Danielle Gomez on Violinist.com

Establishing an Independent Musician

Mon, 22 Feb 2010 07:30:20 GMT

A quintessential point made by Dr. Suzuki is that music teachers are not just making better musicians; they are making better human beings. & nbsp; This somewhat daunting task may be boiled down to the more tangible goal of creating an independent musician. & nbsp; The establishing of an independent musician begins as soon as that very first lesson.

Young children rely on their parents for just about everything. & nbsp; The parent is their provider and protector. & nbsp; So, in many ways, the parent is a child & rsquo;s medium to the outside world. & nbsp; They pick up cues from their parents on how they should respond to strange situations. & nbsp; This is very important for a teacher to keep in mind especially when first interacting with a young student. & nbsp; It should not be a teacher & rsquo;s goal to instantly befriend the child. & nbsp; Rather, the initial main focus should be on the parent. & nbsp; If a child sees that their parent is relaxed and willing to talk around this new and unfamiliar person, so too will they be relaxed and more inclined to talk.

The child sitting in front of the teacher is not merely a sponge waiting to absorb all musical information thrown at him. & nbsp; He already has likes and dislikes. & nbsp; The child probably has a favorite color, a pet or toy that he would simply love to describe in detail if one bothered to ask. & nbsp; By asking a child about topics they are familiar with, a teacher can provide affirmation for the student that they are an independent person.

The affirmation of the individual therefore leads to the introduction of the instrument. & nbsp; The environment that must be created by the teacher at this point should be one of comfortable enthusiasm. & nbsp; The teacher already knows they like the instrument they teach. & nbsp; Now it is the teacher & rsquo;s job to share that enthusiasm with an individual who has probably not formed any opinion whatsoever on the instrument. & nbsp; Allowing the child to sit close to their parent and placing the instrument in between where the student and teacher are sitting creates a very safe environment. & nbsp; The instrument creates a barrier but is also not being forced in the child & rsquo;s face. & nbsp; It must be an object of interest rather than fright.

& nbsp;In the field of Music Therapy, the musical instrument is used as the medium for & ldquo;first contact. & rdquo; & nbsp; This notion may be easily translated to the lesson environment. & nbsp; Once a safe space has been created the introduction may begin. & nbsp; Any number of things may be done at this point but naming the various instrument parts is always an easy way to start. & nbsp; The presentation of part names should be as neutral as the teacher plucking an A string and then simply telling the child to & ldquo;pluck the A. & rdquo;

There is a very powerful psychological change happening at this point of the lesson. & nbsp; In Music Therapy it is called & ldquo;establishing the touch barrier. & rdquo; & nbsp; What this means is that, while the child may not realize it, by experimentally & ldquo;plucking the A, & rdquo; something that the teacher showed them how to do, they have opened their mind to the possibility of learning the instrument before them. & nbsp; They reached out and touched (tested) the same instrument that the teacher touched (played). & nbsp;

These first steps at that first lesson lay the foundation for the establishing of an independent musician. & nbsp; The teacher has taken a child that is almost totally reliant on their parent, recognized their individuality, and created an environment which allowed the child to approach the unknown instrument on their own terms. & nbsp; The mindset of the child during those few simple actions are the beginnings of what the teacher and parent must cultivate to a grander scale. & nbsp; As the child grows to an adult, they should feel like they have been given the solid background/environment to approach new musical challenges on their own. & nbsp; & nbsp;

Let's Have Fun, Kids!

Wed, 23 Dec 2009 08:38:09 GMT

"I am mentally preparing myself for the five-year-old mind. �I want to come down to their physical limitations and up to their sense of wonder and awe." -Dr. Suzuki

As a violin teacher, a subject that seems to crop up a lot in my daily work is the notion of "fun." �Students would, of course, rather have fun than work. �Teachers strive to create both fun AND productive activities. �Parents worry that their child is not having fun anymore while practicing at home. �

There are mountains of books written (which, of course, I've read) pouring over how to make a fun learning environment. �What does and doesn't work in different educational settings is covered ad nauseum. ��

I realized the other day after coming across the above Dr. Suzuki quote that it's kind of ironic how much adults over-analyze "fun." �What a fun lesson really boils down to is: if the teacher is not having fun, why should the kids? �The essence of fun is that it's entertaining, not hard to do �and slightly spontaneous. �Children get that. �As adults we naturally lose our sense of spontaneity. �Life has to be at least be partially planned out in order to function.

Teaching requires a constant reevaluation of one's presentation. �If an activity you read about falls flat once you actually try it, it doesn't necessarily mean that you're a bad teacher or bad parent. �It just means that it didn't mesh with your own personal style.�

Rethinking Genius

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:51:24 GMT

& nbsp;Last week I posted a blog questioning why it is that we classify Bach as a musical genius. & nbsp;The subsequent discussion began to touch on what the word & quot;genius & quot; really means. & nbsp;I would like to expand on that discussion.

I am the type of person who learns best through debate. & nbsp;I like to present theories to have holes poked in them. & nbsp;With this in mind, I would like to present the following theory: & nbsp;in American culture, the concept of & quot;genius & quot; has been blown out of proportion to the point where it is now used as an excuse for failure rather than a description for merit.

My arguments for this theory are as follows:

The purest definition of genius is synonymous with idiot-savant. & nbsp;An idiot-savant is someone who excels in one particular area to the point that they are dysfunctional in all other areas. & nbsp;For example, an idiot-savant in math can do incredibly complex math calculations in their head. & nbsp;But, in these cases, math calculations are usually all they can do. & nbsp;They will have no social skills to speak of, may not be able to write very well, etc.

Obviously, these extreme cases are rare. & nbsp;The term & quot;genius & quot; has been loosened to incorporate anyone who is particularly skillful in a field but not necessarily an idiot-savant. & nbsp;They are functional members of society. & nbsp;Einstein is a good example of this. & nbsp;His work in math and physics is nothing short of brilliant. & nbsp;However, he was still at least capable of pursuing other interests such as playing the violin.

Now enter the word & quot;smart. & quot; & nbsp;This is a term usually dubbed in school to certain students. & nbsp;You have the & quot;regular & quot; kids and the & quot;smart & quot; kids. & nbsp;In order to be smart, a student must test well enough to receive high grades. & nbsp;The skills of a smart student lie not in the actual material itself, but rather in his ability to take a test on it.

Americans are obsessed with tests. & nbsp;We test for IQ, we test for schools, we test for jobs, we test for driving.... we love the fact that we are trying to quantify skill and put a number on it. & nbsp;Because of this, we see a rising number of parents putting their kids in schools for the gifted (aka genius) simply because their child scored well on the entrance exam.

Now this is not to say that smart kids do not retain any of the material they are tested on and that children in gifted schools are unintelligent. & nbsp;My point is that we are starting to lose the concept that is the single-mindedness of genius. & nbsp;Mozart, for example, would spend hours obsessively folding napkins while he composed. & nbsp;Going back to Einstein, the man may have had other interests, but he was completely oblivious as to his appearance or level of hygiene. & nbsp;A genius is not a well-rounded individual.

The fact that the line between smart and genius is fuzzy for Americans has led to a shift in educational attitudes. & nbsp;More and more you see students (of any age) have the attitude that they failed at something simply because they were not smart enough (aka a genius). & nbsp;I see this a lot with beginning adult violin students. & nbsp;They play a wrong note and will immediately berate themselves for being stupid or not talented enough to play. & nbsp;

What they are lacking is not talent, it's the ability to separate the mistake from the process. & nbsp;I will ask them to look at their violin and tell me why they played a wrong note. & nbsp;Sometimes they will stare at the violin for a full 30 seconds before finally saying & quot;oh! I was on the wrong string! & quot; & nbsp;The ability to make a mistake, figure out why you made the mistake, and then correct it is an acquired brain process. & nbsp;It takes patience and practice to be able to break down a process like that and has absolutely nothing to do with how intelligent you are.

What Makes Bach a Musical Genius?

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:10:13 GMT

& nbsp;I was sitting in my music appreciation class the other day. & nbsp;Since we are studying the Baroque period, the teacher showed us a short film on the life of Bach. & nbsp;The film was one of those typical history documentaries: lots of British narration interspersed with commentary from experts in various fields.

One thing I've noticed is that people (myself included) always assume & nbsp;Bach's genius. & nbsp;In the film I watched in class, both a neuroscientist and a psychologist spoke in-depth about the brilliance of Bach and how this may be attributed to the musical centers in his brain being slightly larger than average.

At this point I had to pause and think: why do we assume this man is a genius? & nbsp;I've heard that enlarged brain story and I don't buy it. & nbsp;Every single musician has enlarged music centers in their brain. & nbsp;Cat scans and research have proven that (see Oliver Sacks). & nbsp;Was it his amazing output of music? & nbsp;Bach came from a musical family. & nbsp;His composition efforts were encouraged from an early age. & nbsp;Later on, it was his job to write a certain number of new pieces each week. & nbsp;Maybe it's the way his music sounds? & nbsp;There is something universally appealing about Bach's music. & nbsp;It is pleasing to the ear. & nbsp;In many ways, Bach is not unlike today's & nbsp;movie score composers; he wrote to appease his audiences.

Now I'm not trying to take Bach down a peg. & nbsp;I love his works and there is no doubt as to his skill on the organ. & nbsp;It's just interesting to me how history treats certain characters. & nbsp;Unlike Beethoven, Bach never tried to break social norms with his music or raise art music to new levels. & nbsp;Here is this guy who, it could be argued, was just doing his job (which he could do well) and trying to pay the bills in composing while having a little fun on the side. & nbsp;200 years later we're examining his skull trying to figure out if genetic abnormalities led to his success as a composer.

I guess there's no telling.

Beginning Improvisation

Tue, 03 Nov 2009 03:08:39 GMT

�I would like to continue with the train of thought from my last blog. �Previously, I had discussed the importance of experimenting with improvisation. �Improvisation teaches a different set of skills that can help to enhance your abilities as both a classical musician and performer.

While it's important to teach these things to students, it is difficult to introduce subjects that you, as the teacher, may be uncomfortable with. �Despite its daunting appearance, learning to improvise is no different from learning a technically complex violin concerto. �It must be systematically broken up into smaller tasks that can be easily managed.

One of the easiest things to do is to start listening to improvisation. �Get all the books you want, but the "jazz swing" is not something you can notate accurately. �Reading music as a jazz violinist rather than a classical violinist is an acquired skill. �Knowing how a particular genre should sound is a huge step in the right direction.

Learning scales is important �but even more important is learning chords. �A simple chord consists of the first (root), third and fifth notes of a scale. �It is unfortunate that the violin is not a chord instrument. �Most of the notes we play are individual. �Guitarists, for example, do not even think about the names of the notes in a C chord. �They learn hand shape and finger patterns. �Since improvisation requires both solo playing and backup playing (something violinists are not usually used to), learning chord shapes is crucial. �A really easy way to do this is to just look up mandolin chords. �The mandolin has the exact same strings as a violin, it is simply plucked instead of bowed. �Familiarizing yourself with chords will make rapid key changes and accompanying easier.

There are a variety of books and backup CDs out there that can help assist you in the learning process. �Two excellent authors are Jamie Aebersold and Martin Norgaard. �But if you are new to improvisation, you must allow yourself to experiment on your instrument. �The more you try improvising, the less frightening it will seem.

Rethinking Improvisation

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 01:01:54 GMT

�I think that improvisation is often overlooked these days by classical musicians. �Classical music is, in many ways, very safe. �Everything is already figured out for you. �Notes, dynamics, key changes, even fingerings are already written down. �As musicians, all we really have to do is get the coordination to play it and maybe add a little of our own artistic interpretation. �Easy right?

Maybe not. �But with so much initial information presented to us before we even attempt to play, the chances of playing a piece "wrong" the first few times is much higher than playing it "right." �This is not an entirely bad thing. �It instills in us a drive for perfection. �To work hard until the desired result is achieved.

But this sense of achieving perfection must be balanced out. �We've all hit ruts at some point when learning one song or another. �Even when the teacher is encouraging, we still think on some level "I didn't play that piece correctly because I messed up some of the notes." �Therefore, it is important to occasionally put ourselves in an environment where every note you play is the right note.

The seemingly open-ended vagueness of improvisation scares those of us used to the strict, comforting structure of pre-written compositions. �It means that there is potentially more for others to judge. �Not only can others judge how�you play but also what you play.

But experimenting with this level of creative expression can only help your playing. �It teaches things like how to key change without the help of a visual aid or how to play difficult fingerings on the spot. �And it doesn't have to be an excruciatingly painful process either. �Designate your own boundaries. �A really simple way of doing this is improvising only with one note at a time. �So play whatever rhythm you want with A. �Experiment with different A notes all over your instrument. �There are no wrong rhythms and you already know exactly which note to play.

�

Teaching En Masse?

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 05:13:18 GMT

I would like to explore the stereotypical school music setting. �From what I understand from talking to friends who teach in this type of environment, students are assigned or pick out an instrument to play in orchestra or band. �The teacher then covers basic, basic technique for each instrument. Students are then highly encouraged, but not always required, to seek instruction from a private teacher outside of school.

Does this work? �Granted, I do not have a ton of experience teaching orchestra in the school setting. �But when I did, it kind of felt at times like I was babysitting with instruments. �To me, this seems like a really frustrating learning experience for everyone involved. �The teacher can't possibly give everyone the individual attention they need. �The students are drowning in a sea of new material. And then the parents get frustrated when they think their kid is being ignored in class.

I kind of have to wonder that if this is the face of music in schools, would children be better off without it? �I would almost rather kids be completely ignorant of the subject then go through life swearing off music because they had a bad experience trying to learn the trumpet for orchestra in grade school.

But I'm on a soapbox now. �I really don't want to be too overly critical. �And I have actually witnessed the results of a good school orchestra program. �What I want to do is try and spark objective discussion on whether or not teaching music "en masse" actually works and/or is a worthwhile endeavor. �Is it better to have a frustrating music experience than none at all? �What does it take to achieve a thriving orchestra or band program? �In general, would you say there are more good programs out there or bad? �Is it possible to create a successful school orchestra when none of the students take private lessons?

Musical Talent: Nature vs. Nurture

Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:33:44 GMT

�For the most part, I don't believe in a "musical gene." �I will concede that there is such a thing as a musical genius. �But these people, regardless of the field they crop up in, are more the exception rather than the rule.

A child growing up in a musical family will have a distinct head start in a musical career over children who come from a non-musical family. �I think that examples of this that are seen in history are largely responsible for this notion of a "musical gene." �"Of course Bach was a musical genius. �He inherited all those good musical genes from his father." �Bach's father and all of his uncles were professional musicians. �He was encouraged from a very early age to explore music. �Bach's musical accomplishments were loudly applauded by his entire family rather than discouraged and frowned upon. �How could the young Bach fail to have, at the very least, an interest in music with this kind of environment?

What is sad for me to see is students that are denied a musical education due to their performance on some kind of "musical talent test." �These tests determine a very finite set of skills that are purely the result of previous exposure to music, nothing more. �The skills necessary to be a professional performer are very different from the skills of a music teacher or instrument maker. So long as there is interest and determination, skill can be developed.

Music Education vs. Music Therapy: Should there be a line?

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 07:55:13 GMT

�I studied music therapy in college. �At the end of my four years I decided to forgo the internship necessary to become certified and took up teaching the violin. �I mention this only to make clear that I have exposure to the field but am not a certified, practicing music therapist.

What was interesting to me in my therapy classes was the emphasis placed on drawing the line between the fields of music education and music therapy. �In many ways this makes perfect sense to me. �Music therapists must define their role in order to "sell their product." They wish to work in a therapist capacity rather than be hired to direct the high school band or teach an instrument.

About three months ago I took on a special ed violin student. �He has ADHD and occasional anxiety attacks. �He's doing really well on the violin and his mom commented to me that playing the violin has improved his fine motor skills and has really helped him to organize and focus his thoughts. �That comment made me start to think. �Is the line between music education and music therapy really all that clear cut?

The way I see it, the process of learning or participating in music is therapeutic by nature. �It has been scientifically proven that musicians develop certain areas of their brain that non-musicians do not. �Even those who do not play an instrument will use music to affect their mood. �For example, people will listen to certain music to make themselves excited or to relax.�

I would be interested to see everyone's opinion on this matter. �Does anyone have any experience with music therapy? �How do you think that compares to a more traditional music lesson setting? �Do you think people take away different things from these two environments?

That darn Suzuki CD is too fast!

Mon, 21 Sep 2009 23:41:17 GMT

Of all the Suzuki method criticisms, some of the harshest seem to be directed toward the CD that accompanies the method book. �"It's like twinkle on speed!" �One parent exclaimed to me.

This is why I think it's important to clear up what the CD is ACTUALLY for. �Most people seem to believe that Suzuki students are supposed to listen to the CD, memorize the song, and then play it along with the CD. �This is only half true.

What partially makes "the Suzuki method" different from "the traditional style" is the approach to sight reading. �When young students (3 or 4 years old) are learning the violin, it would be almost impossible for them to make any sort of progress if they were asked to play the violin (which involves a high level of fine motor skills) AND read music (most of them can't even read books yet). �Doing both of those things is even incredibly difficult for an adult beginner who can read. �So we separate the two tasks. �This allows them to focus on the technically complex task of playing their instrument.

Enter the CD. �The CD is used to help the students memorize a piece. �It's very difficult to play a piece (reading or not) when you have no idea how it goes. �The CD also serves as a reference point for intonation. �Beginners are by no means expected to play with the CD or even at CD speed. �Once they are more solid players (as in, well past twinkle), they are asked to go back and play with the CD. �Beginning students are, however, asked to do simple activities such as bowing on their shoulder along with the CD. �This is an easy way to teach them how to keep a consistent tempo.�

What I think is important to keep in mind is that the Suzuki method books are just that: method books. �Their purpose is to teach certain techniques in a pedagogical fashion. �They are NOT the method. �The actual "Suzuki method" is an approach to teaching.