Simpedia

Mark M., New York

I’m looking forward to hearing the other responses to this.

And I can understand your request, sometimes I think the same things, and perhaps there’d be ways to make this earlier approach work.

That said, I’m pretty sure I’m probably among the “slower” teachers out there in the sense that, because I do quite a lot in all the streams, really wringing as much potential as I can out of accompaniment and C&I in order to provide a well-rounded musical experience for my students, we tend to take longer to finish each Foundation level than I think a lot of other teachers do. So I’m not really “slower,” there’s still plenty of material being covered, we’re just not moving as quickly through Foundation as many teachers seem to.

I’ve been assured (because out of concern for my approach, I’ve asked!) that there’s nothing wrong with how I’m teaching. And that certainly doesn’t mean that my way is the right way. But it is “a” right way, so it seems. And it would probably be surprising to many teachers to hear that on average my students finish Foundation 3 somewhere around 2-2.5 years into lessons, and that it’s only after Foundation 4 has begun, even after “all that time,” that I begin the reading program. And here’s the significant thing: I have gotten barely any comments, much less complaints, about the timing of introducing reading. And I find that the reading program goes quite well at that point. There are occasional “normal” stumbling blocks, but on the whole my students actually surprise me with how well they grasp and master most of the material. And I’m sure it’s because they’ve had such a substantial playing-based background before beginning the program.

As with lots of the issues that come up for us, this seems one where we have to be clear about whether there is a problem and, if so, who really has the problem.  It may not be that the problem is that reading is being delayed so long. It may be that your families have an unrealistic attitude about the process and the program. And it may be that you yourself aren’t fully convinced about the value of delaying the reading process and that this then rubs off on your parents in some way. Even if it doesn’t rub off in the sense of mysteriously “causing” them to have their anxiousness about starting reading, it almost certainly is the reason that you are so inclined to want to grant their wishes rather than confidently see no problem here and stand by the delaying of the reading process.

My own background as a musician is very “playing-based.” I took traditional lessons on and off as a kid, at least as much on as off, and I did learn to read, but to this day I’m not really a strong reader. Neil’s story (from the Foundation Session) reminded me very much of my own development as a musician. I always learn more outside of lessons on my own than I did inside lessons, and usually in spite of what I learned in lessons rather than building on it. It’s very, very easy for me to be thoroughly convinced of the value of just ignoring reading for a long time. And I’m confident not only that my students will do well with reading after a really long time of playing without reading, but that I, too, will have my reading improve as I teach the reading program to my students.

I wonder if your own background as a musician had more of a connection to reading and if maybe that may relate to you being disinclined to substantially delay reading now as a teacher? It’s just a possibility and curiosity, I don’t mean any offense. Believe me, I have areas of my teaching where things don’t go as well and I can see connection to myself and areas where I personal lack confident or ability or have certain beliefs and stories about those areas, so I often wonder if similar dynamics are at play when teachers have “issues” like this.

Again, all that said, I am personally curious about the possibilities for introducing reading earlier and have often wondered myself about the same kinds of things you’re wondering here.

Robin Keehn, Washington

I think you are voicing a concern that other teachers may also have.  Might I suggest that this desire to read and to hurry up the process is actually beginning with you.

I have taught hundreds of students and only in my first two years of teaching did I have students who were anxious to get going on the reading and pushed me forward in wanting to introduce it as soon as possible.  At that time, having come from a traditional background, I could not see how the playing-based tools and learning strategies would impact a student’s relationship with reading.  All I knew was reading as the primary entry point to playing.  I was anxious to get students started in reading because that was how I taught (but not the way I had personally learned!).  I unknowingly set up reading as the goal and also as the end point.  When I did start students as early as possible, they found reading difficult and they quit as soon as we completed Reading Notes.  Their playlists were marginal and they didn’t excel.  They dropped out.

Fast forward to today.  I start Reading Rhythm no earlier than Foundation Level 3.  Not one student or parent has pushed me to start any sooner for the past eight years.  Not one.  So, what happened to change that?   Did students or their parents suddenly change?  No, I changed.  I stopped looking at reading as “The Goal.”  I started to acknowledge and embrace the playing-based approach as a credible, viable way to learn to play.  I stopped making a big deal of “When we get to read.”  Instead, I acknowledge reading as another way of getting music into the hands.  I treat reading as I treat all other components of the program–no big announcements, no big deal (but I am always enthusiastic and positive about it).

Since that shift in my own brain and heart,  I have not had even one student asking to start reading or pushing to start it.  I let students know that we will likely start Reading Rhythm in Foundation Level 3.  When I have students with a lot of experience, I may even wait longer so that those playing-based tools are firmly in place.  The stronger the tools, the better readers they will become.  They will be able to see music holistically and apply those tools and strategies to written music.   It is absolutely to their benefit to start when I am ready–not when they think they should.

I believe you have to come to a point where you see reading as a valuable tool but see that theses playing-based tools and strategies are very powerful.  In combination, when you have completed Reading Rhythm and Reading Notes and are in Time For More Music, you will see just how powerful the combination is.  Because of the foundation you laid and your students’ experience with seeing music in terms of shapes, sentences, patterns, fragments, chords, progressions, and because of the practice they have had in remembering via the tools as they work through Arrangements, they will see written music in the same way.  They will notice the patterns and sentences and more on the page.  They will apply the strategies and be able to learn and remember the music with ease.   It takes time and your guidance, but these students read in a way that my traditional students never did.  In fact, I am a much better reader than I ever was because of Simply Music’s approach.

I’d think it would be very beneficial to have a look deep inside at the way you see reading.  I would encourage you to see if you can really embrace the playing-based approach and get a new perspective on your relationship to reading.   I have a feeling that if you can let go and trust, it will transform your experience with your students and parents.

Personally, I used to resist reading at all costs.  I play very well by ear and even in college, I always asked my piano professor to play a piece for me first so I could just copy what she did rather than have to dig in and read.  Having gone through the Simply Music reading program and discovered how to apply the playing-based tools, I love reading.  I find it to be a great puzzle to work out and guess what, my students love reading, too.  We get the joy of discovering together what is happening in a piece.  All of my students who have completed reading have multiple reading projects going on at all times and they will read anything and everything that I put in front of them.  They can memorize any piece that they want, too.  How awesome is that???

I hope that helps, Francine.

p.s.  I do want to say that I move through Reading Rhythm and Reading Notes quickly so we don’t take a year to complete the program.  My goal is to be through RR in four months or less and RN in six weeks.   This requires a commitment both on my part to work on these projects weekly in class and a commitment from students to spend a minimum of five minutes a day on these projects (about 30 minutes a week at home).  Without that commitment, RR and RN drag on and enthusiasm wanes.  Work hard, get it done and get to the fun stuff in Time For More Music and after that, anything and everything that motivates you and your students.  It’s a blast!

Rebecca G., Colorado

I’ll add a few thoughts as a student/learner more than as a teacher. I was new to piano when I went through the teacher training a year ago.  I’ve been a musician and performer for years but never learned how to read music. I’ve known since I was 15 that I wanted to play piano, and I finally decided to start stumbling through and memorizing how to play a few songs I loved on my own about a year before I found Simply Music. My inability to read has never encumbered the richness of my experience as a musician (even though I’ve felt frustrated and insecure at times about my lack of skill in that area). In fact, I would say more often than not I’ve felt a freedom from not having to worry about what’s on the page and empowered by my ability to use other means of learning music.

Without even knowing it, I was spending years honing an ear-based approach to music that would never have developed had I been encouraged to read music early on. I hear things that other people don’t hear, I’m attuned to the emotion and expression of what I’m listening to, and now that Simply Music has made me feel courageous enough to attempt comp and improv, I’m completely free to just experiment on the piano with no clue as to what notes or chords I’m playing – I just listen and play things until I hear something I like. In short, today I would not trade my lack of training in reading-based skills for anything.

I have just ordered the Reading Notes program and will be starting my own learning with it soon. I am relieved to hear Robin say that it is possible to learn reading as just another skill set rather than as something that minimizes the playing-based approach. I have 3 adult students in Foundation 2 who all have prior experience (which is to say, more piano experience than I have), and none of them have asked me when we will start the reading process. Just as Robin alluded, I’m sure this is in no small part due to the fact that I haven’t spent any time talking about reading, and they know they’ve got about a year in the curriculum before we go there. As someone who doesn’t yet read, I can also see how the reading-based study they did previously has created a degree of rigidity in their musicality that is just not a part of my personal experience at all. I think it’s helpful to remember that Simply Music literally is a playing-based approach, which means we approach everything (including reading) from just being able to play, first and foremost.

I won’t be making my students delay the reading process for decades like I did (albeit unintentionally), but part of me wishes I could 🙂 I consider reading to be a non-essential skill when it comes to loving music and expressing oneself musically, and my inclination is to cultivate those essential elements first. That can take some special guidance when working with people who have previously learned to read, but in my opinion, it is guidance that is worth its weight in gold.

Laurie Richards, Nebraska

I can appreciate where you’re coming from, having grown up in a more traditional music environment.  It’s natural for people to get antsy about reading, as we are challenging their expectations about what music lessons are ‘supposed’ to look like.  As SM teachers, we have to be convinced that ‘different’ isn’t by definition wrong, and develop an ability to communicate WHY.  Sorry to be cliche, but it’s the whole paradigm shift thing.  That can be challenging for teachers who haven’t taught the reading program yet.  I know, I’ve been there!  It’s just the way it is.

I encourage you to absolutely stick with the curriculum as it was designed, and wait until Level 4 to begin the reading program.  If you introduce it in Level 1 or 2, then you are not teaching a playing-based curriculum.  The purpose of having 40-50 song in the repertoire before starting the reading process is to give students a solid foundation in playing all the basic rhythms (along with some not-so-basic ones!), and 5th-based intervals, to prepare them to apply the reading concepts, one at a time, to what they already have in their hands.  This is what Neil calls reverse engineering.  Just like learning to read as a child – we can fit the letters and words to the language we already know.  If students don’t have the repertoire when they begin reading, they lose the context in which to fit the reading concepts and symbols.  Also, you haven’t given them the opportunity to really learn and apply, and “own” all the playing-based tools taught through Level 3.  That’s huge.

I make sure to have a one-on-one conversation with doubting students/parents.  I talk about where we are heading with the curriculum and how it will benefit them in the long run.  Once we get through the reading programs, all of the playing-based tools and reading-based concepts come together, and they are able to learn the read music much more efficiently.  They will even jump right in to reading ledger lines, 6 flats, 6 sharps.  It’s quite amazing if you unfold the curriculum in the way it was designed to be unfolded.

Not everyone will be patient enough with the process, but being convinced and assertive about it yourself goes a long way toward keeping some of them on board.  You may have to ‘fake it till you make it’ and get through more of the curriculum before you’re convinced.  But that’s completely normal!

Patti P., Hawaii

I too have some students for whom the playlist is a problem, and I’m quite sure in my case, it’s related to moving a bit too quickly through the early levels, and not spending enough time rehearing arrangements etc. Since the playlist and lots of playing experience is so critical to the reading program, I’m now taking time with these classes to do lots of playlist checking. I’ve cut down the dosing of new material and no one has complained. I’m not sure anyone has even noticed.

Here is one disadvantage of students relying on reading too early. The page can quickly become their only source for music. Rather than being self-generative, and able to play anywhere, they become like most traditional students who can only play if they have their book along. There is an immense amount of freedom for those who can play from their memory or improvise freely that these students will miss out on.

In addition, these families may be under the false impression that their children will have an easier time learning from the notes, that “learning to read” means the same thing as sight-reading anything they want to play.

When I have a parent wondering about when we will be reading, one of the things I discuss with them is the reality of the reading process and how it relates to learning to read one’s native tongue. It’s a very long process that begins with very seemingly small steps, like listening to language as an infant. Then imitating what one hears. Years later, when verbal fluency is pretty high, the young child is ready to learn the alphabet. Then how the alphabet sounds. Then how to put letters together to make words. Fluency is many years down the track!

I also explain to them that we have started the reading process already, firstly through becoming familiar with chords and patterns and rhythm through playing them, and reading chord symbols. I point out the importance of the accompaniment stream for the latter.

By the time I’m done with this conversation, the parents seem to have a better perspective on the role of reading and why it isn’t an early focus in an obvious way. I also reassure them that we will learn to learn pieces from the notes, that it’s very important, just not something that is helpful in the early stages.

I do not waver on this as I am totally comfortable with delaying reading (I’ve been teaching that way for decades pre SM). I know beyond a doubt that students can become perfectly adequate, even excellent readers in spite of this delay, and that their playing will be more musical than if they learned to read right off the bat. It’s just a non-negotiable in my studio.

Keeping up the playlist is an entirely separate conversation, and one that I find bears frequent repetition to both parents and students, as well as a lot of checking during class for my part.

Julia B., California

Thanks for your honesty!  I think your questions have generated some interesting and valuable responses.

I’ve been thinking about your post and wanted to share my own experience.  I first discovered Simply Music when hunting for lessons for my own boys.  I was looking for an alternative to the traditional lessons I had experienced as a child – which honestly weren’t that enjoyable.  When I compare my experience to what my sons have experienced through SM, it is really night and day.  As a result of my reading-based approach I would say I was “glued to the book”.  The relationship I developed was between myself and the book that held the music.  The book dictated what I was going to play and how to play it.  And it often reminded me that I wasn’t doing so well, as I struggled through many of my assigned pieces.  And basically without the book I couldn’t play anything anywhere.

In contrast, my own boys have had a completely different experience.  The relationship they have developed over the last four years is with the instrument.  Music is a completely creative experience between them and the piano.  They can sit down anytime, anywhere and play all kinds of music freely – including their own compositions and improvisations.  As for the playlist in the Foundation Levels, I strongly believe it is essential that learning these pieces is not tied to a book in any way and here’s why I think that:

1)  Each of these pieces in foundations 1-9 has been carefully crafted and selected by Neil to teach, reinforce or develop particular playing-based tools and strategies. When we talk about keeping the playlist alive, what we’re really trying to do is keep these strategies and tools alive in the students’ thought processes.  When a piece gets rusty, it’s because they lost the strategy they used to learn the piece, so going back to the video revives that strategy.  If you taught them to read early and let them go to the notes, then they might gradually lose the playing-based strategies, and end up with one strategy — reading notes.

2) I am finding that the stronger I have these strategies in my own repertoire the easier it is to process a piece of written music and commit it to memory.  In fact, at the symposium Robin mentioned speaking to a concert pianist who explained that she used shapes patterns and intervals to commit complex pieces to memory.   I really want to give my students this strong foundation for effectively processing and memorizing pieces.

3) Because the playlist is “over-learned” so to speak, it becomes a major source of improvisation or composition.  I see my boys getting tired of playing a piece and so they switch the rhythm, try out a new ending, add some extra notes here and there.  This is part of that self-generative process that Neil often talks about.  I would be concerned that, if they were going back to the actual notes on the page, there would be an unspoken assumption that the piece was not to be changed (like reading a novel someone else had written) and then this atmosphere of permission and creativity would be compromised.

I am close to completing Reading Rhythm with my first group of students.  They had all had 2 to 3 years of traditional lessons before starting SM, so I chose to delay the reading process until I was absolutely sure they had a strong playing-based foundation, were really using their tools and strategies effectively and seeing the value of them.  Frankly they all started off a little stiff and out of touch with their own musicality and it has taken this long for 3 of them to finally experience playing more freely and naturally.  (The 4th student has always played more naturally, but hated reading notes and was in no hurry to get back to it!).  I think they were near the end of Foundation 5 when we started Reading Rhythm, and the delay did not hinder them in any way.  In fact,  it gave us plenty of time to work on other projects – accompaniment, arrangements, blues, comp and improv.

I have other students currently working through RR that are in levels 4 and 5 – again, I do not see any problems that have come up from having waited to start the RR program. It’s unfolding quickly and smoothly – I think because they have such an extensive repertoire under their belt.

We all have different ways of looking at things.  I hope my perspective was helpful to you as you process the whole approach to reading.

I also thought I’d mention that at the end of the Reading Rhythm Teacher Training, Neil has a section where he answers general questions, and he addresses this issue and explains a number of reasons why he delays the reading process.  I find that really helpful to go back to.

Vicki L.

I have to say Julia’s response to your questions re reading are both timely and bang on the button regarding the reading process (which I have yet to train for!)

And the Living Playlist analogy, making it less about filling in a book than ensuring the fundamental strategies of the learning tools that come with level one are there forever in order to move on.

My son is a competent bass player nowadays , but did not thank me for making him do piano lessons which were boring in his earlier years (scales, exams vs cricket and soccer!)  He sees me teaching thus method now, and gets it!  I will not be surprised if he takes up the method himself at a later stage.

Julia is so right about the freedom to express and explore, without the written page, and when that comes in, It’s just another dimension to an already sound Foundation.

Gordon Harvey, Australia

I can’t see anywhere where you actually say that the mum has expressed this concern to you.  Has she said this to you or are you anticipating the concern?  It’s very easy to plant the seed of your own concern into another person’s head.  On the other hand, there is a lot of benefit in pre-empting questions before they become concerns.  If you’re confident that you can explain why delaying reading for this child really is okay, then I’d recommend you address it thoroughly with the mum, reassuring her that her daughter will be guided through the reading process at the best developmental time.

If you don’t have that confidence, the stories other Teachers have shared ought to be helpful.  However, there’s no better aid to powerful communications than personal experience.  It will be easier to talk about the benefit of delaying reading when you’ve seen enough success with it.  For now, if you can’t talk powerfully, you may have to just ask people to trust the process.  And if they won’t, perhaps they need to go to a teacher who teaches a reading-based approach.

Anyway, the mum has enrolled her daughter.  Presumably, she’s done so because she’s happy with what she knows of the method (or she simply trusts you), including that she at least knows that we start by delaying the reading process.  Hopefully she also knows that we eventually arrive at reading; if she doesn’t, make sure you tell her.  And the child is only four.  Even if it takes four years to reach reading, she’ll still only be eight.  I didn’t learn to read until I was 35!  No matter how musical she is as a four-year-old, it’s hard to imagine that delaying reading could cause problems in later life, and easy to imagine that starting with reading might create discouraging complications and roadblocks to her natural self-expression.

Another point that is easy for a campaigner for reading to miss: yes, it’s true that if a student has forgotten something and they don’t have reading skills they have to find another way to relearn it.  For Foundation pieces at least, I don’t see why the video isn’t perfectly adequate for this, but even if there’s a reason why they must use the page, there is no guarantee until well down the track that it will be easy for them to learn it by reading.  Take Light Blue as an example.  While I don’t have direct experience of this, I don’t think it’s likely that a student learning a reading-based method would be able to learn (or relearn) that piece within a year, especially if they had also been learning 20 or 30 other pieces in that time.  So, a SM student has learned a song that they probably couldn’t have hoped to learn in that time frame by reading, and they would only need to relearn it if they hadn’t maintained their Playlist.  A reading-based student would probably have had to wait longer to get to that song, or learned fewer songs in the same time.

As far as learning outside pieces goes, it’s likely that most pieces would be too challenging to learn reading-based for quite some time after they begin unless they were very simplified, or the teacher taught them at least partially playing-based, or they focused on a limited number of pieces, sacrificing breadth of experience.

It would be good to do a kind of risk analysis for yourself.  Make a list of what you see as the benefits and risks of reading early, and the benefits and risks of delaying reading.  Sure, maybe there are benefits to reading at the beginning, but perhaps you are focusing on the hole rather than the donut.

A last point: you mention that the mum’s problems were with sight-reading.  As you probably know, we don’t claim to create sight-readers.  What SM teaches is how to understand the page in a way that helps you work out a piece, which is not sight-reading.  Sight-reading is a very particular skill that takes a long time to learn and often creates other issues.  Many good sight-readers will tell you that they are poorer than others at improvising or memorizing, among other things.  If you did that risk analysis, you may find that for many people the costs of sight-reading would outweigh the benefits.  I would wager that the mum’s problems stemmed not from delaying reading, but from the way she was taught sight-reading.

If the mum insists that her four-year-old learns to sight-read, or to read at all in her first couple of years, I would send her on her way and wish her luck.

Hilary C., Australia

You know Francine, I would have thought the parent would have been pleased that making music and not reading  it,  is our initial prime focus. Reading her experience as a child and  her fear of sight reading, she might well be choosing SM because of its less traditional approach. Perhaps the mother will find a renewed interest in reading once her daughter gets to that with our  less pressured  approach. And it is apparently sight reading under exam conditions, not reading per se, that was her panic producer.

If her early music lesson experience was anything like mine, creativity was not explored or encouraged and this is of course what we seek  from our students so the lack of pressure to perform to others’ ideas  with a  de-emphasis on early  reading, and the holistic approach to music education could be what she seeks. I take it that she has attended an information session. Have you had the conversation with her? You might need to have it more than once.

Cheri S., Utah

A few ideas regarding a comment in your initial post:

“we want to be able to hear a piece of music that we want to learn, and be able to go and get it and play it, because really that’s what being able to play music is about.”

Having taught traditional piano for several years, I can say quite confidently that it takes at least 4-5 years for most traditional students to even begin to approach this point. In language, this would be a bit like expecting a first-grader to be able to walk into a book store and pick up any book he fancied and read it. It’s what we eventually hope will happen with reading, but it takes many, many years. The Simply Music pathway takes about the same amount of time to achieve this result; it’s just a different pathway.

Continuing the language analogy, consider the second half of the statement (“that’s what being able to play music is all about.”). Is this a true statement? Is reading what language-learning is all about? Do we learn to talk so that we can learn to read? Do we learn to play songs so that we can learn to read music? Is reading music really the end goal, and playing songs is just our unique means of getting there? Is reading music the definition of being a musician?

I imagine you know the official Simply Music answer to these questions, but if you look deep inside, what do you find that you truly believe? Both your posts seem to show some fear surrounding note reading. What is the fear? That you’ve forgotten how to read? That when it comes down to it, this method won’t really work? That note reading really is the definition of musicianship and you’ve gotten on the wrong train?

Or maybe it goes deeper, and note reading is just a symptom. For example, I have a basic fear of not being ultra competent at everything I do. And another fear of being mean (because I’m afraid that would make me a bad person), which I unfortunately sometimes equate with holding other people accountable. Someone else might have a fear of not being well-liked by everyone.

As teachers, we each have our own strengths & weaknesses, our own areas of confidence and fear. If you’ve ever spent time with Neil, you know that he’s all about finding out what’s really going on inside ourselves, because often when we have issues in our studios, the core is ourselves.

This is very normal, and nothing to worry over or feel bad about. In fact, it’s liberating. Discovering the real issue makes all the difference in beginning to address it. For example, now that I know why I don’t always hold students and parents accountable, I’m more successful in implementing strategies to get better at it. Now if I could just figure out how to stop constantly stressing myself about being perfectly competent. 🙂