There really are just two aspects to method:
- Method should accomplish the goals.
- Method should lead to progress.
There are actually some piano teachers who insist on having no method. They want to use "common sense," to study each student and apply whatever means they believe is useful. Some may even resent the suggestion that they consider following a method created by someone else. These teachers don't really understand the meaning of the term "method," which simply means a plan, or orderly procedure, or progress to an end result.
What these teachers really mean is that they follow no published procedure. A teacher with an inventive and imaginative mind might develop processes adapted to her own personality. But these processes, however ingenious or effective, are only devices that in the end emphasize some aspects of piano without necessarily offering a well-rounded development of the whole subject of music.
The art of teaching piano really begins with using published procedure, whatever school of training is chosen. Then the confidence and ability that comes from her pianistic experience will lend authority to a teacher's practice. That can become a starting point for fresh discoveries in guiding piano students. Actually, piano methods are not static; experienced teachers are constantly improving their art.
In my experience, all accepted methods of teaching piano are good, whether Alfred, Thompson, Suzuki, or the like. A piano teacher who is both artistic and an excellent coach can make good use of any proven method to teach students how to play piano well and appreciate music. No single school of training is better than the other - the teacher makes the difference.
For more information on piano lessons NJ, contact Barbara Ehrlich Piano Studio.
No comments:
Post a Comment