There has been much comment recently on the ongoing argument about the merits/drawbacks of the Suzuki method. A recent post on Christian Howes' excellent violin blog page suggests that the Suzuki method is both important and irreplaceable.
There is no doubt the Suzuki method is important, but is it really irreplaceable? To what end is it irreplaceable? Are Suzuki pupils uniformly superior human beings as a result of an approach only administered by paid up members of the Suzuki inner circle?
The truth is that the Suzuki method cannot produce outstanding teachers every time. As with any other discipline, the method used is only as effective as the teacher is competent. Yes, it is wonderful that parents are involved at every step, yes it is important that children learn by memory in groups etc., but there are plenty of non-Suzuki trained teachers out there who do just that (who incidentally benefit from a considerably wider choice of repertoire.) Their success speaks for itself.
If the Suzuki brigade wish to be taken more seriously they need to stop the 'you're either with us or against us' language. It's so insulting.
More entries: April 2013
Violinist.com is made possible by...