Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Is it ok to...umm....lie??

It seems to me that for the purposes of getting beginners off the ground, there are some lies that just make understanding easier. I.e. it would be a lot easier to say left hand plays bass clef, right hand plays treble clef. I don't, but it would be easier yeah?

But there is one lie that I am really tempted to tell. I only recently had it pointed out to me that it's incorrect, and I'm itching to keep telling it, because it just makes things a darn sight easier. And that is, that the notes above middle C are in the treble clef, and the notes below middle C are in the bass clef. For the purposes of getting through the first few years of piano study, that is correct, and it just makes it so much simpler. Right from the very first lesson I can get kids to do a glissando up the top half of the piano and tell me they just played all the notes in the treble clef, and then glissando from middle C down to the bottom and tell me it's bass, and they LOVE it. They always remember straight away because it's fun making that big jangly noise, and then by the time we get to sight reading they have that knowledge firmly in their bag. Damn ledger lines ruining it for me!!

What are your thoughts on this? Is it ok to say one thing, then later on go nup that was actually a load of rubbish, this is the real deal, or should you keep it strictly correct right from the start?

I like the introduction given here:
http://fundamentalkeys.com/preview.html
But I can imagine that is still too "wordy" for a young child.


But what about: crotchet = 1 beat, minim = 2 beats, 2 quavers in a beat etc. Do young children need to know about numerators and denominators straight away?

I do teach that treble is for the high notes, that bass is for the low notes. I don't think that's lying, just because sometimes there are exceptions. It's a "majority" thing.

When I encounter ledger lines, I explain to the student that we are borrowing lines from the other clef in order to read the intervals easier, and/or to keep it on the appropriate hand. And I work very hard to keep kids understanding that the top and bottom staffs represent the different hands - not the clef signs.

Sometimes I show them orchestral scores - how each instrument has it's own staff. I explain that pianists play two instruments: right hand and left hand. (This usually comes up when a beginner encounters a whole note on one hand against notes or rests on the other, and wants to play the whole note for all four beats before playing the other hand.)

Most orchestral instruments use one clef exclusively. Some, like horn, have to learn both. Some, like viola, use a different clef all together, because that represents the majority of the notes they play. It's a guide, not a box. Kids are a lot more understanding of this than we give them credit for.

And when your kid asks why the sky is blue, you're going to give him a dissertation on sub-nuclear particle physics, light as both wave and particle theory, etc., as an explanation? Or do you simplify for comprehension?

With beginners, it is fine to 'lie'

To say that notes above middle C are played with the right hand, and so on, gives beginners some landmarks to work with.

To say, "This may change, later on" only serves to confuse them.

Only once they are competent at playing right hand above middle C, is it appropriate to introduce other concepts.

As teachers, while we may know what we mean, too much info, too soon, can be overload to a raw beginner.

Yes. Then I use the "lie" to help the beginners learn which hand is right, and which hand is left. Many beginners don't really have that concept down yet (depending on age).

When kids learn to read a language in 1st grade, they are taught "rules" that are eventually going to be broken at some point. The English language is full of exceptions, and no kid is ever going to blame their first grade teacher for "lying" to them about the rules of phonics.

Personally, I feel the use of the word "lie" is inappropriate in this context. To lie suggests intent to deceive, especially for personal gain. There is no such intent. Rather the intent is to help student comprehension and eventually, to unfold the whole of music notation and playing.

Do, however, stay away from ever saying that the treble clef is for the RH and the bass clef is for the LH. That causes real problems!

You explore. You take off on it. Haul out a prism and watch the colours spread. Or use a water glass. Take paints: mix blue and yellow to get green. Throw together all the colours to get something close to black.

Then you back off and let them go hog wild exploring. Give them paints, prisms, magnifying glasses, spoons in water glasses (the shape bends). Then wait. Especially if they have not been immersed in the Culture Of Correct Answers (schools with testing etc.) they will be brimming with discoveries, questions, and "what ifs". You'll get close to why the sky is blue (water droplets, prisms), and probably something more important.

Surely there is a parallel in music.

Or you could tell them that the Sky Gremlins have paint pots with blue colour. Personally I prefer the first version.

Teachers lie all the time: "that sounded great, Sally! What a very personal and musical interpretaton! Now, shall we look at what the score actually says?"

KS, I'm thankful you responded, as no one else seems disturbed by the OPs false hypothesis.

Just to respond to your example, I don't think I'd do this with a 5 year old, but perhaps a 10 year old would benefit.

The fact is we use fiction all the time. Is fiction lying? Should we outlaw novels, movies, and so on? Can we never tell a story or spin a tall tale? Of course not. But this is what we get when we start with black and white issues.

As Easter is coming up, would you deny children the joy and delight of going on Easter Egg hunts, just because the Easter Bunny is a fiction? There are some parents who would. Remember Neil the psychiatrist in The Santa Clause? This is the sort of thing he would do.

Bah.....

Fiction, including sky gremlins pour blue paint pots, is a wonderful thing. In German lore there is Mother Holle, who shakes out down filled bed covers and the escaping feathers are the explanation for snow. I continue to love the magic of the image, and even though I know about crystalization of ice and the truly magical properties of water, I wouldn't want to do without Mother Holle. You're right - life without the Easter Bunny just wouldn't be the same.

My problem comes when we develop actual concepts, and misrepresent those concepts in the belief that the child cannot handle the real thing. Whether in science, math, or music, the concepts are reflections of some reality. When we get presented with the true concept, then reality bears it out. If it is not completely true, then what we experience in life doesn't jive and that can be confusing. It actually happened to me a couple of times, not necessarily in music.

For the example of the blue sky, the exploration does not really answer the question. However, the child has been launched into investigating, hypothesizing, catching on to the idea there are are all kinds of patterns, and cause and effect. They start building a picture of things, which probably serves them as they get older and have to deal with complicated abstract things.


Well, this kind of free exploration would probably go in whatever direction the child's age would dictate. So a 5 year old with a prism, water class, and paints would probably do something different than a 10 year old. I didn't necessarily do that particular thing, but we did explore similar things quite early on. It is sometimes amazing what kids can come up with.

KS, this isn't a lie - it's true in 99% of cases. It's not true 100% of the time. But developmentally, as has been pointed out in previous discussions, the two systems, the treble G system and bass F system conveniently can be merged to form the grand staff. The G system was for the RH, the F system was for the LH, but since they conveniently merge, you can indicate RH playing in the F system and vice versa.


Not only isn't this a lie, it's not even a fiction. Notes from D up to G are in the treble clef; above G, you add leger lines, so technically, they are in an extension of the G (treble) clef.

The teaching short cut I really dislike is that sharps and flats are black keys. I do teach my students from the beginning that sharps are the first semi-tone higher, and flats are the first semi-tone lower, whether black or white. This is a fiction we can well do without!

Yeah, I definitely agree with that. If sharps and flats are never necessarily associated with black keys in the first place, it's far easier. While no beginner needs to know exactly what an E sharp is for ages, far better to understand the sheer simplicity of merely moving by a semi-tone in all cases, than to get bogged down in a false impression.

I would not personally want to say that left hand plays below middle C and right hand above. That would have to be abandoned pretty quickly. I think it's best just to say that the upper line is (almost always) for the right hand and the lower one for the left hand. But why create a strict rule where none lies? Why not explain that something is virtually always the case, if it is (both at the stage they are at and in teh long run), but that exceptions may occur in rare cases? Is that too complex for a kid to understand?

I'm not sure about this part:

Not only isn't this a lie, it's not even a fiction. Notes from D up to G are in the treble clef; above G, you add leger lines, so technically, they are in an extension of the G (treble) clef.

By the same logic, you could say it's in the alto clef. A treble register and clef are not the same thing. The clef is the symbol, unless I'm much mistaken. Why not simply explain that the two clefs are almost always used for above or below middle C, as appropriate. Surely this direct explanation is not going to confuse anyone?

Adding the words usually or almost always in front of those statements is a simple way to get the point across and avoid a falsehood or creating confusion later.

John, I'm referring to this part:

The treble clef notes include those in the ledger line going below middle C, and a similar thing in the bass clef.

While it's not the same thing as teaching piano to little kids, I taught this in music theory rudiments to an adult student. I knew we'd eventually hit tenor and alto clefs and kept that in mind. The way I picture it is that that notes live on the piano keys, like a country with house addresses. The clefs are like a map. No map can cover the whole world, so we usually have a bunch of maps. Usually the maps overlap.

I'm thinking that if we get the notes gradually, locating the written notes on the piano, eventually we'll get to that overlap and and it won't be a big deal. But it simply isn't true that G4 "belongs" to the treble clef, and G3 "belongs" to the bass clef. If G4 is on ledger lines above the bass clef then it is part of the bass clef.

KS, in my mind, the D which is immediately above middle C on the piano, is notated on the treble (G) clef without use of leger lines. Ditto for the G which is immediately above the F line at the top of the clef. The top leger line of the G clef is not a fence, IMHO, so the adjacent G would be part of the clef. But this is academic hair splitting, which grad students can argue over with a couple of tall, cool brews. To say that if you include the D & G in question as part of the G clef is a lie is over the top. Personally, I feel that leger lines which extend a clef, up or down, make notes written on them part of the associated clef. You may not feel this way. However you feel, it surely doesn't constitute a falsehood, let alone a lie!

And one thing for sure, trying to explain all this to a 6 year old beginner is a sure way to lose a student in about two minutes! And the parents too!

By my understanding, the clef purely refers to which system is in use: ie. alto, bass or treble etc. In theory you can use the treble clef to notate the lowest A on the keyboard. It doesn't matter what note you write. If you write it in the bass clef, it's in the bass clef. Why confuse it by saying anything further? The note is simply what it is, when correctly read. Sure, point out that the clefs overlap and that that some notes can be written in either. But why start confusing the kid by referring to that which is notated and read in the bass clef as having more to do with the treble clef? Even if viewed as a treble note is must first be read in the bass clef. This is instinctive to the point that we barely notice we need to do it, but a less experienced reader really must think of it in the bass clef to read accurately. Provided that they think relative to middle C and think of the distance away, they will find it on the piano. Simple.

Even if a "clef" can be reasonably used in another context, it shows what confusion this can open up, so why go there? The simplest way to go is simply to insist that the low line is for the left hand and that the high line is for the right. You can say that this applies unless there is an overwhelmingly good reason to do otherwise, but that it must be understood as the general rule. Then you simply read whatever it says on the score and do it (be it above or below middle C) . Why make it any more complex than that?

Agreed!