“Will My Daughter Learn Theory”
Found in: Scale & Key Signature, Students with Prior Experience
Cinnamon L., California
I just recently acquired a student who has had 3 years of traditional piano lessons. I will be this young lady’s 5th teacher. She had one month of Suzuki lessons, but her mother said she hated the method and pulled her out immediately.
My new student is a referral so the mother knows a little about SM. After a long discussion with this mother she said she was excited about the method and thought it might be just what her daughter needs. My concern is that she stated several times in our discussion: “This method sounds great as long as my daughter learns theory. I want her to learn theory. I don’t want her to play songs just for fun.” I provided her with a curriculum overview and reiterated again and again she will read music again and progress eventually; however, this is a “playing based” approach, etc. I also explained how we delay reading, etc.
I have two questions: First, Neil has said in one of the emails that he preferred to delay the reading process as long as possible and says he makes sure that his students are clear about the hands-on, practical, base-tools they are acquiring. Can anyone be more specific? I took a few years of traditional lessons as a child and can read at an easy-intermediate level. So I think I understand the benefits. But I would love to hear what others have to say about the benefits, (hands-on, practical tools), etc. I feel that I will need to discuss these benefits with this mother in greater detail. Secondly, would you take on this student if the parent is so concerned about her daughter being immersed in theory?
Carrie L., Michigan
I would suggest a couple things that I’ve learned (the hard way) sometimes. I’d suggest you ask her to commit to at least 2 months of lessons with Simply Music and support her child. Then she can see at that time how it is going.
I had students who’d had traditional (through me and other teachers) transition over to SM and for a few of them, after a year, I’ve just starting the Reading Rhythm. I had a couple students that I started RR quite early because they’d had previous experience.
I’d stress with this mom that SM will provide a well rounded approach that will give her child a much, much more balanced and incredible music education, while it being fun. I have seen that from my students.
Hilary C., Western Australia
The answer is Yes.
SM integrates theory so that you don’t have to provide separate theory lessons typical of traditional teaching – I think this might be what the mother was referring to.
What typically happens in students with prior experience is that:
1) they progress more quickly through the programme.
2) quite often they do not read as easily or as well as they or their parents might think – you can test this easily
3) they enjoy the freedom of liberation from the tyrany of the page and often don’t want to bother with reading for a while.
Using Neil’s arrangements enlarges on core songs and develops memory and exploratory skills.
The analogy of learning to speak before learning to read is so true – one’s repertoire is the same as one’s vocabulary – if you have no vocabulary how can you come to see what it looks like on the page, and reproduce written words?
Early introduction to Accompaniment Clues 1 is often good as this will likely be an entirely new field for her and her mother and is a form of reading – realising the chord symbols.
I encourage my students to ‘muck around’ on the keyboard to get them to experiment and be creative with the pieces we teach and to produce their own works (which at this stage they have to remember or devise their own notation). And I will put this work/s on their playlist if they want.
Cheryl G., Pennsylvania
The SM approach is hands down better by far in teaching theory than traditional programs because learning of music theory is built right into the songs. Look at Jackson Blues, the third song in the program. The roman numerals which are used to learn the chords are music theory, plain and simple! This is reiterated in Amazing Grace, Bishop, etc.
In the Accompaniment program, students are learning chords, more kinds of chords than they would ever learn or understand in a traditional approach.
Students can start playing songs right away in different keys. As soon as they learn dreams they can put it into G position etc. I have asked students to play Dreams in “Chester” C and F positions, thereby learning minor tonalities. Look at the Chester G position coming down. It’s harmonic minor tonality, built right into the song. Students will not get minor keys and transposition so soon in regular lessons.
How about the blues scale? That’s music theory too.
The song “In My Eyes” ends with a C Major scale coming down.
The SM intervallic approach to reading music is also music theory.
Look at the songs in Time for Music and the variety of key signatures. Without the playing based background and the SM approach, it would be far more difficult to have students reading these pieces so quickly. So even though a student waits longer to read, the knowledge gained in the theory department is so much greater, and the reading develops more quickly. But yes, it is work, and it is not easy.
By the time students are playing songs like “Ballade”, it’s great to be able to discuss C minor chords and G chords and look at all the different ways of playing these chords in this piece, and have the student really understand what you are talking about!
Chords, intervals, scales, tonalities — these are the building blocks of music theory, and the students are getting it in these songs in a way that is practical and comprehensible!
Tell that to the mother of this student and I’m sure she will be very impressed……..