Simpedia

Robin Keehn, Washington

I want to address the questions you have about reading. I am sure others will jump in here too, but I’ll get the conversation started.

You specifically mentioned the recording in which I say, “Reading is just another way of getting music into our hands.” I am going to stick with that and even defend it here 🙂 This is my thinking on the topic. So, it is very important that students learn to read for all the reasons you stated. Those of us who stuck it out in lessons and made it to the other side know that if we are playing publicly we need to be able to sight read and to figure the music out with accuracy.

That being said, being capable of reading at that level is a long way down the track for most musicians. Reading is reading is reading. There is no way to become a great reader except by doing. It can take a number of years to get there. Given that is the norm, reading is initially, another way of getting the music into our hands. In Simply Music, students are already capable of playing a lot of music by the time we get to the reading program. They have music and now we are going to give them more tools to learn more pieces, and the tools are Reading Rhythm and Reading Notes.

There is so much anticipation and fear of reading that I am not going to play into that. I want reading to be another project rather than THE project. It is going to be a process and another “stream” in Simply Music program. It is going to take time and unfold over a number of years. It is a process, not an event (that’s my SM motto).

So, what does this really look like? I am in the habit to begin introducing Reading Rhythm at the middle or end of Foundation Level 3 with average students. I could start earlier but I feel it is most beneficial to lay a solid foundation of playing-based tools and for me, I feel the foundation is solid about that time. We start with Rhythm. We feel it, we walk, clap, vocalize and then write rhythm. We master all the note values and rests. We move on to Reading Notes where we reinterpret the early playlist pieces as intervals. We recognize intervals in our fingers, on the piano, in pieces we’ve played and on the page. We learn location points and discover how quickly and easily we can read the page.

Here’s the magic, Kylie. Given that your students are developing a strong foundation of playing-based tools through learning all the Foundation pieces, the arrangements of the pieces (the dose being small and consistent), the accompaniment program, blues and improv (scales and transposition especially), then they ready to look at a page of music (Time for More Music to begin with) and SEE the shapes, patterns, sentences, chords, chord progressions in the music. They don’t see disconnected notes, rather they recognize what is happening in the music. The learning tools and strategies are immediately applied and the fun begins. Although we don’t specifically say that sight reading is a goal, it has certainly been my experience that it is a predictable outcome.  One goal is that students can figure things out for themselves, and that certainly happens.

I actually love reading music having taught it Simply Music style for the past eight years. I approach reading as a very fun puzzle that gets worked out. I routinely get out Beethoven Sonatas and sit on the floor with students reading in the ledger lines. We look for patterns and sentences. We look for chords and see how the treble and bass clef relate. We put this directly on the piano and students contribute to each other’s perspective and learning. Children and adults love discovering the music this way.

When students are reading music, we work through a book called, “60 Progressive Pieces You Love to Play.” Sometimes we work on something in class, identifying those things I mentioned earlier. That might be all we do with a particular piece. Other times we all agree that we love the piece and each student takes a line to figure out and teach to the class playing-based the next week. Sometimes, each student will have their own piece in addition to the piece we are learning as a group. The sky’s the limit. My personal philosophy is that if students love what they are playing, they’ll play more. I don’t care if they are reading Mozart or Mick Jagger or Hillsong.

This has ended up being long! My point is that Simply Music completely acknowledges the importance of reading. The outcome, given that all the pieces are firmly in place and the program has been taught as Neil designed it, is wonderful.  You just have to learn to lay the foundation and let it unfold. I don’t make it a big deal because I want it to be natural and wonderful, without the pressure from students or parents. I also am very careful about not setting reading as an endpoint.

It is NOT the goal…but it is a major accomplishment along the way to having music as a lifelong companion.

Amy Y., New Mexico

The thing that I really like about SM reading is that it breeds success whereas there is a LOT of pressure if sight reading is the end goal and that can develop much negative association with music. Besides, there is so much more to piano than sight reading. My goal for my students is for them to have piano as a friend for life and that relationship with the piano may never leave the four walls of their dwelling so being great sight readers may never be an issue for many of my students. Besides, from personal experience, I’m a reasonable sight reader but until I came across SM I wasn’t free to enjoy my piano playing because I feel like I was constantly sight reading sometimes for the 20th time over the same passage of music, SO, now I am very happy to not sight read and just start by spending extra time analyzing the music in order to learn the pieces by heart quickly and play with enjoyment. Besides, there are accompaniments, and improvisations which are so much fun to play without worrying about the exact notes on a page.

I guess the analogy regarding kids and language learning is that children who spend time growing up being read to from great books in general do better in the long run than those who only learned to read the words. These kids have learned to associate books with something enjoyable and even if their reading abilities was developed a bit later, they usually catch up and surpass their counterparts because of that association of books with something enjoyable. Whereas many kids today associate reading with school work and drudgery and as soon as they are not required to read they stop–thus the growing rate of illiteracy. So give your students time to first enjoy playing before jumping into reading and don’t push through the process.

All this being said, I do not see piano playing as simply reading, more and more I see it as stage performances. Yes you may stand on the stage and “sight read” the lines to Shakespeare but ultimately to do it well, you must know the context and put feelings into it and work on the delivery and exactly how you learned the lines is frankly irrelevant, besides, I prefer good improve over Shakespeare any day just like I enjoy listening to a friend’s nephew who’s a professional jazz musician playing on the piano even though the guy can’t read a single note.

All that said, if you want your students to become good sight readers, you can certainly assign them sight reading exercises after they have gotten a good handle on all the reading tools. But remember that piano playing is so much more than just sight reading and just because some students don’t become great sight readers, don’t let them walk away thinking that they are poor musicians just because they can’t sight read well.

Maureen K., California

I am a new teacher myself who has not yet reached RR and RN with any of my students, and I have some of the same questions as Kylie, so Kylie I thank you for asking.

I had some Suzuki training before coming to Simply Music. I can tell you that Suzuki instructors know that reading had been a weak skill of their students and the good Suzuki teachers have taken steps to remedy that. A master teacher I studied under differentiates between “reading” and “sight reading.” Students are required to develop both skills. One, take a piece home and decipher it for a week, then come back and play it. Two, have a fresh piece put in front of them at a lesson (typically a couple levels below where the student is at), and read it on the spot.

Local students who came to this teacher’s master class did well with the sight reading exercise. It is my expectation that my Simply Music students will gain decent sight reading skills too, once the time comes to learn to read.

Gordon Harvey, Australia

I’ll just add a little as a way of reinforcing what Robin has put very eloquently.

Saying “Reading is just another way of getting music into our hands” is not the same as saying “Reading isn’t that important”. However, I am in the habit of talking about reading in that way simply because it’s very common for people to go too far the other way, thinking that reading is the whole point. I completely agree that there is a lot of wonderful stuff that reading makes possible, although, as a clumsy sight-reader myself, I can also say that there is a lot you can do without reading too, and I would also say that, apart from having a high failure rate, approaches that emphasize reading as the primary way of accessing playing may result in students having less confidence with other skills such as improvisation, composition, arrangement or accompaniment.

The danger for a Simply Music student or teacher is that, once reading skills are acquired, we throw the playing-based baby out with the bathwater. This can happen if there is any sense in the student or teacher’s mind that “it’s only real music when you’re reading it”, or “now we’re reading, we’ve arrived”. Therefore, I am very careful about how I speak about reading. It’s wonderful, useful and exciting, but nothing fundamental changes – we just have this fantastic new tool to understand and do more and go deeper into the world of playing music.

I’m not saying, Kylie, that you have fallen for a “reading is the be-all-and-end-all” trap, and I’m not meaning any disrespect to anybody’s way of teaching, but I would take this opportunity to ask every teacher to examine their attitude and look out for tell-tale signs that they may be bringing in some non-SM assumptions. One sign will be attempting to introduce reading sooner than advised. This will be a natural temptation, especially if the student doesn’t fully appreciate the reasons why we delay reading. If these reasons are new to you, you may need to trust the process until you see how naturally students take to reading when they have a strong enough playing foundation, how few students struggle with reading, and how they treat reading as a wonderful tool, but keep going with non-reading-based projects, such as pieces from the remaining Foundation levels, Arrangements, Accompaniments, improvisation and composition (although they can also choose to write down their compositions).

Ian M., Indiana

I think I have a perspective that may be somewhat useful. I had a few traditional lessons in high school, but the process broke down because I couldn’t “get” reading. I didn’t let that get in the way of my self-esteem surrounding music or learning to play instruments, however, and by the time I finished college I played guitar, banjo, penny whistle, hammered dulcimer, bodhran, and probably a few more that I’ve forgotten – all without reading music. Actually, I *was* able to painstakingly figure out which note was which and translate to certain instruments when the need arose, but I resisted learning to read music well for a long time, because it was tedious and, more importantly, unnecessary for what I was doing.

Then I found Simply Music, and became a piano teacher who couldn’t read music. No problem – I trusted the method from the very beginning, knowing that at some point Neil would teach me to read music and that it would be fun and interesting. Exactly *how* that was going to happen – the “fun and interesting” part – I had only glimpses of, from working with Neil at gatherings of teachers. But now I’ve gotten there and I’m in the thick of the process, and of course it *is* fun and interesting, but more important is my main reaction, which has been: “That’s EASY!” – which I attribute to being on board with the whole philosophy leading up to learning to read, and trusting the process.

My journey through the process of learning to read isn’t over, and I don’t really expect it ever to be over. But in the meantime I have a large and ever-expanding playlist, much of which I can look at in a new way by referring to the music on the page. Reading is another piece of the big picture. It’s an important piece, but not the most important.

Jy G., California

As a conservatory-trained pianist and traditional teacher of twenty some-odd years before becoming an SM teacher (eight years ago), I can say that I have produced readers (and sight readers) among my SM students that are on a par with my (past) most successful traditional students.

Trusting the process is key!

Laurie Richards, Nebraska

This is a great question, and one that probably most traditionally-trained teachers confront at some point in the beginning phase of teaching Simply Music. You’ve already gotten really wonderful responses from different perspectives. I’d like to add a few more.

I would reiterate that Simply Music doesn’t regard reading music as unimportant, but that as an entry point into playing it has been hugely unsuccessful. Also that reading as the only portal into playing piano is quite limiting. So many gifted pianists are paralyzed if their music is taken away. It’s the only way they can play. Neil’s script analogy is a good one for getting to the crux of the issue of reading-only-based programs. Imagine if we could never hold a conversation with another person without a script, because we had never had the opportunity to appreciate and improvise our language just for the purpose of communicating.

What I like to tell people who are concerned about the reading component is, “With Simply Music you will learn everything that you typically learn in traditional lessons, plus a TON more that you typically do NOT learn in traditional lessons. We just teach the traditional components in a different order which makes more sense to the student. Every component has relevance to their playing experience when they learn it – even scales and theory”.

Neil compares ‘learning to read as a means of learning to play’ to ‘learning to read and spell as a means of learning to talk’. I take it a step further and compare teaching scales and theory in the beginning stages of piano lessons to insisting that a child understands nouns, verbs, prepositional phrases and dangling participles when they first start learning to read. It makes no sense, and they don’t care. But when we teach all that great content later down the road, you can look at your students’ faces and just see light bulbs going on; they get excited about understanding more about the structure of music, and most importantly they can USE it in a meaningful way – immediately. They use it in improvising and composing, in understanding pieces they’ve already learned and in learning new pieces.

Here’s a very simplistic comparison of how we’ve taught music traditionally to how we learn language and Simply Music that I hope will maybe help this start to ‘click’ with anyone who is not convinced that SM is a better way to learn for the large majority of people. The lists are meant to be chronological, and I’m quite certain this is overly simplistic, but I’m just trying to make a point:

Traditional music lessons

1. Learn the alphabet
2. Understand the basics of math/rhythm
3. Relate the above to the hands and the instrument
4. Begin playing simple music (mostly melodic; no harmony), based on success with the above steps
5. Begin learning scales
6. Try to progress in playing by understanding more language and theory

Learning to speak and read/Simply Music

1. Immersed in language / Build a huge repertoire of “real”, music – melodic and harmonic – in the first year
2. Begin babbling and experimenting with words / C & I from the very beginning and continuing
3. Language continues to be refined and molded – by using it,speaking / Learning 40-50 songs of different style, arrangements, accompaniment, etc. using playing-based tools
4. Become fluent in speaking and communicating / students become very comfortable playing; can play songs anywhere, without the need for written music
5. Learn the alphabet, letter combinations, phonetics/ Reading Rhythm, Reading Notes (some has begun to be integrated during the above steps)
6. Learn to read words and small sentences (using the context of the already-familiar language) / Relate the reading concepts to songs in repertoire and begin with small, manageable reading projects
7. Develop ease of reading with repeated practice / Expand to working from written music, using a system of how to approach it (ongoing process)
8. Learn parts of speech and construction of language / Enhanced theory, directly related to playing

It’s pretty interesting when you look at it this way. Which way would most people say appears to be the most natural?

Sheri R., California

I just want to add a bit more to this stream where already we’ve heard some great advice regarding this fascinating subject. I’ve been teaching Simply Music for ten years, and while the official word has been to delay reading as long as possible (having a healthy playlist of 40 to 50 songs has been the barometer), I find I am introducing rhythm and note reading earlier than I used to, with success. I usually now start the process (with Reading Rhythm) somewhere in Level 3 as Robin discussed, taking various things into account (age, the fluency of the playlist, the rate of learning, etc.).

While attrition in general may be lower with SM than other traditional programs, we still of course have a certain attrition and I found that waiting until Level 4 and beyond was not necessarily in the best interest of most students. I do introduce lots of accompaniments and arrangements throughout Levels 1, 2, and 3, so my students have a strong enough foundation to begin the reading process before Level 4 or 5. This is an important way to introduce reading on the earlier side; that is, if you are routinely expecting students to master pieces from the Arrangements Program alongside the Foundation pieces, they can very well have 40 to 50 pieces by somewhere in Level 3.

(As an aside, for all sorts of reasons not limited to the aforementioned one, I would strongly encourage you to regularly be incorporating the arrangements into your teaching, from the very beginning, (except with the very youngest and oldest of students) — they will greatly enhance your students’ experience. If you are feeling that some extra support would be welcome with this task, the new Playlist and Notesbook Program would help facilitate your mastery.)

Sandy L., Nebraska

Like Ian, I had trouble with reading piano music and 8 years of traditional reading-based lessons really didn’t give me any ability whatsoever to play a single note in front of another human being. (However, I was able to read and play one note at a time–and even very, very fast–so I succeeded with flute/piccolo/oboe where I failed at piano.)

My point is that teaching reading-based, or even teaching playing-based while trying to get reading going as soon as possible, is no guarantee the student will turn out to play in church or in ensembles that require a quick pick-up of the music. Eight years didn’t do that for me, and in fact hasn’t done that for quite a few piano students.

In fact, from Neil’s welcome to the students on the Level 1 video, I think that is the point. The traditional way of teaching in a reading-based environment failed some of us, in fact as I understand it, quite a lot of us. In the past, failing reading meant not being able to play the piano at all. Now we can all play…and, unbelievably for me, I am on the reading journey as well! For me, the SM way has been more successful, and with this method, I can learn to read where I failed before. But, as has already been said by others, I can also play, improvise, compose. Before, the door to piano was completely closed and locked to me; with SM it is not just partially open, but completely. (I do have much more to learn though; I’ve been at this only about 3 1/2 to 4 years with SM.)

I know our society values reading words (rightly so), and is pushing for ever-younger starting ages for that (a whole ‘nother conversation), but there really is something to be said for allowing people to be ready…and it takes as long as it takes.

I think with piano, if with nothing else, we have the opportunity to keep our attitude completely relaxed about reading. When students and parents ask about SM and the reading process, I think our job as SM teachers is a reasoned and calm response explaining why we delay reading (treating music as a language), and when we will introduce reading (when students are ready, with a comfortable repertoire of 30-50 songs). We can also discuss the expected outcomes with SM, including all the things students can do to access music in addition to their reading skill. Some of these conversations will be long, some shorter, and teachers will need to be continually throwing in bits about this process along the track, but I really do think we need to convey that reading is really “just another way of getting music into our hands.” This in no way downplays its importance; it’s just a way of expressing the fact without downplaying the importance and value of other ways.

Incidentally, it just occurred to me as I typed this that I know a man who played organ for church for years, never having learned to read music. He played by ear, so if the songs the pastor wanted that day were in his repertoire, no problem. If one of the songs wasn’t one that he had heard before, if someone could just sing him the song before the service, he could pick that up as quickly as others read it from the page, adding his own harmony and bass. Now, if only he could have had access to SM, he could read too!

The whole reading conversation is such a good one, and there is so much food for thought; I hope my 2 cents added here have assisted the conversation, as it is one so fraught with meaning and emotion for me.

Olivia, Australia

I’m a newish teacher. I run a small studio due to family commitments, however I have been very impressed with the results I have been getting with my wonderful students. All of them really enjoy playing and their parents are raving about the fact they love to practice (some for hours on end!).

To me, students learning the Simply Music will come out of the program with the best of both worlds – the ability to spontaneously improvise, compose, transpose and accompany, in addition to being able to confidently read & transcribe music. I often see pianists on Youtube playing so beautifully and underneath the video, people comment ‘where can I find the sheet music for it?’, with the pianist simply replying “I just made it up or played by ear”. More often than not the ability to play by ear was always a mystery, or some innate talent that a musician may possess. However, I think it’s fantastic that Simply Music acknowledges musicality exists in everybody and that everyone has the right and ability to play like that. It is not something reserved for these with talent. It is refreshing that beginners can access a program that demystifies the whole music making process, teaching students that reading is not the only way to play music.

When I talk to parents and potential students, I often cite examples of popular musicians who can’t read a note but play so well, plus my own personal stories regarding the limitations of traditional approaches. Although I am a relatively advanced player (8th Grade AMEB), a few years back I volunteered to play keyboard at my son’s preschool. I felt totally lost when it came to playing basic nursery rhymes because I had no sheet music to guide me, and I couldn’t even make up happy birthday on the spot when it was someone’s birthday! I felt very inadequate and incomplete as a musician. After discovering Simply Music, I realized my previous approach to music was very limiting and yes, many classical musicians acknowledge their vast training does come with limitations, as validated by the above article. I then ask parents/students, what sort of musician do you or your child want to be? More often than not, parents are usually impressed with the potential outcome this program achieves as opposed to traditional approaches.

So I have to agree with all the other teachers who have posted thoughts re: reading so far. It is not the be all and end all, it is simply another tool in which we have the ability to access music. From my experience, the ability to self-generate and create music from within has far greater value and impact when it comes to making music.

Patti P., Hawaii

I’m only in the beginning stages of teaching reading, with a few classes in the reading rhythm program, so I’m speaking from a limited view of the Simply Music program at this point.  I can, however, speak from decades of piano teaching experience, including teaching Suzuki piano. Here’s my viewpoint:

A student’s success at reading depends on many factors, including their personal learning strengths and weaknesses and their willingness to put in the time and effort to become a good reader. I’ve had students who worked very hard at it but still struggled because they were lacking a natural sense of rhythmic ease or because learning anything in symbolic form was a struggle. Other students take to it like a duck to water.

One thing to keep on mind with any playing-based method is that a student’s ability to play will be ahead of their ability to read. Or to put it another way, their playing ability isn’t determined by their reading ability.

If you think about it, this is really true of musicians in general. Most musicians can play at a much higher level than would be shown in a sight-reading situation. Sight reading has been of great value to me in my career as an accompanist especially, so I value it highly. I also know that it can only be developed by doing a lot of it. It isn’t something that everyone who wants to play aspires to. And if they do, the best instruction is to read new music every day.

Kylie, you mention how important reading is for your children, in their early years of schooling. But they have been talking for years and listening to speech even longer. They’ve undoubtedly had many stories read to them. They have an ease and facility with spoken language. Reading is very important, but it isn’t the first thing, and it isn’t how they have learned language. It is a tool to expand their horizons and make them even more capable in their native tongue.

I have had parents concerned about the delayed start of the reading process. It always makes sense to them when I point out how we learn language. Sometimes there is still a layer of concern, and I simply reassure them that reading is an important part of the program and it will be introduced at an appropriate time in the learning. And until then, we will enjoy learning to play a lot of pieces.