point is, I never really had that gift offered in a tangible way. Currently though, I have learned so much in a relatively short time while learning to teach this method. The basics of accompaniment: It's so simple! Why hasn't anyone shown me this before?!?!? Composition: I've made up my own music! Granted, it's not Chopin, or even Joplin, but it's mine. Now, someone correct me if I'm wrong, but where is that in a lot of start-at-the-page curricula? Is there room for creativity when all you've been taught is to reproduce what's set before you? I don't think the website wishes to bash the traditional methods, but it wants to point out that something's wrong with the way those methods approach this all.

Classical music: while it's included in the different musical genres we teach, we don't focus on it specifically. If you're going after a classical concert pianist education, then there are great people and organizations who have devoted huge amounts of time to being able to prepare students for this. This isn't our aim, and we won't acheive it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that goal and it isn't the intention to make it sound like there is. That's just a different corner of the market than SM is in. Different approaches for different goals.

Similar to that is form and technic. Yes, important. But I guess the question is, are we really willing to drop people by the wayside if their form isn't quite right? What about sitting correctly on the bench if the little munchkin isn't tall enough to reach the pedal in that position? Again, different goals, different approaches, different emphasis.

If this whole conversation intrigues you as to the SM program, great. If you're turned off, ok. If you can walk away with something new to think about, super. I guess what I'm saying is that rather than viewing it so much as me/us against him/her/them, let's come from our common viewpoint - that we love music and wish to enrich our own experience and pass it on to others.

Dianna

I didn't really want to get into this thread but there are just a couple of "straw men" you (probably inadvertently) put up that I'd like to modify:

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dianna:
First, SM doesn't teach by rote, or as I understand "rote" to be, note by note, sheer memorization. [QUOTE]
Rote learning is not necessarily "note by note". In fact, I think that's a very difficult way of teaching something by rote. Teaching by rote I would use phrases, at least.

(For clarity's sake, let's define "traditional" to be any method of learning that begins at the page.) Dianna
Well I would have described my method as basically traditional, but it certainly doesn't begin at the page! Reading begins after lots of keyboard orientation, and also lots of pre-reading activities to ensure the basic concepts of notation are grasped (that pitch is represented vertically, for example).

I have nothing against SM from what little I've seen. I did object to the wholesale denigration of "traditional methods" however, but you've addressed that point .

To use a reading analogy
- we're going to make up and read loads of mystery and romance stories but Aeschylus . Apollonius . Aquinas . Archimedes . Aristophanes . Aristotle . Augustine . Marcus Aurelius . Austen . Francis Bacon . Balzac . Bergson . Berkeley . The Bible . Bohr . Boswell . Calvin . Cather . Cervantes . Chaucer . Chekhov . Conrad . Copernicus . Dante . Darwin . Descartes . Dewey . Dickens . Diderot . Dostoevsky . Eddington . Einstein . George Eliot . T.S. Eliot . Emerson . Engels . Epictetus . Erasmus . Euclid . Euripides . Faraday . Faulkner . Fielding . Fitzgerald . Fourier . Freud . Galen . Galileo . Gibbon . Gilbert . Goethe . Hamilton . Hardy . Harvey . Hegel . Heidegger . Heisenberg . Herodotus . Hippocrates . Hobbes . Homer . Hume . Huygens . Ibsen . Henry James . William James . Jay . Joyce . Kafka . Kant . Kepler . Keynes . Kierkegaard . Lawrence . Leibnitz . Locke . Lucretius . Machiavelli . Madison . Mann . Marx . Melville . Mill . Milton . Moliere . Montaigne . Montesquieu . Nietzsche . Newton . Nicomachus . O'Neill . Orwell . Paine . Pascal . Planck . Plato . Plotinus . Plutarch . Poincare . Proust . Ptolemy . The Quran (Koran) . Rabelais . Racine . Rousseau . Russell . Schroedinger . Shaw . Shakespeare . Adam Smith . Sophocles . Spinoza . Sterne . Swift . Tacitus . Thoreau . Thucydides . Tolstoy . Tocqueville . Twain . Veblen . Virgil . Voltaire . Whitehead . Wittgenstein . Woolf, we'll leave to the serious readers.

http://books.mirror.org/

Great post KeyboardKlutz!

Thanks for the post Dianna.

I agree you can't compare. SM is for people that want to have fun spending little time but learning to play tunes on the piano, like you said. Will they have good posture and technic? Probably not, by the way...there is a thing called a footrest.
Will they become excellent sightreaders? Sounds like they won't. Will they be somewhat well versed on classical repertoire? No.

So back to what I posted some time ago. SM is more about learning to play a keyboard, imo. Not becoming an artist at the piano.

Okay, I apologize, I will get off my soapbox.

There is something for everyone. And if learning music through SM and/or teaching it gives you a gratifying and rewarding feeling then by all means go for it and do it.