 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Clarinetgirl
Date: 2010-09-19 19:29
I was wondering if anyone knew anywhere in the world that teach suzuki clarinet?
Or any other countries/institutions that are renowned for their clarinet teaching. I am writing about clarinet teaching and want a hot topic to research!
thank you in advance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2010-09-20 01:35
We don't need Suzuki Clarinet methods.
Traditional works just fine. Having an alternate clarinet does make a difference such as the Lyons (different name now, Nuvo?), or the KinderClari.
There however can be a problem when the student looses their teeth around 2nd grade.
Julian Bliss is a great example of someone who played basically since he was born.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2010-09-20 02:23
It might depend a little on what exactly you mean by "Suzuki clarinet."
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Blake Arrington
Date: 2010-09-20 02:50
If you do a dissertation search, there was one from the 70 or 80s, I believe that studied clarinet taught by Suzuki method.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Clarinetgirl
Date: 2010-09-20 10:34
Thanks for your reply David - would you mind answering a few questions as I'd like to research this further?
You said we don't need suzuki clarinet as traditional works fine, but surely the same could be said for violin and piano teaching. There are fantastic players who have been taught traditionally and suzuki method so why do we only have the 'traditional' method on the clarinet.
Surely it would be a postive thing to have 2 methods of teaching?
I agree, traditional method works very well on the clarinet, but is there any reason to be opposed to suzuki?
I'm not just interested in suzuki teaching - also are there any other famous schools of clarinet teaching people know about?
Thanks for your help.
Post Edited (2010-09-20 10:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2010-09-20 11:05
I happen to disagree with David on this issue.
I think that many of the Suzuki techniques can and should be applied in teaching younger kids. These include the primary role of playing by ear (or rote), using simple tunes, and the importance that parents play in the early development of the child learning.
I am not sure why we, the clarinet community at large, has not tried to adapt Dr. Suzuki's methods in our teaching, as has the flute community.
There are some serious issues that one has to deal with when working with very young kids but these can be overcome through creative means.
1) Weight of the instrument (solution: neckstraps, use of a plastic Eb or C clarient, or the English Kinderclarinet)
2) Reeds (use of a synthetic reed like a Legere or Forestone)
3) Teaching material (either write your own tunes or borrow from Flute Suzuki book 1).
That Peter Hadcock started on an Eb with William Stubbins and an age well below the US norm of 9 years and the success of Julian Bliss (you can see his amazing musical evolution on YouTube) shows that we have not really tapped into the possibilities yet with the really young kids.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2010-09-20 13:27
I believe there are Suzuki recorder classes. For the youngest children (too young for the weight, the embouchure and the hand-spread of a clarinet), recorder might be a better choice. Suzuki is excellent for the youngest children, but I don't think Suzuki method is a good idea for kids big enough for the traditional clarinet studies that typically begin in the USA when a child is nine or ten years old.
Suzuki method does a fine job of teaching the smallest kids to play by ear and to play fearlessly in front of others. Suzuki beginners love music and seem nearly immune to stage fright even after they move to conventional lessons. However, despite changes in the Suzuki method to improve teaching of music-reading skills, I think Suzuki students still do end up deficient in music-reading and in music theory if they stay with Suzuki much past the time when they're learning to read and write their spoken languages. That's the prime age for learning to read a score. Suzuki up to age seven or so -- great. Beyond that -- I'd go with traditional lessons.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
Post Edited (2010-09-20 13:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2010-09-20 13:41
Doing a quick search, I could not find any Suzuki method clarinet information in Japanese.
I have never heard of it, but I searched anyway.
[I might get burned for this...]
I think that the Suzuki method works well for piano and strings because those instruments are much easier for kids- they can easily see what their teacher is doing and copy it. With wind instruments, just getting sound to come out is a challenge and so much of the action is invisible.
I don't know if it would really work, the key system is so complicated that I would doubt that most young kids would not get confused. With strings and piano, all you have to do is look and you can see the goal.
(Julian Bliss is clearly not "most kids"!)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2010-09-20 13:49
There are also Suzuki Flute Classes.
Kids can play the Clarinet at a really early age, but the traditional methods work quite well.
I'll try to answer the other questions later when I have time.
As to getting a sound, both of my kids could get a sound (real clarinet tone) at age 3. It was with a kinderclari, and the Lyons (I've got both). I didn't push either one as I wanted the interest to come from them not me.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
Post Edited (2010-09-20 13:53)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: annev
Date: 2010-09-21 20:28
I have an 11 year old who has been playing the flute for six months. Her teacher uses a combination of Suzuki method and traditional note-reading instruction. She seems to have a slightly easier time learning the note-reading pieces. I've noticed, though, that while her tone is generally good with the note-reading pieces, it is much more beautiful when she plays the Suzuki pieces.
Julie Lyonn Lieberman, in her book, "You are your instrument", talks about using the six-fold memory when learning music. These are: muscle memory, imagistic memory, visualization, auditory memory, visual memory and analytical memory. Each of these contribute a different approach to learning music and compliment eachother. Personally I'd love to see Suzuki clarinet method. It would be another tool for the tool box.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2010-09-22 02:46
I'll never forget the words of an ear training/sight singing professor I had in college. The man was a bit odd, but he knew his stuff. He'd frequently say, "At too early an age someone put an instrument into your hands and taught you to push buttons when you should have been singing!"
I agree with Lelia Loban and Skygardner. Although some very young children might do well on the clarinet, I really think it is best to wait until a child is at least eight. Singing, playing song flute, Flutophone, or recorder, and attending concerts are great activities for younger children.
Clarinetgirl, since you're looking for a good research topic, I think I have one for you--teaching rhythms and counting to clarinet players. I've taught for a long time, and I'll explain the problem as I see it.
The educational musical establishment is chained to the concept of counting rhythms with a number system. For a piece in 4/4, it is always 1 2 3 4. If the rhythms are easy (a whole note, two half notes, or four quarter notes), the system works for most kids. The problems begin when the rhythms get a little harder. A second or third year student might see something like a dotted quarter note followed by an eighth note, eighth followed by two sixteenths, then four sixteenth notes. When most second and third year students (I'm not sure about the UK, but it's very common in the US) see this without having it explained or sung to them, they butcher it. They get nervous and frustrated, and their minds "fog up." If you throw in some eighth rests, it's panic time! They forget all of the clarinet fundamentals they've been taught, and play the passage inaccurately with a poor tone. The teacher gets frustrated, and sings the rhythm. He/she then writes out the counting,
1 and 2 and 3 and a 4 e and a. The students are then asked to play it (although some teachers might ask the students to sing it first). Some students, those with more mathematical minds, get it. Many students, though, do not respond at all to this approach. Even so, the teachers keep it coming . . . and coming . . . and coming. Those who seem to comprehend the rhythms play with more confidence and continue on through high school. Those who don't usually lack confidence, and continue to play with an anemic tone quality. Some of them quit, and others continue on through high school, having fun, but playing at a very low level.
I can't even begin to count the number of second and third year students who have come to me for private lessons after never having them before. With very few exceptions, their sense of rhythm is poor. They have no confidence in their abilities to decode rhythms, sometimes even easy rhythms. They'll often ask for help with their band music, and I have to sit down patiently with them as they stumble through it. Sometimes, their teachers in school give them written counting tests. They write out all the rhythms, but does this usually translate into playing them well? I've found that this often doesn't happen.
Is there a better way? There is, and perhaps your research can help to find it and spread the word. You could look at a number of alternate approaches, such as Kodaly and Froseth, or possibly create your own. You could investigate Bruce Pearson's ideas for introducing basic rhythms. You could compare the abilities of students who are taught with traditional counting methods (1 2 and 3 and a 4) with those who learn with alternate methods.
I think it is important for students to be presented with traditional counting methods. However, I frequently use alternate methods (my favorite is Kodaly) when the students aren't getting it. Sometimes, I'll present both methods. The traditional counting method should not be the only method presented, but too often it is.
Good luck with your research--whatever you decide to do!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2010-09-22 02:55
Locally there's the Edwin Gordon jump right in book and system of counting. Do is for the quarter note. Do dey for two eighth notes. Do ta dey ta for sixteenth notes.
And reading notes aren't taught until after several months. It's a form of Suzuki I guess.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grifffinity
Date: 2010-09-22 20:28
Quote:
I'll never forget the words of an ear training/sight singing professor I had in college. The man was a bit odd, but he knew his stuff. He'd frequently say, "At too early an age someone put an instrument into your hands and taught you to push buttons when you should have been singing!"
It's no coincidence in my mind that my most advanced students had a few years of piano lessons before taking up the clarinet in 4th grade. I too have had 7th and 8th grade students who have been playing since 4th grade come to me with puffed cheeks, limited range, inability to read notes and rhythms - clarinet is always their first instrument.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-03-16 01:10
I just saw this thread! So bumping a very old one. I am a trained suzuki teacher in piano, flute, recorder. I also teach violin, and when my kids are a bit less dependent on me I will put effort into getting the violin qualifications.
As I am learning the clarinet I am constantly thinking how this could be taught in a Suzuki Way. As my end goal is to do my dipABRSm and DipTeachAbrsm
I can see that while i have 3 year olds who can play recorder and 2 year olds who can play piano, i don't think clarinet falls into this. Although, my 1 year old loves blowing the clarineo, the modifications required to the keywork seem pointless. (Flutes have done it with the jupiter "prodigy" flute)
I think if a 3 year old came wanting to play clarinet, i would give them a mouth piece and a barrel, so they can practise making beautiful tone, and then get them singing the repertoire.. obviously there is no repertoire yet, but all my students sing all of the first book from the start, and gradually the technique catches up so they can then play the songs that they can already singing. They also do rhythm exercises, and note reading exercises and games in this lead up while they are learning technique. They are also able to learn beautiful phrasing< dynamics, pitch names etc in this exciting time.
However, then I have the issue, would I want them to develop perfect pitch. I teach perfect pitch from the beginning, but as the clarinet transposes, this could be an issue, that i haven't successfully addressed for myself. As I am certain most parents wouldn't want to spend the extra money to have a C clarinet.
I have put together what i think would make a nice book 1, and am collating pieces that i think will make a nice book 2, which add notes and techniques one by one. But hey... nothing is final until i have taught it and see how it works.
They could possibly learn the recorder to learn finger technique until they are 4 and can hold a clarineo.
These are my musings based on experience as a teacher and thinking how I could apply it to clarinet!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-03-16 01:13
Ps. I am happy to email the experimental book if you want to have a look and voice your opinion.
It is extra experimental in the sense that my computer can't beam quavers, do slurs etc and I don't know what font will do that! So I am left with a fair few markings that i do by hand once it is printed!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-03-18 10:18
To be honest, a lot of what we do to develop tone for our young players when we teach is very similar to Suzuki's primary concept in teaching: Tonalization. The strategies for teaching skills that lead to the ability to hear, recognize, and produce a characteristic tone on the instrument.
The only issue really is that we don't have fractional sized instruments that work all that well, so it's difficult to start the kids at age three! My wife has little ones that show up with 1/32 and 1/16 size violins all the time, and it's amazing how good they can be these days...really helps those beginners to have decent instruments.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-03-20 11:55
I tried both of those small clarinets (the Kinder Klari and the Clarineo) to see if they could work for younger students. Unfortunately, I feel that the quality of manufacture isn't quite there. Keys were either too wobbly and seals were poor, and the Clarineo had a particularly uneven resistance.
Things have changed dramatically in the string world since the 80's...beginner instruments from luthier shops like Scott Cao produce well-functioning instruments down to the 1/32 size, with appropriate-diameter strings, where previously they were little better than violin-shaped toys with cheap steel wires.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-03-20 17:42
When I was 4 years old - back in the early 1950s - I joined a music class that began, among other activities, by playing on a set of bells. These were standard fixed metal bars, not movable Orff type instruments, and we played very simple melodies, I'm sure by ear (I really don't remember in detail). Within a year or, maybe, two, we added "tonettes," which are plastic recorder-like instruments but shorter and a little fatter than a soprano recorder and with raised tone holes (for easier coverage). Again, simple "children's" songs (Lightly Row, Twinkle Twinkle, Mary Had a Little Lamb, etc.). I'm fairly certain we also began reading notation with these very simply played wind instruments. Next came soprano and alto recorders and slightly more sophisticated music, which we read. By the time I was tempted by the clarinet in the summer between 4th and 5th grade, I had a firm background in music and in the basics of fingering a woodwind.
I think instruments like recorders, or even those little tonettes (I don't know if anyone makes them any more), can be a useful start for a Suzuki-like approach to early childhood woodwind playing. The thing about even very small clarinets is that they still involve mechanism that has to be maintained and reeds that still make grown-up professional players' hair fall out. Any reed instrument needs a level of muscular control in the facial area that, IMO, is best developed after other basic musical and fingering skills are in place. Bad reeds and weak embouchure control are major killers of kids' interest - even older, stronger ones who are well past the need for a Suzuki-style approach.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-03-21 03:07
The second one seems to me to be an excellent idea. I'll try one – and probably buy one.
I wouldn't support the first: the whole idea of the clarinet surely relies on the completion of the join between the chalumeau and the clarion. (In search of that, some early clarinet makers organised that B natural resulted from what we now finger as a Bb. That was before they thought of taking the step of adding a LH B key.)
I don't care about the fit between the instrument and some arbitrary teaching system. Any talented beginner would very quickly feel the lack of the complete diatonic scale as they experimented and tried to play the tunes that they already knew.
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2016-03-21 03:37
Also with the first one - I reckon the bell can be done away with entirely and the lower joint shortened sufficiently to give the low G as its lowest note if they're not going to use any upper register notes. And this will make the instrument much lighter in weight for young players to get started on.
But maybe they want to retain the full length joints and bell for a reason that I'm not seeing. Most likely it's much easier to manufacture paring a regular clarinet down to a more simplified form by removing the keys, pillars and toneholes that are surplus to requirements for the programme - the LH2 ring key can be dispensed with and a single tonehole put in its place (which will even up the finger spacing), but that will mean relocating and resizing the tonehole to produce an in-tune E and if these clarinets are already part of a much broader production run making these, the more advanced models and also the standard 17/6 Boehms, then setting out top joints with a different tonehole layout may not be cost effective by the factory.
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
Post Edited (2016-03-21 03:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tony Pay ★2017
Date: 2016-03-22 03:19
ChrisP wrote:
>> I reckon the bell can be done away with entirely and the lower joint shortened sufficiently to give the low G as its lowest note if they're not going to use any upper register notes. And this will make the instrument much lighter in weight for young players to get started on. >>
You can't get rid of the bell without compromising the sound of the whole instrument.
Surely, no musical student with any idea of the clarinet's contribution to the musical world would be prepared to renounce the 'upper register notes'. (Of course they're lucky in that regard: Spotify compares very favourably with the very few LPs and 78s that I had available.)
I do think the weight issue is overemphasised. I used to play the clarinet resting on a stool when I was 9 years old, and there are other solutions using neck straps, etc. (And, though small, I quickly learned to cope anyway.)
Tony
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-03-22 05:16
Tony Pay wrote:
> I do think the weight issue is overemphasised. I used to play
> the clarinet resting on a stool when I was 9 years old, and
> there are other solutions using neck straps, etc. (And, though
> small, I quickly learned to cope anyway.)
>
The Suzuki instruction I've seen first hand was aimed at much younger children than 9-year-olds. More generally, Suzuki violin classes in my experience begin at age 4 or 5, occasionally younger still. Whether the problem with small clarinets for small players is one of weight, or control and endurance of the facial muscles, or just potential frustration with reeds and leaky, mis-adjusted mechanism, my gut feeling is that very young children are better off with instruments that don't have keys and don't have mouthpieces with reeds that have to be assembled for each playing session. Not to mention parental frustration with the constant replacement cost of mangled reeds.
I certainly agree that 8- or 9-year-olds can start out on any instrument they can physically manage.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Matt74
Date: 2016-03-22 05:32
I think it's a great idea, but before I get to that, let me make a long qualification...
I had one year of piano as a child, long before I started saxophone in middle school (and almost immediately clarinet). I wish I had been allowed to continue, and then been taught violin. Piano and violin are the way all the great composers and conductors learned. Musically I would have so much more available to me. In college I worked on piano a bit, and subsequently, but John Thompson's 1 is as far as I got, which is no further than I did as a child.
I don't think there is any advantage to learning wind instruments as a small child.
They're very limiting. You don't learn harmony, and they don't train your ear very well because of inherent intonation problems. You can't sing while playing, and many are transposing instruments (which not only causes tonal confusion but it makes spontaneous ensemble making difficult or impossible - even for adults). Both piano and violin train your ear, teach you harmony, and you can play all of the greatest music. Clarinet has some good literature, but on the piano or violin you can play the greatest masterworks of all the greatest composers. Reams. Truckloads. You can't learn the history of western music on a wind instrument like you can piano or violin. Playing piano is a necessity at any advanced level of musicianship. Piano and violin also provide many more opportunities for playing and employment. There are 2 clarinets in an orchestra, but dozens of string players.
HOWEVER... If my teachers in middle school and high school had used Suzuki methods for woodwinds I would have done much better. It's inexcusable not to teach someone to play by ear. For most people it doesn't just magically happen, and we shouldn't think that if it doesn't magically happen it won't happen. Students need taught. Music is not on the page, it's in your mind, ear, and in the air. Musicians absolutely have to be able to play by ear and to memorize music. (You can get along without it like I do, but it's a major handicap.) So, I would encourage you to go through with your project but include the application of Suzuki to older children and adults. We need talent education too.
- Matthew Simington
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: kdk ★2017
Date: 2016-03-22 06:26
Matt74 wrote:
> HOWEVER... If my teachers in middle school and high school had
> used Suzuki methods for woodwinds I would have done much
> better. It's inexcusable not to teach someone to play by ear.
Please, let's make one point clear - Suzuki didn't invent rote teaching or playing "by ear" before learning to read. One of his basic tenets is certainly that, as we learn to speak before we learn to read, so we should learn music the same way. But his method, fully followed (as opposed to simply using the books or teaching eclectic material by ear first), includes so much more. It was never intended to be used to teach older children. Middle and high school students were not Suzuki's targets. The minutely incremental addition of layers of content, both technical and musical and the thorough blending of expressive concepts with technical methods of achieving them are all more basic than any teenager, certainly any American teenager, would stay still for. American teenagers would choke on the close involvement of parents with the instructional process required by a true Suzuki program.
By the time an American child (I can't speak to those in other places) has reached middle school he already has so much music in his head, learned by ear, by listening to all the music in his environment, that the "learning by ear first" part is already well established. The issue is whether or not school music educators want to base their teaching on whatever is current in popular styles and hit recordings. Believe me, there's plenty of discussion and debate about this both within and outside music education.
Try sitting a middle school clarinet beginner down and getting him to listen to the "Twinkle Variations" and imitate them by rote.
Karl
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2016-03-22 21:33
Sorry Matt 74 but I can't agree with most of your post.
I learned a lot of my music repertoire from listening and copying before I started to learn the clarinet (as my first instrument). As for harmony, I think there is a lot to learn from sitting in the second or third clarinets in a concert band for a while!
To develop as a musician as a whole, instrumental work needs to be dovetailed in with other areas such as listening, singing and history. This can be done whichever instrument you play.
In terms of conductors, you may not know this but there are quite a few whose first instruments were not the piano or violin - what about Colin Davis - clarinet, Simon Rattle - percussion (although he had earlier done some violin and piano but his first orchestral experience was on percussion), Sian Edwards - horn, John Barbirolli - cello?
Just some thoughts - no offence intended.
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Chris P
Date: 2016-03-22 21:45
Edo de Waart - oboe ...
Former oboe finisher
Howarth of London
1998 - 2010
The opinions I express are my own.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-03-25 13:10
Sorry to disappear from the discussion! Been a rough fortnight here.. but ...
Yes suzuki method is for younger children, not designed for the 9 year olds. Although I still use it, i just start the music theory almost immediately too. There are skills that a 9 year old is unlikely to develop that a child at 2 or 3 would. So they learn by ear on the instrument and technique etc... BUT separately are working on music theory learning music reading, so the two can combine at some stage along the way. I do the same with younger kids, but the theory starts a bit later... when they can read english basically.
Re piano verses woodwind. I think every instrument has its pros and cons.
Paino -- you learn harmony but not true intonation. tone quality isn't such a big focus as the other instruments, leading to 'non-listening' type playing.
Violin - you learn true intonation (if you are taught well), and you REALLY have to listen. But if you don't listen, then you sound terrible, and pretty much will never be able to play in tune. It also sounds really poor for the first while, and it is an awkward instrument to hold, which can make progress seem slow to a child.
Flute: again you don't learn harmony, but once you have mastered the fundamentals, you can progress very quickly if you set your mind to it. You should learn true intonation, and you learn to listen for your tone quality.
Recorder: It can be a challenge to develop perfect pitch because you switch recorders all the time (between F and C) but have the same fingerings. It is possible, but takes more effort. This is actually my favourite woodwind for kids. They have to really listen to their articulation, it is light, it requires concentration but not physical effort (very little air resistance)
I understand the comment about harmony. and definitely piano students have more luck understanding that easily. But the others seem to get it too.
i like the fact the clarineo has pretty good tone for what it is. but i also hate that it feels flimsy under the fingers. But my 1 year old won't be parted from it! and it hasn't broken in the 4 months she has been playing with it.
My experience has been if a student learns one instrument well, then the next instrument is easier. This may be a good reason to do recorder or piano or something first. My sons are 7 and 9 and hoping to do their ATCLs this year. So if you think "i will pick an instrument, let my child master it early, then they are equipped to learn any instrument they like". I almost think it doesn't matter which instrument they do first to prepare for what they do second.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-03-26 00:55
Haha David, then you have never seen Suzuki method taught properly. And there are lots of people who claim to be suzuki teachers but have never done an ounce of training. But just want to attract students looking for a suzuki teacher. And then the best suzuki teachers have bachelors of music as well as suzuki training.
By the third piece they learn, i am questioning them on EVERY note. They have been learning to sing the repertoire for the whole book. And i ask them, "lets figure the next note, is it up down or the same?" hard;y spoon feeding them. ASKING them to figure out the next note. Helping them use their ear to find it.
At first it is one note at a time, and then they start recognising patterns. And before long they are coming to a lesson having figured out whole pieces by themselves. by ear.
So when their music reading catches up with their playing, they are reading patterns as opposed to notes too. If that makes sense. (I don't mean they can't read notes by that comment... but that 'chunking' is used, to use the psychological term).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-03-26 09:25
While I am equally irritated with teachers who use the material from the books, but have no teacher training, teach solely by rote, and skip the important things like Tonalization, ear training, note reading, sight-reading, etc., they do not represent the best practices of the Suzuki Method, similarly to how the "experts" at Expert Village offering clarinet lessons on YouTube do not present anything that resembles what good clarinet instruction is.
This resource shows some of the impact that Suzuki programs have had, particular on string musicians world-wide in the past 50+ years:
http://www.suzukialumniproject.org/
Post Edited (2016-03-26 12:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Agomongo
Date: 2016-03-28 01:48
I have a friend who is EXTREMELY talented at violin (learned Sibelius violin concerto in freshman year.) I asked him about this topic and he said it really depends.
He said that people who have perfect pitch SHOULD NOT use this method (he has perfect pitch), because it can really mess up their playing. He even went to the extent that his sight reading is horrible, because of Suzuki. On top of that he has pretty terrible rhythm and he also said that Suzuki caused that to happen also.
He also said anyone older than nine shouldn't use the method, because it's intended for younger children. Since many clarinet players pick up the clarinet at 9+ Suzuki would be useless and maybe even detrimental. He even said that late starters to the violin (9+) don't use Suzuki. Though he also added that if you're teaching a non-serious clarinet player (who started at 9+) then just teach them Suzuki, but if you have a serious student go with the traditional method.
If we want to teach our students how to have a good ear I think solfege would be a lot better.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-03-28 03:16
1. Students with perfect pitch benefit the most from early exposure to music education through the method, because they acquire a large amount of the musical language prior to their introduction to the notation (at the same time that they begin to recognize symbols in reading/writing).
2. Rhythm training is an essential part of music education, and most Suzuki programs engage students in group classes and supporting courses that cover those details. I spent some time in Japan observing the early childhood music education program at the Toho School, which had very innovative courses in movement and body percussion to teach and reinforce basic rhythm concepts from preschool on. In the Suzuki Academy of my youth orchestra, their weekly classes draw on all sorts of materials to help students develop proficiency in rhythm concepts (for example, two of the works in the second book rely on the dotted-eighth-sixteenth rhythm extensively, and there's a ton of games, exercises, and strategies used to help each child acquire the understanding of the concept).
3. Interesting that you mention solfege...because my wife is a Suzuki teacher and solfege is one of the first concepts taught at a lesson, even with the three year olds!
I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that regardless of the *method* being used, the quality of the teacher is paramount.
Post Edited (2016-03-28 03:27)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Agomongo
Date: 2016-03-28 03:49
gwie wrote:
> 1. Students with perfect pitch benefit the most from early
> exposure to music education through the method, because they
> acquire a large amount of the musical language prior to their
> introduction to the notation (at the same time that they begin
> to recognize symbols in reading/writing).
>
> 2. Rhythm training is an essential part of music education, and
> most Suzuki programs engage students in group classes and
> supporting courses that cover those details. I spent some time
> in Japan observing the early childhood music education program
> at the Toho School, which had very innovative courses in
> movement and body percussion to teach and reinforce basic
> rhythm concepts from preschool on. In the Suzuki Academy of my
> youth orchestra, their weekly classes draw on all sorts of
> materials to help students develop proficiency in rhythm
> concepts (for example, two of the works in the second book rely
> on the dotted-eighth-sixteenth rhythm extensively, and there's
> a ton of games, exercises, and strategies used to help each
> child acquire the understanding of the concept).
>
> 3. Interesting that you mention solfege...because my wife is a
> Suzuki teacher and solfege is one of the first concepts taught
> at a lesson, even with the three year olds!
>
> I think what a lot of people fail to realize is that regardless
> of the *method* being used, the quality of the teacher is
> paramount.
>
>
> Post Edited (2016-03-28 03:27)
Seems like that there are different types of Suzuki's teaching methods? Because every single violinist and violist I've met never said anything about learning solfege and rhythm. Also, the second one seems to me not just Suzuki, but a combination of Suzuki and Eurythmics.
Post Edited (2016-03-28 03:54)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-03-28 06:54
Okay. I see where he is coming from ....
BUT ... sight reading is practise. It is true suzuki students can be lazy re reading, because they hear it once and can play it by memory. Which means that the astute teacher needs to give them both rhythms to work through, and plenty of unheard repertoire.
And I know all about the laziness. My second son is exactly like that. Unless I send him away with a book that he hasn't heard, he won't read. he will wait for his brother to play the piece once (by reading) and then my second son will know it. He can read, but he will use his ear first.
This is combatted by LOTS of reading. And hey.. how many traditional students are good readers? Particularly on piano where you have the two lines of music going. Actually, ALL of the girls at church who have done their diplomas traditional method CANT sight read anywhere near as well as my 9 year old can. And even with perfect pitch, he can sight transpose on the spot.
Perfect pitch is a great blessing... except if you play transposing instruments. I know some performers who play the clarinet by ear solely because they want to think in perfect pitch, so they ignore the names of the notes on the fingerings. But until i took up clarinet I have never played a transposing instrument before. But then I did buy a C clarinet for exactly that reason.
I have had numerous students who are now professional musicians. All of them can read well.
Suzuki Method is a philosophy more than anything else. So if a teacher chooses to use solfeggi, that is their choice. If you use a kodaly type program for rhythms, or an orff one, or one you made up (this is me!) then that is fine. The goal is creating a noble character through producing fine music. (hence the focus on tone). It is a very eastern style philosophy.
Suzuki didn't have to teach music reading. Because the japanese schools have such a thorough music program. NSW schools don't have that. Which means I have to teach reading thoroughly. Suzuki says teach reading when the child learns to read japanese (i.e. english), so i tell all parents once the kids start putting phonics together I NEED to know, because that is when i officially start. Up till then I expose them to the symbols (showing them flash cards, pointing things out on the music) but not expecting recall.
So, my vision of a suzuki style clarinet program, has carefully chosen technique dense repertoire, that are constantly revised (thereby revising the corresponding skills), and assuming that no child under 4 starts, then i would start a reading program on the 3rd of 4th lesson. (first few lessons would be devoted to posture, articulation and tone and introducing a few notes).
I have written materials that i use for teaching my students note reading. As they are familiar with notation, they start playing 'note works" which is an iPhone app. then sight cards where they say the name of the note, sing the name of the note, and then play the note... And gradually start reading beginner books, and then studies. So before they read a beginner book they already can recognise a collection of notes, they already can play with beautiful tone. On average students will finish one beginner book a week. And I have a wide collection, so they get lots of experience at reading easy pieces before moving to a slightly harder level of piece reading etc.
I love Paul Harris's books for sight reading practise too. And utilise them once the student is at the correct level.
Anyway.. that is my thinking. It is quite theoretical, as my knowledge of clarinet technique is not at a level yet that i can decide what order i would want to teach skills in etc. But thanks to wonderful members here, i have a library of books to read! And after my grade 8 exam in june, will start working on diploma repertoire and doing more planning HOW I will be able to teach the clarinet.
So the comment about Suzuki method is only for young children. Yes, BUT there are many great elements of it that can be applied to 9 year olds. And I don't think the philosophy changes, the method is adjusted slightly, but not hugely from my experience. (but this is not with clarinet).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2016-03-28 10:48
> Seems like that there are different types of Suzuki's teaching methods?
> Because every single violinist and violist I've met never said anything
> about learning solfege and rhythm. Also, the second one seems to me
> not just Suzuki, but a combination of Suzuki and Eurythmics.
There is no such thing as a single, absolute, one true "Suzuki" method of teaching. Even Suzuki himself told his students that when they came up with their own ideas and adapted/changed the things they learned from him that they now taught the "Suzuki-YourName Method." Look at the work of Kerstin Wartberg, who developed a whole series of books (Step-by-Step) to help parents be more effective teaching partners, Barbara Barber's extensive repertoire collections (Solos for Young Violinists) that correlate with and expand on the works available in the Suzuki Books, and Michael McLean's chamber music works that encourage students at Suzuki Institutes to explore different musical styles in the string ensemble idiom (his Tango collections are delightful).
To be sure, there are folks out there that treat the entire thing like some insane cult, refuse to incorporate other material into the teaching, don't teach their students how to read music, can barely play the instrument themselves, etc. I've run into plenty of them...and they would be awful teachers regardless of the method they use.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: SarahC
Date: 2016-03-28 15:27
Well said gwie.
Hahaha, at least there is an audition to become a suzuki teacher. Any tom dick or harry can advertise lessons and teach, but there are restrictions on qualified suzuki teachers, and the professional development they have to do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
