 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-03-31 00:00
GBK and I have been discussing this topic very recently and he's given me some important information. I decided to set this topic (though not directly clarinet related) because I'd like some feed back from those of you who TEACH the very young.
I pose this comment
"I believe reading music is often the most difficult hurdle to cross at the HIGHER ages, and prohibits the acquisition of true musicianship. If we can build a platform in these crucial early years (ages 4 to 6 or younger) the benefit is absolutely priceless. Let's be honest, they have to learn 7 letters, up and down, distinguish between several note values. Much easier to learn than reading, writing, arithmetic or any language other than their first"
So, if you're a teacher of music and have taught the very young ... your thoughts are appreciated ...
Without music, the world would be grey, very grey.
Post Edited (2004-03-31 21:11)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Piercy
Date: 2004-03-31 01:46
I occasionally take on a very young student - on piano, not clarinet - and have no problems teaching them to read music if they already have the capacity to read the written word at some elementary level.
I teach them both Solfege: Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La Si, Do -- and "English" note names: A, B, C, etc...).
I don't use games such as Every Good Boy etc. to get them to learn the note names and places on the staff. I just give them the information as simply and honestly as I can and let them memorize it and use it on the keyboard and in singing.
I teach them that a C is a C is a C, unless you're in solfege where a Si is not a C. (Heh, heh -- but even they get that bad joke and fact of musical life after a while.)
I don't find it unusually difficult for them. If they can look at a word such as T-H-I-S and tell me the letter names, then I tell them they can look at a staff and tell me note names.
Note values: whole, half, quarter and eighth seem to not be a problem to identify as it is simply being asked to identify a visual. If they can already identify squares and circles, then they can usually identify a circle, a circle with a stem or "stick,” a colored circle with a stem or "stick" and a colored circle with a "flag." The problem usually comes in executing the correct rhythm using those note values.
Identifying the note names and note values doesn't seem to be much of a problem.
I say go for it at an early age and then it doesn't seem to be a big deal or mystery to them. Simple, straightforward and to the point has worked for my students at this age.
I have had some young students leave after a few years and then come back when they are teens and the note reading, after a brief re-introduction, seems to have stuck with them. Again, it doesn't seem to be a problem or mystery or something difficult.
Tom Piercy
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda
Date: 2004-03-31 03:17
I taught our kids when they were very young, but couldn't tell you at what ages. They were more or less taught at the same time, but the four of them were 5 years apart so they may have been between 8 and 3. I photocopied the beginning SCHAUM book on notation, made up folders for each of them, and gave them stars for their completed pages, one or two pages a day. They were too young to know it was work. (I just looked up their folders - they're still here! but I just realized that the youngest did only a couple of pages. He's 19 now - maybe I'll have him finish up his pages! Naw, he's already done his piano and saxophone, and he's right beside me working out his bass guitar rhythms.)
By the time they started piano lessons in grade school, they already knew how to read notes and were way ahead of others of their age. Even reading words - when my first son was still in a crib I hung up letters and words for him to see every day. He read before kindergarten, and Spanish was a breeze. (By the time the fourth one came along I had forgotten to teach him anything, I was soooo busy! and the poor fellow didn't even know his letters or colours by kindergarten. I guess that's where Dad or Grandma comes in?)
And why couldn't you teach them rhythm as babies by rocking them in time to some neat music, or instead of just burping them, do it in time to the music you have on? They won't know the difference, will they? They'd throw up on you in any case, rhythm or not.
As in language, memory or any other kind of learning, never underestimate the ability of very young minds to learn. Just be smart enough as a parent to make it like play, and to know when to stop the day's lesson - tomorrow's a new day.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-03-31 04:00
Brenda ... young minds are like sponges, really.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ginny
Date: 2004-03-31 06:07
I did a lot of eurhythmics and other eartraining with my kids basically from birth on and have taught other people's little tiny ones, as young as three. Just having the concept of high and low pitch and walking in rhythm is good. Kolday and Orff are good sources for teaching the very young. Kolday has been adapted as a basis for a guitar method, as has Suzuki, another excellent method for teaching music early. Little ones can learn solfege, and use Kolday hand signs or just body positions to indicate pitch. BTW one son has perfect pitch, the other has excellent relative pitch.
As Tom points out fast paced music games work well. I had a tape I made of simple songs and game songs sung both to words and on the note numbers, a giant zylophone mock up that could be jumped on while a little zylophone played (you had to guess how far away the note was and step, skip or leap) and so on.
My own view is that starting later makes music a second language rather than a first language because of the way little brains grow and learn in the first 5 years.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JMcAulay
Date: 2004-03-31 07:32
I've taught various subjects to students from age seven through adults. In my view the most distinctive difference is a need to provide new information constantly to the younger ones, or they will lose interest. Young minds are indeed sponges, but you must keep those sponges directed toward the task at hand.
Re teaching instrumental music to beginning students (especially younger ones): equate staff positions to fingering, not to solfeg or "alphabet" names. Why? If note names of any sort are taught, this forces the student to do a double mental translation. "Let's see, that note is a C, and C is fingered like this...." Better to think, "That note means play like this." Note names can be learned later, incidental to the playing process. My opinion. perhaps shared by few others.
Good luck, diz.
Regards,
John
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2004-03-31 13:30
Quote:
Re teaching instrumental music to beginning students (especially younger ones): equate staff positions to fingering, not to solfeg or "alphabet" names. Why? If note names of any sort are taught, this forces the student to do a double mental translation. "Let's see, that note is a C, and C is fingered like this...." Better to think, "That note means play like this." Note names can be learned later, incidental to the playing process. My opinion. perhaps shared by few others. I was taught along those lines. It really helps to bring the sight reading up to speed. For instance, when I see a particular run, I (being 99% self-taught and lacking my theory and scale knowledge) recognize the pattern and remember how it falls under the fingers. What I DON'T do is recognize it as an F scale arpeggio and then remember that an F scale arpeggio uses THESE particular notes. It sort of ties back to that thread a while back that I had asked about "music theory vs muscle memory".
I also notice it in my little sister. In her school they are teaching her both at once. They have "Mary Had A Little Lamb" first written out on a staff, and she has to remember the fingerings. Then she takes out "Old McDonald Had A Farm" which is a sheet of paper with large letters on it. "FFFCDDCAAGGF". So then she gets confused trying to match the letter of the name with the fingering. And I think to myself, "Now how's THIS gonna help her when new sheet music is put in front of her . . . "
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paulwl
Date: 2004-03-31 15:48
(diz) >> I pose this comment
"I believe reading music is often the most difficult hurdle to cross at the HIGHER ages, and prohibits the acquisition of true musicianship. <<
Define, please, "true musicianship."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-03-31 21:05
This comment is not one I made (hence my use of quotation marks), that comment "true musicianship" rang a little bell with me, too. But not enough to waste too much mental energy on. I think the commentor is implying that gaining a deep level of musicianship is expedited if the student can read music fluently (as opposed to being taught parrot fashion) ... [for the record I don't necessarily agree with that concept but I don't support it 100% either].
the whole pointof my discussion was to guage how different teachers handle youngsters ...
Another issue I was grappling with (presented by my new student's parent) was whether he (the parent) would be able to sit in on the lessons. My attitude to this is Yes, absolutely ... espeically when the students are very young, I see no problem with it. If they interfere endlessly in the lessons I'll tell them I'm no longer interested in teaching their youngster (no matter how brilliant).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: paulwl
Date: 2004-03-31 22:41
>> This comment is not one I made (hence my use of quotation marks) <<
Oops. My apologies.
>> that comment "true musicianship" rang a little bell with me, too. But not enough to waste too much mental energy on. <<
OK...having been in the unusual position of having had my playing ability far surpass my reading ability as a youngster, I guess I feel a bit differently about defining musicianship.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: davor
Date: 2004-04-01 18:31
I teach the instrument only. They have another teacher for theory.
I am not sure if starting with 4 good job could be done. The progress is very slow, and I strongly recommend that students should not be younger than 6 for a woodwind instrument including recorder.
I taught using Lions clarinet, which is very hard to repair once something gets wrong. Spare parts should be ordered from England, and this could last.
I now use Eb for very young and small students . Their age vary from 7-9. I can not tell whether it is good or not, but all of them switch to something after a year or two on recorder, and if you do not give them clarinet in their mouth they go to another instrument.
I am looking foreward to begin with C clarinet, which has the same mouthpiece as Bb. Switching from Eb to Bb clarinet might be difficult because of the embouchure, but otherwise is fine.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: bnanno
Date: 2004-04-02 08:22
There are some music schools here that start taking in students as early 3-4, although I am not sure of the contents. Most conservatories though start students on the theory the year they turn 7 (solfeo) and use this year to introduce them to the different instruments available for learning in the school.
Bringing in older students to the classrooms to play the instruments, allowing each child to hold and blow, finger or whatever the instrument.
Teaching the theory first seems to speed up the instrument learning process the year after, as they can already "read" the sheet music with their mind, and then it is getting it down to the instrument in hand.
Sometimes there are younger students, usually because the parent(s) is a musician and have taught them early on, but teachers I have talked to have said that their experience has led them to believe 7-8 as the ideal age to pick up an instrument, the ones where it seems that most seem to be able to pick out the instrument they like quite independently, and make good progress and starting earlier than that does not mean more progress in the vast majority of the students.
However, I do second the teaching of music "theory" (I don't know the equivalent in Spanish to "Lenguaje Musical"), as it seems to give them a lot more to get out of the instrument right from the beginning. Yes, the teachers who teach are different from the instruments teacher.
One conclusion, reading all the posts on this board I realise how many different systems there are for teaching/learning music , but they all seem to be able to produce musicians, so I suppose they all work!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: allencole
Date: 2004-04-02 08:56
Theory is a magnificent enhancer at all ages. Another group that it helps tremendously are adults--largely because they don't get in as much practice as the kids. They often relate to it because it's more like conventional homework. (and they can work on it quietly!)
Also ditto on starting young kids on piano rather than something else. DEFINITELY the best way to go. Definitely more user-friendly than any wind instrument I can think of.
A major problem, though, is that so many homes have no piano. We need some good teachers out there who will work with kids who have electronic keyboards. Purists will scoff, but I think that the benefits of having some keyboard experience should be spread as widely as possible.
Allen Cole
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: diz
Date: 2004-04-04 23:28
Allen ... my "little person" came on Sunday (with her father in tow) for her first lesson, she is in fact learning piano from me. They do not own an acoustic piano and have a digital one ... this is fine for the basics. Down the track if she turns into another Richter then I'll suggest they hire or purchase an acoustic. I don't think any realistic teacher would scoff at digital keyboards for begginers ... especially if it's the decieder between learning or not.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brenda
Date: 2004-04-05 02:47
An electronic keyboard is OK for learning the basics, but my kids wanted a real piano. They told me that the feel of the keys is different, less resistant than the piano they played at lessons. They even complained about the difference in sound quality.
Now that we bought a real piano they tell me that they would have continued their lessons longer if we had the piano a long time ago. Who can know for sure? But one of the kids gives it a workout when he comes home to visit.
So if the kids start with the keyboard, keep your eyes on the classified ads for a real piano before they notice the difference. And yes, I agree that it should be the first instrument they play, even as babies - Mom or Dad can guide their fingers and let them notice the relationship between the sounds produced while pressing progressive keys. If the music is in them, they won't pound on the keys but rather will listen to what's happening.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: RAMman
Date: 2004-04-06 13:16
Many people will be aware of Julian Bliss,
Started the clarinet aged 5 with very simple non-theory related teaching.
Now 14...post graduate diplomas from the Royal Academy of Music in London and Indiana State University.
Wigmore hall debut recently...the most stunning technical playing I have heard for some time.
Start 'em young!
Danny.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
