Suzuki Method versus traditional teaching method

[carl-swanson]

I’m not sure that this has been discussed here before, and i can’t find any place here to run a search. So if this has already been covered maybe someone can point me in the right direction.

My question is this: Suzuki teaching of the harp has been around now for maybe 30 years. So there is a long enough track record to compare it to traditional harp pedagogy. I’m interested in hearing particularly from people who learned the harp by Suzuki method to hear what their experiences were, good and/or bad, and how that educational method compares with traditional pedagogy. I’d also like to hear from harp teachers who use standard(non-Suzuki) methods to teach the harp who have had Suzuki students transfer over to them. Were there problems/deficiencies with the training the Suzuki students? Were there advantages? How did Suzuki student’s training compare to students with traditional training? How does a Suzuki student who has studied for say 5 years compare to the average non-Suzuki student with the same amount of training?

[Saul Davis Zlatkovski]

Wow, a nice juicy topic!

I can say that Lucile Lawrence felt it would interfere with learning to read, which she constantly found to be a big problem with harp students, not having enough reading skill. She also felt that her approach in her ABC of Harp Playing was better, where you learn to read and play at the same time by saying the notes and pointing to them as you play them. I have not been that impressed with the selections in the Suzuki books to want to use them. I tend to think that a lot of it is based on marketing appeal, that it is attractive to parents. The involvement of the parents is something that is more natural to the Asian cultures, I suspect, than to Western.

As for the results, it probably evens out after a certain number of years. It did used to strike me that Suzuki pupils seemed to be more confident and egocentrically secure, perhaps from receiving lots of support and little criticism, perhaps? But I have little direct experience, so I will be glad to hear from those who have had it.

[rosalind-beck]

I use the Suzuki Harp School materials but not the “method,” (learning by rote/by ear).

[carl-swanson]

Rosalind- have you had any experience with a Suzuki trained student switching over to you? If so, how did they play?

[rosalind-beck]

Carl, I only tried that once, and the story did not have a happy ending. The little boy’s mother was a Suzuki violin teacher and wanted him to play the harp “the Suzuki way,” i.e., without learning to read music from the beginning. Some early Suzuki advocates appeared almost “brainwashed” about the virtues of the method, and I think she was one of them.

She practiced and coached her son with his harp study diligently every day, and he did make good progress at the beginning. We then reached the point where he was

[carl-swanson]

Interesting story Rosalind. I’m sure, as in traditional teaching, there are good Suzuki teachers and bad ones. But I’ve heard several stories from reputable people that suggest that the Suzuki method of learning the harp presents some real problems: The “brick walls” as you call them.

One very famous harpist in the U.S. told me of a Suzuki teacher who has around 60 students. She starts these kids around 8 or 9 or younger. But 4 or 5 years later many of them give up the instrument because, now in high school, they can’t read music and therefore can’t do any ensemble playing. It sounds like at some point the teacher has to break with Suzuki method and start teaching them the traditional way.

Another harpist, a professional and a very good friend of mine, has a grand daughter who wanted to study harp. The area of the country where she lived did not offer a lot of options teacher-wise, and she ended up studying with a Suzuki teacher. This was a girl who already had good piano background and was a brilliant student at school. The (Suzuki) teacher spent almost 2 years teaching this girl and not once did she assign anything that involved both hands! The girl and her grandmother were furious. The girl’s family finally moved to another part of the country and she had to start over with an excellent teacher(and one of the regular posters on this forum!). The girl is now doing great and playing in the orchestra at her college.

It’s because of these stories that I asked my original question.

[Julietta Anne Rabens]

Assigning sight-reading is a regular part of the Suzuki training I know of from teachers who have their certification. Also, the ensemble playing reinforces reading and rhythmic coordination. I don’t have Suzuki certification in harp yet, but plan on it as soon as I can save up the funds, however, I have done some reading, have taken the Every Child Can course, attended the SAA conferences, and have friends and colleagues who have been raised in Suzuki and/or have completed the training. One important issue to consider is certification. Anyone can buy the books and I suppose call themselves a Suzuki teacher. This is not the same thing as going through the training. I can’t verify all the outcomes of the training process, but the issues you describe do not sound compatible with the philosophy or training.

It isn’t necessarily the only approach to take in teaching, but its strengths include an emphasis on listening and on parental involvement. It is a non-elitist approach to education with some influence from Eastern philosophy which focuses on relaxed awareness and focus over judgment and criticism. My understanding of the last point is that when the learning process focuses on a checklist of “do’s” and “don’ts”, “right” and “wrong” and other such preset judgments, the focus can be removed from the experience of playing the instrument. This self distraction which focuses on the negative can make it difficult to hear how one is actually playing. There is use of repetition to internalize the sounds. By focusing on the sound in a deep manner, one learns to hear every nuance of the melody just as one learns the nuance of language right down to the details of regional accents.

The Suzuki method creates an approach to learning that is parallel to how language is acquired. The idea is that in the same way language is learned first as speech and secondly as written text, music is most naturally acquired by this same process. Reading music is no less a goal than becoming literate is for language. Brain imaging has determined that there are parts of the brain dedicated to language acquisition, but literacy requires many parts of the brain coming together. It is not as deeply rooted – we are not hardwired for written text in the way we are for spoken text. Perhaps the same is true of music as a language?

I think the underlying philosophy is interwoven throughout the method. There could be problems when someone encounters one fragment of it and then proceeds to implement it.

[Julietta Anne Rabens]

One more note to add. :o)

Because Shinichi Suzuki’s approach focuses on nurturing the whole child by creating a positive environment, it seems inconsistent for the method to be implemented with an “iron fist” so to speak. When some cases of traditional music learning is based on perfectionism as an unachievable ideal and even punishment when it is not reached, I think it is easy for any method, including Suzuki, to become mishapen by some of these underlying assumptions teachers can bring in from their own experiences. The underlying ideal in the Suzuki method is to “foster the human qualities in the child”. It seeks to strengthen every child. With that as a principle, it would seem reasonable that it would adapt the details its implementation to any practical means to achieve that goal.

[mr-s]

Hi Carl,i am really interested to know about Suzuki methode,but i dont know how it looks like, as traditional methodes, body position,hands fingers,articulation, and etc….. orit different ? i thought its not a real method ,why? because in the harp.com site i found the Suzuki’s its a books of selected pieces, and CDs

[sherry-lenox]

I am a devoted advocate for the Kodaly Method for children from nursery school on up. The method is based on the concept that children in a musically rich envrironment can learn music literacy as naturally as they learn to read the words of their native language- music is also a “native language” for children.

I think that the Suzuki Method is much harder to do as thoroughly as Suzuki advocated than doing Kodaly, although the Kodaly Approach also requires intensive training and a great deal of preparation both before and after the instructor begins working with children.

It is extremely gratifying to use the Kodaly Approach. I absolutely didn’t believe that children could do what I learned in my Kodaly classes until I

[carl-swanson]

Sherry-There is also an Orff method of teaching musical fundamentals. I don’t know how it compares to the Kodaly method. In the United States, musical instrument instruction tends to take place exclusively in the context of the instrumental lesson. That means the teacher has to not only teach the student how to play the instrument, but also how to read notes and rhythm, which is a completely separate skill. It would be nice if, like the French, students took their instrumental lesson from one teacher, and learned everything else-solfege in the case of French students- with another. But we don’t usually do that here.

So with that being the case, I’m curious to know how Suzuki students fare in the long haul when they are learning to play the harp by ear and are not getting theory until much later. Is it a hindrance or does everything come out even in the end?

[Saul Davis Zlatkovski]

I think Orff uses a lot of percussion toys and Kodaly is focused on singing, initially.

So, given this start of a Suzuki-trained child, how does this affect their psychological development, and artistic growth? To never have a critical attitude or accept it is to me a bad thing, and I believe I’ve seen the results of that on stage.

Do we know of any famous musicians who started out in Suzuki training?

[carl-swanson]

Very good questions Saul. And I wonder(and I don’t have any notion what the answer is to this) if the training given children in the Kodaly or Orff methods actually translates into better musical skills later on. Or is it like “new math” where the theory of it looks great, but it creates math illiterates.

[sherry-lenox]

Kodaly training provides tools, as phonics provide the tool to decode reading. A Kolday trained student has learned layers of musical skills, and the skills remain tools through any other type of musical training to which the child may be exposed.

I have not had any formal training in Orff techniques, so I am not able to express an opinion.

I’d like to know more about the use of Suzuki harp training. From the small amount I know about using Suzuki with orchestral instruments it seems to me that the initial training would have to be somewhat different, because the Suzuki I harp book requires much more technical skill than the level I book of violin, as an example.

It has been my own experience that many very good musicians find it very difficult to teach music reading effectively, and the very structured skill steps in Kodaly are very helpful with (I’m using many too many “very’s” but the emphasis is necessary to make my point).

I have often discussed this topic with music educators, and have often heard the complaint that without a structured, sequential approach to music literacy instruction, an applied music teacher always winds up re-inventing the wheel when starting with a new student who is not an absolute novice in all aspects of music instruction.

A well run Kodaly program evens the playing field for student and teacher. A child in the fifth or sixth grade will know how rhythms and notes look and sound, will know the meaning of essential music vocabulary words, and will love using what he or she knows about music.

It’s all kid based and music based and learning based, and the results are more fun than a barrel of musical monkeys.

[kreig-kitts]

Mr. S. – Suzuki method isn’t a method for playing like the Salzedo method would be. It’s a method for learning an instrument, pretty much any instrument. Too simplify it a great deal, it emphasizes playing by repeating the teacher, playing by ear, and parents observing their children’s lessons and playing with their children.

I think there are pros and cons, and teachers who blend methods a little might be on the right track. But if forced to choose, I’m more keen on Suzuki because it tends to get students playing interesting music sooner, which probably means students practicing more and staying with the instrument. Students need to learn fundamentals (not to mention read music) to advance and become well-rounded musicians, but they won’t learn any fundamentals if they get tired of grinding basics without a musical payoff. And playing by ear is also part of being a well-rounded musician, and that is somewhat neglected by many teachers.

[Author]

Posts