Joined
·
939 Posts
Anyone out there using the Suzuki method for specifically teaching saxophone?
Suzuki Method
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Joined
·
4,360 Posts
The Suzuki Method is based upon "parroting" and "rote learning". Anyone who teaches private lessons uses these techniques to a certain degree by first demonstrating and then saying, "Make it sound like this". Many of the jazz greats learned style and improvisation not to mention a concept of tone by listening to and imitating players they wanted to emulate. The Suzuki Method was shown to be quite effective teaching children to play violin and piano. Their technique and listening skills developed quickly without the "burden" of having to "interpret" symbols on a page. The drawback they found was that some Suzuki students developed a "mental block" when it came to learning to read music.
Joined
·
1,229 Posts
I just can't resist.
I considered it compared with:
Harley method - good for old time rock and roll
Ducati method - good for new classical, free jazz
Yamaha method - vanilla, reliable,
Kawasaki method - good for power ballads, bebop
Beemer method - good for middle of the road pop, smooth jazz
Suzuki method - good for 3 1/2 minuet top 10s.
Guzzi method - good for work songs, opera.
Triumph method - good for jazz rock fusion
Enfield method - good for folk songs
I considered it compared with:
Harley method - good for old time rock and roll
Ducati method - good for new classical, free jazz
Yamaha method - vanilla, reliable,
Kawasaki method - good for power ballads, bebop
Beemer method - good for middle of the road pop, smooth jazz
Suzuki method - good for 3 1/2 minuet top 10s.
Guzzi method - good for work songs, opera.
Triumph method - good for jazz rock fusion
Enfield method - good for folk songs
Joined
·
4,629 Posts
It's bad enough with a large grade school flute section.
Joined
·
4,360 Posts
One year I had 50 students in my 6th grade beginning clarinet class. My teaching method required that they be able to sustain an F# concert on just the mouthpiece and barrel for at least 20 seconds before going to the full instrument. So yes, I can imagine just about any sound.
Joined
·
939 Posts
Nice bits of humor and a round-a-bout definition of Suzuki but not really an answer to the question.
Maybe it needs to be rephrased so that it's succinct?
Suzuki method is about first getting students to play by ear. It's about making a connection between hearing, (having a note you wish to play), and accomplishing it physically. If done for a long enough period (not just something that occasionally happens, but is the only initial teaching), then theoretically a permanent connection is made between hearing a note and producing that note on your instrument. Learning to read and other skills come later.
This is in contrast to what it seems is the standard method of teaching sax which emphasizes reading at the same time as learning to physically play the instrument. The player is encouraged to make a VISUAL connection by reading a note and pressing the right keys. It's an eye to hand pathway instead of ear/head to hands pathway. The student will have no idea of the notes they play and rely on reading music to play. In graded systems this can continue for many years. It seems that even in jazz, the standard academic method of teaching is to read a chord chart and not necessarily play an alternate melody, but play riffs and arpeggios in a cut and paste fashion that fits with the chord structure. It's very debatable whether this is true improvisation, especially if the player isn't really aware of what they are playing, but just inserting practiced patterns without hearing/conceiving of them until after they are played.
I honestly don't know whether sax teaching has caught up with what seems to be happening in Classical teaching in some areas of the world. My only experience with sax teaching was observing it as staid and often institutional, which is an irony considering that the sax is strongly associated with improvisation. We certainly hear a lot of technical "improvisational" playing that lacks a personal human touch, and much sounds very similar. Again it's ironic when one considers that the masters being copied were being themselves...being originals. Shouldn't that be the goal?
The question remains, and can be considered a joke or thought about seriously. Is the current method of teaching achieving the goal of enabling students to become creative artists with their own voice? Is it time to consider other methods that may better achieve those goals? Is there anything negative about learning to play by ear before reading?
The only parallel I can think of to the prevalent style of sax teaching would be "paint by the numbers". You wind up with a work that you've painted, but what part of it is an artwork by you? Even if you learn about your brushes and mixing paint, and develop the skill of copying a master's work accurately, are you an artist? Have you any ideas or compositional skills? Is there any emotion or communication in what you're doing?
We all need to learn how to use the tools (music or painting), but beyond that there needs to be an emphasis on creativity and encouraging the artist to express themselves. If a sax player is forever reading or "improvising" by a cut and paste method when and how are they going to become creative? It seems to me that the most basic premise of playing music is to be able to play a tune WITHOUT having to read it. It's having a connection to your instrument where it becomes your voice. Why is this not encouraged as the basis for learning to play sax?
Maybe it needs to be rephrased so that it's succinct?
Suzuki method is about first getting students to play by ear. It's about making a connection between hearing, (having a note you wish to play), and accomplishing it physically. If done for a long enough period (not just something that occasionally happens, but is the only initial teaching), then theoretically a permanent connection is made between hearing a note and producing that note on your instrument. Learning to read and other skills come later.
This is in contrast to what it seems is the standard method of teaching sax which emphasizes reading at the same time as learning to physically play the instrument. The player is encouraged to make a VISUAL connection by reading a note and pressing the right keys. It's an eye to hand pathway instead of ear/head to hands pathway. The student will have no idea of the notes they play and rely on reading music to play. In graded systems this can continue for many years. It seems that even in jazz, the standard academic method of teaching is to read a chord chart and not necessarily play an alternate melody, but play riffs and arpeggios in a cut and paste fashion that fits with the chord structure. It's very debatable whether this is true improvisation, especially if the player isn't really aware of what they are playing, but just inserting practiced patterns without hearing/conceiving of them until after they are played.
I honestly don't know whether sax teaching has caught up with what seems to be happening in Classical teaching in some areas of the world. My only experience with sax teaching was observing it as staid and often institutional, which is an irony considering that the sax is strongly associated with improvisation. We certainly hear a lot of technical "improvisational" playing that lacks a personal human touch, and much sounds very similar. Again it's ironic when one considers that the masters being copied were being themselves...being originals. Shouldn't that be the goal?
The question remains, and can be considered a joke or thought about seriously. Is the current method of teaching achieving the goal of enabling students to become creative artists with their own voice? Is it time to consider other methods that may better achieve those goals? Is there anything negative about learning to play by ear before reading?
The only parallel I can think of to the prevalent style of sax teaching would be "paint by the numbers". You wind up with a work that you've painted, but what part of it is an artwork by you? Even if you learn about your brushes and mixing paint, and develop the skill of copying a master's work accurately, are you an artist? Have you any ideas or compositional skills? Is there any emotion or communication in what you're doing?
We all need to learn how to use the tools (music or painting), but beyond that there needs to be an emphasis on creativity and encouraging the artist to express themselves. If a sax player is forever reading or "improvising" by a cut and paste method when and how are they going to become creative? It seems to me that the most basic premise of playing music is to be able to play a tune WITHOUT having to read it. It's having a connection to your instrument where it becomes your voice. Why is this not encouraged as the basis for learning to play sax?
Joined
·
422 Posts
Not answering your questions either, but If I had a kid, one motivated to learn music.. given the choice wouldn't hesitate to choose a Suzuki school. Wouldn't like to let the typical beginner level classical teacher tell a kid what music is about, seen enough of that.
Joined
·
110 Posts
My youngest son learned to play the cello and was taught using the Suzuki method. I think he was 10 when he started.
In his experience reading music was part of the immediate training. The instructor had a select repertoire and after learning how to read the basics they got right into accomplishing the tune. He never worked on scales or other boring elements in the beginning. No real depth on theory. It was concentrated on playing music which as he became more adept the music became more challenging.
Furthermore as he became more accomplished his curiosity grew and his questions to the theory became more frequent. After a couple of years he had become quite adept with his instrument though has since switched to the sax.
Highly recommend the system as a great way to to get started playing.
There are method books available which would show you the progression.
Tangent: junior had two different cello teachers and both teachers employed the Suzuki method. The repertoire was the same. There was however a dramatic difference in the quality levels of instruction.
The 1st instructor specialized in cello and only cello. The 2nd instructor was a violinist who offered in addition to violin, cello instruction. This is where the rubber left the road. I highly recommend not making this mistake and locating an instructor who specializes in the instrument of focus.
We would not have made the switch had it not been for geographic limitations. Ultimately we sucked it up and traveled the extra hour to go back with the 1st instructor.
Additionally 4 months of instruction with an unqualified cello teacher passing themselves off as qualified created 9 months worth of correction effort. That was a lesson in itself.
Joined
·
4,360 Posts
I can only speak to music education in the U.S. The vast majority of students learn to play saxophone in their school band program. The obvious goal is to teach them the skills and reading ability to participate in their schools concert band, marching band, and jazz ensemble. Those who are gifted and motivated often take private lessons. It is in this "one on one" instruction that creativity and improvisation is best taught. Of course the basic skills needed to be able to improvise can also be taught to a certain degree in the class "rehearsal setting", but due to the number of students in each class, the amount of time each student gets to play individually and receive comments and suggestions is limited. In reality the majority of band students in school programs enroll for the "social experience" and not to become "creative artists" although the "creme of the crop" sometimes progress to that level.
Joined
·
939 Posts
Thanks to Minnesota for your response. If your son was 10 when he started, then that's kind of late for Suzuki. Below is a short list of Suzuki goals/program:
Suzuki Method
The Suzuki Approach, based on the so-called "mother-tongue" method, differs from traditional methods of teaching instrumental music because it involves the student at a very early age, thus necessitating much participation by a parent in the role of home teacher. Some of the basic principles and ingredients are:
1. Begin as soon as possible. Dr Suzuki recommended that ability development begin at birth. Format training may start by age 3.
2. Move in small steps. So the child can master the material with a total sense of success, thereby building their enthusiasm for learning. Each child progresses at their own pace.
3. The Care Giver attends all lessons so that they understand the learning process, and can feel secure when working with the child each day as the home-teacher. The most important single ingredient for success is the parent's willingness to devote regular time each day.
4. Daily listening to recordings of the Suzuki repertoire, as well as classical music, is the nucleus of the Suzuki approach. This derives from the way all children learn to speak their native language.
5. Postpone music reading until the child's aural and instrumental skills are well established, just as we teach children to read after they can speak.
6. Create in lessons and practice an enjoyable learning environment so that the child's motivation comes from enthusiasm and desire to please.
7. Regular group playing and activities with peers. This leads to the early involvement in Chamber and orchestral music.
8. Encouragement to perform publicly in recitals or concerts. This is both a positive motivation and builds self-confidence.
9. Foster an attitude of cooperation, not competition among students, or supportiveness for each other's accomplishments.
Note that #5 is about postponing reading until the student's "aural and instrument skills are well established". Different areas and teachers will do things differently, but to me the idea of developing those aural and instrument skills together before reading is at the core and should be a starting point for any student of any age.
I'm not sure that Suzuki is ideal for everyone in its "packaged form", but the idea of learning aurally initially makes a lot of sense.
Suzuki Method
The Suzuki Approach, based on the so-called "mother-tongue" method, differs from traditional methods of teaching instrumental music because it involves the student at a very early age, thus necessitating much participation by a parent in the role of home teacher. Some of the basic principles and ingredients are:
1. Begin as soon as possible. Dr Suzuki recommended that ability development begin at birth. Format training may start by age 3.
2. Move in small steps. So the child can master the material with a total sense of success, thereby building their enthusiasm for learning. Each child progresses at their own pace.
3. The Care Giver attends all lessons so that they understand the learning process, and can feel secure when working with the child each day as the home-teacher. The most important single ingredient for success is the parent's willingness to devote regular time each day.
4. Daily listening to recordings of the Suzuki repertoire, as well as classical music, is the nucleus of the Suzuki approach. This derives from the way all children learn to speak their native language.
5. Postpone music reading until the child's aural and instrumental skills are well established, just as we teach children to read after they can speak.
6. Create in lessons and practice an enjoyable learning environment so that the child's motivation comes from enthusiasm and desire to please.
7. Regular group playing and activities with peers. This leads to the early involvement in Chamber and orchestral music.
8. Encouragement to perform publicly in recitals or concerts. This is both a positive motivation and builds self-confidence.
9. Foster an attitude of cooperation, not competition among students, or supportiveness for each other's accomplishments.
Note that #5 is about postponing reading until the student's "aural and instrument skills are well established". Different areas and teachers will do things differently, but to me the idea of developing those aural and instrument skills together before reading is at the core and should be a starting point for any student of any age.
I'm not sure that Suzuki is ideal for everyone in its "packaged form", but the idea of learning aurally initially makes a lot of sense.
Resurrection time.. related to the "play by ear thread" but I want to focus on Suzuki...
At what point is it "play by ear" vs memorization? In other words. I work out a song and can play it all the way through. I come back the next day and I hunt for a few notes, so maybe I have to listen to the melody again and work it out by ear again; usually faster. If I do it enough times, then I remember the melody and how to play it. It becomes more permanent. Obviously at the start it's all ear, but as you progress then there's some play by memorization. Other than wanting to remember a melody you like, in terms of the learning process, is there any value in continuing to work through it until you know it well enough to have zero or minimal loss day to day? Or would one be better off moving to a new melody? Ultimately you want to get to a point where no matter how long it's been since you played it, if you can sing or hum it, you can play it with no hunting. But what gets you there faster, the repetition, or moving on to new challanges?
No doubt, but let's narrow this down a bit, and stick with the Suzuki method.
If I'm a beginning Suzuki player, Book 1 Suzuki method, song 1 (not the actual case, but for purposes of discussion and to be true to the method let's keep it at that)
I've internalized the melody. I can play it by ear, completely through on the day of practice. Next day I fumble a bit but find it again.
Is it better to stick to the same melody, until you can play it day after day with no fumbling. Or move on to the next melody.
To state the question a different way, in this case, what develops the ear better, repetition and perfection, or moving on to the next lesson?
The answer, play it in all keys does not apply, because a beginner Suzuki player, would no know anything about keys. And the book doesn't tell you to play it in other keys. It just moves on to the next lesson. It's a question of when do you move on from one lesson to the next? Does anyone have first hand experience with Suzuki method to know what a Suzuki teacher would recommend.
This of course is not an issue when sight reading. You read it, you play it, you move on. It's much clearer when to do that.
Joined
·
939 Posts
Memorization can certainly take place no matter how you initially learned. If that's what you're concentrating on, one tune at a time, then that's not really developing your ability to play by ear. Playing by ear is more the ability to hear a tune, and play it back, or ultimately hear a tune in your head and play it. Memorization does not = playing by ear, but it is a good exercise that (as you say) may involve initially playing by ear. Selmer10G is also correct. If you can take a random start note and then play a tune by ear (without "analysis") it demonstrates that you're in sync. It should be obvious that you can't be avoiding some notes on the sax in order to play this way. The combinations of notes required for playing in some keys are awkward, thus the valid recommendation for practicing playing in all keys. Knowing half the scales means that you are certainly playing all the notes, but not necessarily in an awkward order. The keys that are (IMHO) most difficult are Eb, Ab, and C#. Others are difficult if trying to think about them, but flow pretty nicely under the fingers. Playing regularly in those keys can make your playing more fluid.
Those of you who play Alto, Baritone or Sopranino, and have had lots of jam sessions with guitarists, will be familiar with playing your instrument in C# as Concert E is their favorite key.
To play fluidly by ear means that whatever tune you hear, a harmony to it, or a variation of the melody, can not only be keyed properly, but you aren't stumbling due to those key's awkward combinations.
The advanced version of playing by ear that I'd recommend is turning on the radio to random stations in all genres and seeing if you can play along. That requires not only hearing and playing the right notes, but anticipating what is going to happen in the music. Further advanced is to do this in harmony or counterpoint.
All of this is related to Suzuki, but as adult players we don't have the open facility of learning music as a first language. It's a "retrograde" exercise that can take many years to master.
That may not be answering your question, but Suzuki is designed for very young children. All I can personally say is what worked for me as an adult player who is primarily an audio type learner.
Those of you who play Alto, Baritone or Sopranino, and have had lots of jam sessions with guitarists, will be familiar with playing your instrument in C# as Concert E is their favorite key.
To play fluidly by ear means that whatever tune you hear, a harmony to it, or a variation of the melody, can not only be keyed properly, but you aren't stumbling due to those key's awkward combinations.
The advanced version of playing by ear that I'd recommend is turning on the radio to random stations in all genres and seeing if you can play along. That requires not only hearing and playing the right notes, but anticipating what is going to happen in the music. Further advanced is to do this in harmony or counterpoint.
All of this is related to Suzuki, but as adult players we don't have the open facility of learning music as a first language. It's a "retrograde" exercise that can take many years to master.
That may not be answering your question, but Suzuki is designed for very young children. All I can personally say is what worked for me as an adult player who is primarily an audio type learner.
Yes, there may be some melodies I like and want to completely memorize, but if it's just an exercise in the book I have no reason to memorize it. I still want to make sure I get the most out of the exercise before moving on. Yes, I got the feeling that playing it repeatedly wasn't really playing by ear any more, at some point. It's kind of a sliding scale; less and less ear the longer you're at it. So, with that logic, it seems that moving on to work out the next melody has more payback.
As far as the stumbling. In my case it's not because I'm avoiding a note, it's because my ear is not trained yet to instantly know where to find the note that I hear in my head. That's the whole point, to create that link.
I'm ok with "retrograde".
Tanks. I'll see if I can't talk to a couple Suzuki teachers and see what they say.
Joined
·
38,826 Posts
Yeah, well, I went to the Suzuki.org. One contact on there was a dud, trying their general info email. We'll see.
I did get a response from one Suzuki teacher. He says MOVE ON! No point in hashing over the same melody once you've got it figured out, unless you want to memorize it. The more different melodies you work out, the better you get at it. Moving on...
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
