Simpedia

Sheri R., California

I introduce arrangements and variations right away. Dreams Var. (on D) is taught just as soon as the original is easy. Night Var. (rh bridge), same thing. I teach Honey Dew Arr. 1 just after Honey, and soon after that I teach Dreams Arr. 1. And so on. Sometimes a particular song might need more weeks of gaining mastery before introducing variations and arrangements of it. You can tell if a student still has gaps in Jackson not to introduce Jackson Arr. 1 yet. Although you can teach the LH rhythm before they know what it’s for and then just easily combine bh when they’re ready. So many ways to teach and introduce arrangements but I start them off right away.

As Cindy says, they are vital–they help demystify music even more, they help students’ memories, they are fun, they help grow the playlist to 40 or 50 songs in the first year as we practically promise, and they provide great source material for composing and improvising.

Robin T., Tennessee

I agree with Sheri. They are a huge selling point too on the program. When I do an FIS or a one on one with parents, they all want to hear what they will be playing. And, when you tell them “you’ll learn this many songs in a year”, they can’t believe it until you show them. I always use the Night Storm INC where you take Dreams (RH on A) and play the Left hand of NS with it, up and octave. Then, you play NS where it should be… then you go back to Dreams above and finish. Parents LOVE that one and it shows that after only a couple of lessons, they are already composing (I have the students compose their ending of it).

Also, Dreams on D, Chinese Dreams, all of these give students a huge sense of empowerment I think to see the different ways that just one song can be played. And, they use those elements as they compose and improv. I have one student that every lesson, she tries to play the song on all black keys after she learned Chinese Dreams. Some of them sound nice, some don’t. But, she keeps trying! That is such an important element that she feels safe and free to try. Definitely not something that I felt when I was learning the “traditional” way. It was always, “no, that’s wrong” or “You can’t change Beethoven”. But, I view music the same way I often viewed Literary Professors. Literary or English Professors have you write essays on something that you read and your interpretation of it. So… how can they grade it badly if it is your interpretation. They weren’t alive when Shakespeare was around… so how do they know that that isn’t what he meant? Same thing with music…….

Laurie Richards, Nebraska

The most important thing is that the Arrangements program is not optional or supplemental. It is an integral part of the whole program. It’s tied in with the whole “self-generation” concept, and it’s vital to get that up and running in Level 1.

Speaking of Chinese Dreams, the other day I had a student who made a slight adjustment and called it Hindu Dreams (also called “Symphonic #8”, he said). He just moved his hand position so that Gb is on the bottom instead of Db. This kid is in Level 2 and is already a prolific composer.

Laurie Richards, Nebraska

On the teacher website there is some guidance from experienced teachers as to a good order to teach arrangements. There is a really great chat transcript on Arrangements, I believe led by Gordon Harvey. Very valuable information.

I would NOT wait until Level 2 to begin teaching arrangements. It might not be readily apparent from the teacher training materials why you should begin teaching them early on. It’s one of those concepts that is discovered and really understood later on, after having taught several levels and other programs. At least that’s the way it worked for me. Since I didn’t understand the relevance early on, I didn’t give them the proper attention. Now I am understanding why that was a mistake, once they get into Level 5, 6, and beyond. I am backtracking now with some of my groups – really slowing down the pace of the foundation songs to get some arrangements back into shape.

It’s not so much about teaching concepts in a linear fashion (Neil addressed this at the CA symposium). It’s about encouraging students to think for themselves (self-generate) as soon as possible, since that is an integral part of Simply Music throughout the entire curriculum. That needs to begin in Level 1, both with variations and arrangements. Students can handle arrangements while retaining the original foundation song. You just go as slow as you need, and you give small doses of the arrangements at any one time. I teach 4 to 6 arrangements during Level 1. Some are extremely simple to incorporate and only take one week. Others take longer.

I’ll say it again – get the Teacher Workshop Series audios!!! There are audio recordings for Levels 1 & 2 Arr. If possible, just get ’em all. They are all extremely valuable teaching resources for us. I look forward to the next set.

Sandy L., Nebraska

I am only an inexperienced new teacher, but my son has been taking SM lessons for a little over a year now, and has been self-generating almost from the very beginning. Granted, he started as a teen very eager to learn, but teacher encouragement is vital. His first teacher encouraged him to just make things up, change up the songs and do it his own way. Comp and improv from the very beginning. This was very good for him, and I really appreciate her.

But she had to take a hiatus from teaching and he was blessed to have another teacher who quickly introduced him to arrangements as well as continuing the comp and improv. He’s been self-generating from the get-go and growing more and more with it.

I am trying to introduce arrangements in level 1, but I also purchased the comp and improv training materials because I think it could be easy for a new teacher to neglect this area. I have to confess it takes me a whole lot longer to make up a song than it probably takes most of you. Arrangements have helped me with this, but I would have to say the comp and improv training is also a crucial part even though it is more intimidating to me.

Mark M., New York

Even before I started this email thread I was thoroughly convinced of the value of the variations and arrangements and the need for them to be a primary and integrated part of the overall curriculum. I’m not questioning any of that at all. And I am interested in and will likely soon get those workshop series audio recordings.

I hesitate to delve further into this conversation here, as Neil has followed up with me and we’re discussing this privately. But in the interest of inclusion and responsiveness, what I will say here is:

I’ve read the two transcripts of Gordon’s chats on arrangements. In both, he suggest that arrangements be started after the end of Level 1, and in the first he suggests that arrangements be done for the songs on a given level only after their variations are done. This sounds to me like pretty much exactly what I said, so I’m extremely confused by hearing people — including Neil himself — say that arrangements should be begun early in Level 1.

We’re not told when to introduce each variation/arrangement, we’re given leeway to choose. When I try to do so using my best judgment, I find myself thinking it pretty much insane to introduce 4-note-chord accompaniments prior even to 3-note-chords in Jackson Blues or introductory accompaniment with Honey Dew much less 4-note-chords with I’ll Be There. Pretty much insane to bring in advanced broken chords prior even to basic ones in Fur Elise. If my (and apparently Gordon’s) judgment about this is so dead-wrong, then I’d much rather just be told exactly when to introduce everything. If I were told, I’d trust the direction implicitly. But we’re not told. We’re given leeway to choose. And so I go round and round in circles.

Laurie Richards, Nebraska

Some comments on your comments (my comments in blue):

“I find myself thinking it pretty much insane to introduce 4-note-chord accompaniments prior even to 3-note-chords in Jackson Blues or introductory accompaniment with Honey Dew much less 4-note-chords with I’ll Be There.”
They started 3-note chords in the Basics. I have them practicing these every week. It doesn’t take long to get it.  I’ll Be There is in Level 2, so it’s not an issue re: introducing arrangements in level 1.

“…we’re given leeway to choose. When I try to do so using my best judgment, I find myself thinking it pretty much insane to…”
The key phrase is “best judgment”. Since you are relatively new to SM, your best judgment is based on other methods. It’s pretty much insane that people can play the original Fur Elise in its entirety, and play it very well, after only a few years of lessons. It’s pretty much insane that a 6-year-old kid can play Alma Mater Blues, complete with impressive blues-scale ending, after 8 or 9 months of lessons. But that’s the norm in Simply Music. It’s insane!

“I’d much rather just be told exactly when to introduce everything. If I were told, I’d trust the direction implicitly. But we’re not told. We’re given leeway to choose.”
All part of the learning process. As Neil always says, “Trust the process”. If you do something and find it was a bad idea, so what? Don’t do it again. Story of my life!

Mark, my suggestion would be to suppress the urge to analyze everything so much, and just enjoy the learning process yourself. Work with what you’ve been given. Watch how things unfold naturally. Experience will teach you the rest. I always teach arrangements in Level 1, and I haven’t had anyone’s head explode yet.  Anyone can do this.

Cindy B., Illinois

Since we’re given leeway to choose – jump in and choose! I’ll never publicly acknowledge the precise number of lessons I’ve had to learn the hard way concerning How to teach Simply Music. I daresay everyone must go with his own judgment and if it isn’t in line with what Neil told him, then so be it. If your goals are in line with the Simply Music goals, then you’ll always come around to Neil’s original advice, as I have, countless times. I also know that Neil himself is learning, learning, learning – no one truly knows how this grand endeavor will ultimately look. Just in the 6 yrs I’ve been teaching this method, I first neglected the arrangements, and then, when that proved to be a bad choice, I started looking for an order – a set of guidelines – that I could just follow without thinking so much about it. When that proved to be much too strict and unbending, I began to develop my own way to judge when to introduce a variation or arrangement, and a way to keep track in each lesson. I’m constantly tweaking my system, but it works for me.

Mark M., New York

Neil and I had a conversation this morning. The upshot of our talk, and I think it worthwhile to share for anyone else who may have/had any hesitations with Arrangements, is very consistent with what you yourself had said earlier. Arrangements are intended to be more about exercising memory and fostering self-generation than they are about building from one concept to another. Given this, it’s important to introduce them starting very early, and given that, it’s important to not get hung up on their content and to proceed as absolutely slowly and piecemeal as necessary.

It seems to me that, where Accompaniment becomes it’s own completely separate track parallel to the Foundation sequence, Arrangements almost does as well, with the one connection remaining being that one would do arrangements for a given piece only after that original piece was done first in Foundation. No other connection/integration of Arrangements and Foundation appears necessary, and certainly not the conceptual building-block approach with which I’d been thinking about Arrangements.

In this light, it’s all something I am quite happy to get behind.

I only wish it had been clearer to me from the start that this was the best way to conceive of the Arrangements program. That bit of guidance — the right way to conceive of the Arrangement program — had been missing for me up until this morning.

Sheri R., California

I introduce Honey Arr. 1 just after they’ve learned Honey Dew. Shortly after that I introduce Dreams Arr. 1. It may take a number of weeks for that one but they all get it before we’ve finished Level 1. My sister Jy and I put together a list of the order we teach the arrangements that we thought was a fairly logical order, skills-wise–it doesn’t really address when to weave them into the foundation songs, so some end up learning 10 variations and arrangements by the end of Level 1 and some need more time and get through that amount by the end of Level 2–really depends on the students. Occasionally I deviate a bit but in general it works out.

As Laurie said, learning from your mistakes is just all a part of being a Simply Music teacher, as well as just being alive! It’s never been a big deal in my experience if something takes a bit longer to learn, but the bottom line is that my students are always learning new variations and arrangments starting from the beginning. It just has never been a problem, and I see no reason to wait unless there are special circumstances. And at the same time if you want to wait until Level 2 that shouldn’t be a problem either.

Mark M., New York

There certainly so far hasn’t been much of anything where I’ve disagreed with Neil, and I’m certainly willing to learn and make mistakes, and I’m well aware that I’ve got a long way to go to build experience since I only started teaching SM in November. For me, it’s just a question of making sure I’m actually clear on what the recommendation, Neil’s recommendation, actually is. Knowing why helps, too, but until this morning I simply wasn’t even clear on the what.

Gordon suggests order in a chat transcript, and another teacher suggests an order in the library item called “Time Management and Fitting It All In.” Would you care to share the list you and your sister came up with? I think it would just be interesting to compare the different ideas.

Obviously Neil and Laurie and surely others clearly do think it would be a problem waiting until Level 2 😉

Terrie P.

Here is something that hasn’t been addressed. One reason to start arrangements before someone has reached the half-way point in Level 1 is so the students can get an idea where we are going (not just learning how to play a bunch of songs). There are a lot of ways to play any song.

Also, I don’t want my students to think they don’t need me. If they think that everything they are going to learn is on the video, why do they really need me?

Cindy B. Illinois

Mark, I think you’re just learning the same lesson we’re all learning. Neil absolutely CANNOT tell us everything we need to know to be great teachers. It kind of boils down to – do we want to be receptive teachers, or generative teachers? We have the Forum to generate these conversations and look thru windows into other studios. We have Neil, who has kept himself available in an amazing way to all of us. (I’d throw away my phone if it rang as much as his) He’s setting an example for us to follow – generate, communicate, learn, adapt. I don’t give my parents no choices – I give them lots of choices. Neil gives us a lot of choices too.

Mark M., New York

No doubt, of course, absolutely.

At the same time, the principle of basic limitations expanding freedom, as when introducing composition to beginning students, is fairly universal. Chaos theory and complexity science see this throughout dynamic systems in the form of “strange attractors.” They are everywhere, and they are one of the key principles upon which the universe *self*-organizes. This is what the SM approach is tapping into, what makes it work so well, and it is why I am so drawn to SM.

I don’t expect anyone to tell us everything. I only expect us to “receive” the few most important guidelines precisely so that we will feel as free as possible to “generate” effectively for ourselves within them — and so that we will be as un-confused as possible and therefore least needing to ask anyone questions via phone, email or otherwise. Great to have support for questions, absolutely, but still important to obviate as many questions as possible. That’s a win-win for everybody and could not be more consistent with the principles of SM.