3 ms·

I was taught using the Suzuki book, but not the method. My teacher never told me listen to the record it came with. Of course, it wouldn't have done me any good

I was taught using the Suzuki book, but not the method. My teacher never told me listen to the record it came with. Of course, it wouldn't have done me any good since I didn't have a record player. One piece my teacher wanted me to learn was Autumn by Vivaldi. I remember listening to my CD of Vivaldi's Four Seasons constantly to hear how a certain part should sound. Now only if I had a video, then I can see how they would've played it. :)

analog31 6y ago
Indeed, the method is not strictly followed in the US. For one thing, American teachers tend to teach reading a lot earlier. But I believe the emphasis on ear training, playing in groups, and starting out learning by imitation, are beneficial. Teachers of my generation were afraid that if you learned by ear, you'd never learn to read.
- bsder 6y ago
  I'd go further. A lot of "classical" training now basically acknowledges that "reading" just isn't that relevant for a classical musician and wastes time when most of your repertory is memorized. Sure, you need to be able to read enough to get through to the point that you can memorize a new piece. However, you don't need to be able to read at the level of, say, a studio musician who sees new and unfamiliar music every single day.
  - analog31 6y ago
    That's possible. A concert soloist might not need to be a strong reader, but very few of them can make a living doing only that. To get up to a decent income without a day job requires doing a lot of short-term and fill-in music, chamber music, subbing, etc. Maybe I took to reading, to cover for my lack of practice. ;-) I switched to jazz after high school, and am now a double bassist. Though I'm not a full time pro, I've gotten a lot more work than I'd otherwise deserve thanks to being a fluent sight-reader and keeping my reading chops fresh.

3 ms·

I was taught using the Suzuki book, but not the method. My teacher never told me listen to the record it came with. Of course, it wouldn't have done me any good

by meowzero 6y ago

analog31 6y ago
Indeed, the method is not strictly followed in the US. For one thing, American teachers tend to teach reading a lot earlier. But I believe the emphasis on ear training, playing in groups, and starting out learning by imitation, are beneficial. Teachers of my generation were afraid that if you learned by ear, you'd never learn to read.
- bsder 6y ago
  I'd go further. A lot of "classical" training now basically acknowledges that "reading" just isn't that relevant for a classical musician and wastes time when most of your repertory is memorized. Sure, you need to be able to read enough to get through to the point that you can memorize a new piece. However, you don't need to be able to read at the level of, say, a studio musician who sees new and unfamiliar music every single day.
  - analog31 6y ago
    That's possible. A concert soloist might not need to be a strong reader, but very few of them can make a living doing only that. To get up to a decent income without a day job requires doing a lot of short-term and fill-in music, chamber music, subbing, etc. Maybe I took to reading, to cover for my lack of practice. ;-) I switched to jazz after high school, and am now a double bassist. Though I'm not a full time pro, I've gotten a lot more work than I'd otherwise deserve thanks to being a fluent sight-reader and keeping my reading chops fresh.