Piano Wizard

[ChrisSalter]

Hellene,

Thanks for the apology, as I said, I took nothing personally, just felt I needed to clarify and explain who we really are and where we come from. We are not the enemy, not by a long shot. It is a big world with lots of people looking for solutions to music education, so getting into a spitting match makes no sense to me. We know what we have, you know what you have, make your case, we make ours, let people try and make an educated decision, but they may opt for Suzuki or Yamaha or other traditional approaches as well. We have an unconditional guarantee so if it is not right for them they won't keep it anyway, why would I force feed someone something? I want them happy and telling their friends. I know if they just watch the Academy Quickstart DVD and follow the instructions with their child they will be amazed and tell everyone. That's how I want to grow my business.

As I said before, we are peers, fellow travelers on a mission to bring more music to more people. There are far more people than either of us can reach in our lifetime, so let's find a way to work together, in harmony.

Thanks

Chris

[Twinergy]

Thanks Nikita,

I guess I opened the door for some criticism without even giving PW a fair evaluation.  It was just something I had heard from a music expert who hadn't seen PW but already had preconceived ideas about the color coding then I ran with it.     So, after trying out PW I now have complete faith that the color coding won’t become a crutch in used in this context.  I hardly even look at the keyboard, but rather feel it as I look at the diagram on the screen.  And even then I’m seeing the keys as black and white while the color coding just fade into the colorful background.  Amazing how my brain is compensating.  A very young child might rely on the colors a little more, but I’m sure will develop a feel for the keyboard as they familiarize themselves with it. 

[HH]

Chris,

Plato is my friend — Aristotle is my friend — truth is a greater friend. Isaak Newton.
I have all my respect to you as a person, but I have to clarify something that is very important for the records.

People’s perception has limitations, therefore ‘different approaches’ are not flying here.
Gvido from Arezzo created Grand Staff and notation
10 centuries later I improved it.

Your invention, Yamaha, Suzuki, Synthesia – other methods has nothing to do with modifications of Grand Staff. All of them were trying to adjust beginners’ perception to ‘user unfriendly’ notation – I transformed it and gradually worked it to the original Staff.

My invention IS NOT limited to just software. It changed the way entire notation is going to be in future.

Please, understand: I am insisting on that  not because of it is MY creation. In fact, I would be happier to see it in more successful hands! I am not ‘mama bear’ – I am musicologist, scientist and all materials that I exposed here has nothing to do with advertisement. 

If you really care about future of music education, please, read my book. I also can send you my translated article published by Moscow conservatory,  We just can’t afford to experiment on other generation of people. Future of our kids at the stake.

Sincerely,
HH

PS
I am not going to write anything about it here any more.

[ChrisSalter]

Hellene,

Music notation has needed an update for a long time, it was obsolete but people just kept "adding on" until it became the mess it is today. That being said, it is like Chinese characters. After 5000 years, you can't get rid of it no matter how illogical it is, too many treasures would be lost, so we need to make people "backward compatible" with it. I could make a case for my color coding being a more logical notation, but that is not anything but an ego trip that cuts off a thousand years of music treasure from future generations. People can learn even very illogical languages fluently, some require more work than others to become literate (Japanese students take to the age of 12 to get the same written vocabulary as English speakers at 7 because of the complexity of the language) but it is worth it.

I do understand your method is more than software, so is mine, software is merely the manifestation of it. I wish you luck changing music notation, you cannot do worse than a thousand years of random modifications from dozens of countries, cultures, styles, innovations and traditions. I am with you there, but there is gold in that crazy system. I remember the first time I "decoded" a piece by Chopin, and for once really understood his genius. Converting those treasures to a new system is not an idle task. I just try to help them read it, as illogical as it is.

Good luck,

Chris

[HH]

Did you ever see this picture?

[HH]

and this...

Grand Staff is perfectly logical and simmetrical thing.

But for some reason before me nodody saw it this way!

[ChrisSalter]

Except the Grand Staff only maps to the white keys, meaning each line or space has 3 possible keys (#,b, or natural) that it could be, and they only give you the key signature in the beginning and then do a kind of pop quiz from hell on the fly as the accidentals  and double sharps come to haunt you in your nightmares. No wonder children say "Take me now Jesus, I have suffered enough!" after their first lessons "explaining" music notation and theory. The musical staff does not map one to one to the chromatic scale, so then you have to explain why and get into the circle of fifths, and on it goes, until someone says, "who thought of this?".

Your perspective is a great help for piano players to "get" the logic (flawed as it is) of music notation. We use it in the first stages of our game, but mapping to the chromatic scale (with game objects) one to one so they can't fail, only after they have learned the song do we show them how music notation represents what they already know how to play, so the variations don't seem so big (your 3 to 1 theory in action). Children study English spelling (just as crazy) the same way, they know the word already, and get used to the weird variations on how it is spelled. It becomes either subject to the phonetic rules or a variation of the phonetic rules, same way the notation is either logical one to one mapping (white notes) or a variation (black notes), but when introduced after they know how to read it and play it, they absorb it without thinking. Beats wrestling 300 year old music theory to death before you ever play a song. I love music theory, but it is just that, a collection of theories on how and why music works, and how to play with it. Debussy ignored it, as did millions of non-western musicians and they still made some great and complex music. Still, western music has absorbed influences from most of them, and dominates because it is a literate tradition, not just an oral tradition, so the transmission is much more widespread and universal.

Don't blame Guido though, there weren't any keyboards when he came up with his notation, nor a 12 step scale. He got us started though, God bless him, and the basic logic of pitch and time survives to this day.

[HH]

The sharps and flats could be no problem, though, if you present them this way. It helps beginners to grasp it instantly!

[HH]

Based on speech memory my students learn MUsic Alphabet (from 3 year old and up)

Better to go after the link - here is a mass with text and pictures: http://softmozart.on.ufanet.ru/smbookeng/music10.htm

I developed a concept of Music Alphabet that now being used in music schools:

What Is The Music Alphabet?

The music alphabet expresses the logic behind the language of music. Many think that this means that the 7 notes should only be expressed in their ascending order: Do, Re, Mi, Fa, Sol, La, and Ti. This is not so.  First of all, in music there isn’t only one direction of movement. This means that the true music alphabet should be: Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do, Do Ti La Sol Fa Mi Re Do. Secondly, each note in the music alphabet can appear first. Because of this, we must know seven sequences of notes. The music alphabet includes all of these sequences combined:

Cycle 1:
NoteCircles1    

    * Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do – Do Ti La Sol Fa Mi Re Do
    * Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do Re – Re Do Ti La Sol Fa Mi Re
    * Mi Fa Sol La Ti Do Re Mi – Mi Re Do Ti La Sol Fa Mi
    * Fa Sol La Ti Do Re Mi Fa – Fa Mi Re Do Ti La Sol Fa
    * Sol La Ti Do Re Mi Fa Sol – Sol Fa Mi Re Do Ti La Sol
    * La Ti Do Re Mi Fa Sol La – La Sol Fa Mi Re Do Ti La
    * Ti Do Re Mi Fa Sol La Ti – Ti La Sol Fa Mi Re Do Ti

My students are encouraged to recite this entire cycle, forwards and backwards from each note in 14 seconds, and they enjoy competing to see who can recite it most quickly. When reading, a speedy reaction is essential. Therefore, the ability to quickly  recite the alphabet is at the foundation of fluent sight-reading.

Throughout the innumerable amount of note combinations and intonations, their relationship with each other always follows a concrete order. The Music Alphabet expresses the fundamental relationship between notes, accepted in all western music notation.

1. Notes can be positioned skipping a step. This sequence of thirds orients the second cycle. This helps to see and read a music staff where notes are positioned either on lines, or in the spaces between them. Here, the structure includes triads and sevenths, making reading much more simple.

Cycle 2:
   

    * Do Mi Sol Ti Re Fa La Do – Do La Fa Re Ti Sol Mi Do
    * Mi Sol Ti Re Fa La Do Mi – Mi Do La Fa Re Ti Sol Mi
    * Sol Ti Re Fa La DO Mi Sol – Sol Mi Do La Fa Re Ti Sol
    * Ti Re Fa La Do Mi Sol Ti – Ti Sol  Mi Do La Fa Re Mi
    * Re Fa La Do Mi Sol Ti Re – Re Ti Sol Mi Do La Fa Re
    * Fa La Do Mi Sol Ti Re Fa – Fa Re Ti Sol Mi Do La Fa
    * La Do Mi Sol Ti Re Fa La – La Fa Re Ti Sol Mi Do La

2. Notes can be arranged by skipping two steps. These sequences of fourths comprise the third cycle. Knowledge of these sequences helps to read melodies that "skip" along the Grand Staff and aids with chord inversion. It is much easier to memorize the fourths-fifths cycle of tonality and the positioning of flats and sharps.
NoteCircles3    

    * Do Fa Ti Mi La Re Sol Do – Do Sol Re La Mi Ti Fa Do
    * Fa Ti Mi La Re Sol Do Fa – Fa Do Sol Re La Mi Ti Fa
    * Ti Mi La Re Sol Do Fa Ti – Ti Fa Do Sol Re La Mi Ti
    * Mi La Re Sol Do Fa Ti Mi – Mi Ti Fa Do Sol Re La Mi
    * La Re Sol Do Fa Ti Mi La – La Mi Ti Fa Do Sol Re La
    * Re Sol Do Fa Ti Mi La Re – Re La Mi Ti Fa Do Sol Re
    * Sol Do Fa Ti Mi La Re Sol – Sol Re La Mi Ti Fa Do Sol

3. All other combinations of notes are derived from these three sequences, known as musical inversions.

As you can see, learning the Music Alphabet, even without singing it, is a very important aid to music development. The alphabet is a matrix for the voice and hearing, a foundation for quick reading from sheet music, and the framework for understanding music theory. This is the concentrate of the entire system of music. Learning the language of music without it is impossible.       

One can learn the alphabet in different ways: it can be laid out in the form of flashcards, or recited in a rap with some neutral musical accompaniment. I have developed a computer game named Note Alphabet that trains the student to fit the notes into the proper sequences through a Tetris-style interface. All three cycles should be taught until they can be recited automatically. The student should be able to recite it starting from any point, and in a very quick tempo. The result is an ability to quickly name a note that is next to a step, over a step, or two above/below.

With the aid of the alphabet, music sounds can be perceived on a stable level similar to that of human speech. The person gets used to not only hearing sounds, but also to guessing their names. The sounds that we hear are gradually decoded into their names and symbols (notes), which we can sing, play, and write down on paper.

A Coach, a Map, and a Compass

The reading of a music text is based on the knowledge of the organization of sounds in a system. Knowledge of this system is just as important in music as knowing the multiplication table is in mathematics.

Speech is the most natural focal point for the understanding of the system of music sounds. Giving each sound a name, we rely on speech and articulation to familiarize ourselves with the relationships between pitches. Simply speaking, at first we should memorize the names of the sounds. Playing them and singing them aloud, we adhere their names to their absolute pitch.

After learning the sequences of notes one way and the other, one step at a time, skipping steps, and skipping two steps, we look upon the Grand Staff with different eyes. It is no longer splattered with various notes on lines and on spaces. We see it as the framework of the entire system, where each note can easily be found so long as you know the rules. Seeing a note, we find its tonal equivalent in a fraction of a second, regardless of whether the melody is moving up or down, whether it is smooth or jumpy.

In such a music staff, it is just as comfortable to find things as it is at home, where everything is familiar even in the shadows. A systematic perception of notes is the single path to competent sight-reading. Seeing how it all is built, a person can easily understand the world of music. The music language becomes a part of one’s daily creative thoughts.

The music alphabet is especially important for playing the piano. The keys follow the very same system of music. Outside of the system, they seem to be "unknown space," where it is dangerous to be because of its unpredictability. I still remember that tension and inner fear – what if I press the wrong key? This didn’t just interfere with practice; it made it impossible to think about music at all. Don’t assume that this is an exaggeration. We know that the fear of making a wrong step hinders the movement of a person. Playing on the piano involves the coordination of our 10 fingers in a vast auditory space, separated into thin, multiple pieces. The fear of falling into the wrong place is the main cause of the clenching up of hands. The space will only become yours when you know precisely where you are and what is around you.

Constantly practicing a bunch of works, etudes and exercises, and especially scales, learning harmony and Solfeggio, professional musicians usually work out the Music Alphabet on their own. Yet I am sure that one’s music education should start precisely from the alphabet. Only then will all students understand how the system of music is built, and will easily learn the language of music.

[HH]

Except the Grand Staff only maps to the white keys, meaning each line or space has 3 possible keys (#,b, or natural) that it could be, and they only give you the key signature in the beginning and then do a kind of pop quiz from hell on the fly as the accidentals  and double sharps come to haunt you in your nightmares. No wonder children say "Take me now Jesus, I have suffered enough!" after their first lessons "explaining" music notation and theory. The musical staff does not map one to one to the chromatic scale, so then you have to explain why and get into the circle of fifths, and on it goes, until someone says, "who thought of this?".

Your perspective is a great help for piano players to "get" the logic (flawed as it is) of music notation. We use it in the first stages of our game, but mapping to the chromatic scale (with game objects) one to one so they can't fail, only after they have learned the song do we show them how music notation represents what they already know how to play, so the variations don't seem so big (your 3 to 1 theory in action). Children study English spelling (just as crazy) the same way, they know the word already, and get used to the weird variations on how it is spelled. It becomes either subject to the phonetic rules or a variation of the phonetic rules, same way the notation is either logical one to one mapping (white notes) or a variation (black notes), but when introduced after they know how to read it and play it, they absorb it without thinking. Beats wrestling 300 year old music theory to death before you ever play a song. I love music theory, but it is just that, a collection of theories on how and why music works, and how to play with it. Debussy ignored it, as did millions of non-western musicians and they still made some great and complex music. Still, western music has absorbed influences from most of them, and dominates because it is a literate tradition, not just an oral tradition, so the transmission is much more widespread and universal.

Don't blame Guido though, there weren't any keyboards when he came up with his notation, nor a 12 step scale. He got us started though, God bless him, and the basic logic of pitch and time survives to this day.

When we train the complex skill separetely (at first without notation - after learning the same song to 'read') we trap ourselves in 'stationary bycicle situation.
Because you go to a gym and use a stationary bicycle for cardiac exercise, does it mean that you can ride a real bike?  Of course not!  Because riding a bicycle involves a complex set of skills.  You do not learn how to balance on a stationary bicycle, yet this is a missing but necessary link in training to ride a real one.
   
 What would happen if you try to ride a real bike after training on a stationary bike?  If you are an athletic type with a good sense of balance and coordination, it is less likely that you would be afraid of getting hurt if you fall off.  Someone less skilled, however, could be afraid of falling, or fearful of even trying.

When we do training this way. kids mostly pretend that they read notes. After year or to their coordination. ear and muscle memory improved, but vision is not. If to go this route, we place students into a danger never to learn how to read fluently, because vision would always b behind
     
Learning a complex set of skills requires that all the components be developed together from the very start to build a strong, unified network.  Losing any of the separate parts of the network, even for a short time, complicates the learning process for many students, except perhaps the most structured players.

This is how our neuron system works (I described it in the book)

[ChrisSalter]

Wow Hellene,

Are you going to publish your whole book on this forum?

Solfeggi, also invented before the 12 step chromatic scale, also ignores 5 black notes in an octave. It is very useful for diatonic and modal work, i.e., the major scale and its modes, but as you modulate and work with more complex music it begins to crack. Those modulations, i.e., moving to different keys, involve half step changes, which solfeggio muddies. Suddenly "la" is "la sharp" or "la flat", with no clear or consistent way to distinguish, especially on the fly while singing.  The ironic thing in music is that the smallest distance, the half step, is the most dissonant interval, so when you get that wrong it is as wrong as you can get.

Also, is it a fixed "do" or movable "do"? Again, different traditions tried to get a handle on the logic of music with different tools. I think they are useful as approaches, but none are complete or "the" way in themselves.

I am not saying it is not useful, just that it has its own disadvantages as well. Singing is very important, we emphasize it in our lessons, all the pieces have lyrics. When I worked with Don in the group piano classes we also worked extensively with solfeggi, I even tried to think of a fixed chromatic solfeggi system that would be consistent across all keys, but the vowel sounds that resulted for consistency were too funny in sequences, and nobody would get through a single song without laughing. Still think it can be done and is worth doing, but not my present focus. We also used Kodaly hand signals when learning new songs. Don would have us walk the song, clap the song, sing the song, sing it with solfeggi, sing with solfeggi and Kodaly hand signals, sing out whether the keys were black or white, sing the letter names, the fingerings, shape the melodic contour with our hands, and THEN we would go to the piano and see the sheet music. Did we know the song backwards and forward by then? Yes, did the music notation make more sense to us then? Yes. We played music first then looked at its representation. You can see why I was delighted to have him create the video series, so he could bring those non-software concepts and approaches to complement the game.

Repetition through variation is the key, and we use that in our program extensively, through different views, levels, include note names, include fingerings, kids love to change the objects, the backgrounds, etc. Don and Delayna's input and coaching to the parents is just enough to nudge them to the next level without them having to know a lot of theory up front. We don't need to know the theory of the QWERTY typing keyboard to type, we need to know how to hit the right keys in the right sequence. We teach them to hit the right notes at the right time, and make music first, and quickly and easily, then move on to the more subtle aspects. The depth of music study is infinite, I just want to give them a solid start without rehashing flawed and obsolete music theory up front. Later stages allow that to absorbed without so much pain or confusion.

This is why I think that different approaches and that flexibility does help move things forward. Is "walking" a song "the" way to learn? No, it is one way, it gives one dimension of the song focus and clarity, and you complement it with other approaches. There is an expression in Portuguese, "dono da verdade". It means "owner of the truth". I think we need to avoid absolutes when talking about music, and learning, there are so many modes and options, we need to not only explore them all, but try and find which approaches actually work for different people best. I have found that most people are primarily visual learners, that is why our program is so successful, we created a visual way to learn music. Of course Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could not use that at all, yet they found a unique path to their music genius. A visual approach is one pathway, a neglected one because music is an aural art, and so people focus on that aspect more than not. Still, it is a very powerful and effective tool that works very well for most people. But as effective as visual learning can be,  it is not "the" way, it needs to be complemented with ear, singing, movement, etc.

That was why we created the Academy, to complement a very strong visual approach and tool, with things that approach could not address. We view the Piano Wizard Academy as a great tool box for getting down the road in learning music without feeling like you need to master Latin grammar to do so. We don't feel it is "complete" and in fact believe it has its limits, especially as the child develops, that is why we move to get them "off the game" with step 5 as early and as consistently as possible. But if all your new piano students had a 50 or even 100 song repertoire and could read music and loved to practice, wouldn't you be thrilled to take them to the next levels? We try and be very clear about what we can do, and not do. What we can do (and guarantee) already almost stretches the limits of credibility because it is such a breakthrough, why exaggerate? Let them get a great start and find their own paths to go as far as they want to.

But above all, keep an open mind, there are many ways. Some work better for some, others for others. There are multiple intelligences at work, multiple strategies, a rounded diverse approach to learning will find those modalities that work best for each individual.

Thanks

Chris

[HH]

Are you going to publish your whole book on this forum?

If it would be helpful, yes

Solfeggi, also invented before the 12 step chromatic scale, also ignores 5 black notes in an octave. It is very useful for diatonic and modal work, i.e., the major scale and its modes, but as you modulate and work with more complex music it begins to crack. Those modulations, i.e., moving to different keys, involve half step changes, which solfeggio muddies. Suddenly "la" is "la sharp" or "la flat", with no clear or consistent way to distinguish, especially on the fly while singing.  The ironic thing in music is that the smallest distance, the half step, is the most dissonant interval, so when you get that wrong it is as wrong as you can get.

You are confusing of learning 12 step chromatic scale with learning different tonalities of Major and Minor which involve sharps and flats.
Composers don't use 12 step chromatic tonalities pretty often 

When relationship between 7 notes of Major or Minor mode is being imprinted in mind in conjunction with notes’ order (see the info about ‘Alphabet’ above), perception and understanding of sharps and flats are becoming natural. My students learn how to write music dictation by notes on the fly.

Here is some videos how kids learn notes and tonalities with solfeggio:.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/-thPcTOzzNU&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/-thPcTOzzNU&rel=1</a>

Here how it works with playing piano:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/RMsjF5uHgtI&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/RMsjF5uHgtI&rel=1</a>

[HH]

Chis, I wish your friend Don would read this!

Also, is it a fixed "do" or movable "do"? Again, different traditions tried to get a handle on the logic of music with different tools. I think they are useful as approaches, but none are complete or "the" way in themselves.

A moveable “Do” is just as nonsensical in the science of music as a moveable “A” is in the alphabet, when each letter that we start from could be “A.” 
Do you know, how did ‘Movable do’ came to existence?

Once, the Hungarian composer Zoltan Kodali (1882-1967) invented a system of relativity for choir education. The system allowed illiterate people to learn to sing in choirs without having to waste time on learning all of the notes and their tonalities. Instead of notes, he implemented seven hand signals for the conductor’s use. It was as if he reduced music to the simple relationship between the seven steps of harmony. This system, as there wasn’t any better, was embossed into good practice specifically for people who didn’t have access to musical literacy.

Unfortunately, Kodali’s invention, originally created for a strictly utilitarian purpose, was carried over into music classes in countries that use the Alphabet System, thus worsening music education. Singing in Solfeggio has been assigned to only one scale – that of “Do!” No matter what tonality music actually sounds in, the Tonic is called “Do.” It has become impossible to sing Solfeggio in any other tonalities. Solfeggio’s connection to Kodali’s system hasn’t improved it, but has reduced it to the singing of seven notes. Ever since, all other tonalities have been studied without practical application, exclusively with the help of the Alphabet System and without vocal sounding.

There is a simple solution to this problem: take away the moveable “Do,” but keep the most important element of Kodali’s system – familiarization of tune with the assistance of hand signals. Of course, starting music education with the one simplest tonality, Do Major, should be allowed. The use of Do Major to teach the relationship of the different steps to each other is entirely justified. But the singing of real music comprises of all of the notes in Solfeggio in all 24 tonalities, and should be a crucial stipulation of any music education.

[HH]

I am not saying it is not useful, just that it has its own disadvantages as well. Singing is very important, we emphasize it in our lessons, all the pieces have lyrics. When I worked with Don in the group piano classes we also worked extensively with solfeggi,

I am glad to hear about Solfeggio! But can’t we also sing songs with their lyrics? Of course, and sometimes it’s even necessary! But not while we are trying to learn music. Singing the lyrics of songs doesn’t develop one’s musical literacy. It doesn’t fasten the names of the notes to their sounds, and doesn’t connect the sounds to their visual representations. Only singing in Solfeggio fulfils all of these assignments, and without it music education is ineffective, that it barely makes any sense at all..

I even tried to think of a fixed chromatic solfeggi system that would be consistent across all keys, but the vowel sounds that resulted for consistency were too funny in sequences, and nobody would get through a single song without laughing. Still think it can be done and is worth doing, but not my present focus.

Yes, it’s sounds funny (like in a video above), but involves speech memory of students (one of the most valuable skill!) Fixed chromatic solfeggio... Hm... I know some educators in Russia who were trying to change Solfegio names of notes, if sharped or flated. Like Do# is Di and Db is De. I don't think, we need to do that, Once we develop music ear, the mind will follow. Hope, the videos prove my words.

We also used Kodaly hand signals when learning new songs. Don would have us walk the song, clap the song, sing the song, sing it with solfeggi, sing with solfeggi and Kodaly hand signals, sing out whether the keys were black or white, sing the letter names, the fingerings, shape the melodic contour with our hands, and THEN we would go to the piano and see the sheet music.

It all could be done at once with playing by notes. You see, in your program the notes are constantly moving and it takes a lot of room in kids’ mind to chase them. Therefore, you need to separate the tasks and build another curriculum around it. Here how it could be done even with 3 year old kid, when she can stop, focus and think (not to mention READ at the same time):

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/KqDEnAY377Q&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/KqDEnAY377Q&rel=1</a>

Group of kids in Madrid:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/bjMgsZEui48&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/bjMgsZEui48&rel=1</a>

Letter names are not suited for singing. In fact, it can be harmful for throat:
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/mLtbEXQCMVc&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/mLtbEXQCMVc&rel=1</a> 

[HH]

Did we know the song backwards and forward by then? Yes, did the music notation make more sense to us then? Yes. We played music first then looked at its representation. You can see why I was delighted to have him create the video series, so he could bring those non-software concepts and approaches to complement the game. Repetition through variation is the key, and we use that in our program extensively, through different views, levels, include note names, include fingerings, kids love to change the objects, the backgrounds, etc. 

You are describing me the exact approach of teaching beginners to read texts before ABC had came to existence:

"…The rule of medieval education was to first memorize texts, then later to understand them. This didn’t only affect reading by words and elementary reading, but also advanced reading. ("Education in the Netherlands: History and Contemporaneity," by the well-known historian Nan Dodde)

Don and Delayna's input and coaching to the parents is just enough to nudge them to the next level without them having to know a lot of theory up front. We don't need to know the theory of the QWERTY typing keyboard to type, we need to know how to hit the right keys in the right sequence. We teach them to hit the right notes at the right time, and make music first, and quickly and easily, then move on to the more subtle aspects. The depth of music study is infinite, I just want to give them a solid start without rehashing flawed and obsolete music theory up front. Later stages allow that to absorbed without so much pain or confusion.

 Complex skill has to be developed at once – this is how neurological paths are being built – this is a rule of our perception and skills’ development. PW separated vision (reading notes) and coordination/music development as all other methods.

This is why I think that different approaches and that flexibility does help move things forward. Is "walking" a song "the" way to learn? No, it is one way, it gives one dimension of the song focus and clarity, and you complement it with other approaches. There is an expression in Portuguese, "dono da verdade". It means "owner of the truth". I think we need to avoid absolutes when talking about music, and learning, there are so many modes and options, we need to not only explore them all, but try and find which approaches actually work for different people best. I have found that most people are primarily visual learners, that is why our program is so successful, we created a visual way to learn music. Of course Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles could not use that at all, yet they found a unique path to their music genius. A visual approach is one pathway, a neglected one because music is an aural art, and so people focus on that aspect more than not. Still, it is a very powerful and effective tool that works very well for most people. But as effective as visual learning can be,  it is not "the" way, it needs to be complemented with ear, singing, movement, etc.

All the great approaches in the world alike: they are being built on rules of didactics. It were many approaching in teaching how to read before ABC. Now it seems like it is the only right way.

Stevie Wonder and Ray Charles ‘see’ music  with their ears,

Chris, the main confusion that you have here (TMHO)  that You Think  Piano Wizard is VISUAL. However, kids, who plays with the game don’t see – they chase visual hints or look for them. You don't let them see Grand Staff right from the beginning

It is the same ‘blind’ approach as Casio lightening keys, Suzuki (which is based on Solfeggio for speach memory sake, but don't mess with notation at the start) and ‘traditional classical (before I improved it, of cause! )


I already posted a video and have to repost it again for you. There I tryed explain how exectly vision works in music reading and why.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/5sMGHC3A2aM&rel=1" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/v/5sMGHC3A2aM&rel=1</a>

That was why we created the Academy, to complement a very strong visual approach and tool, with things that approach could not address. We view the Piano Wizard Academy as a great tool box for getting down the road in learning music without feeling like you need to master Latin grammar to do so. We don't feel it is "complete" and in fact believe it has its limits, especially as the child develops, that is why we move to get them "off the game" with step 5 as early and as consistently as possible. But if all your new piano students had a 50 or even 100 song repertoire and could read music and loved to practice, wouldn't you be thrilled to take them to the next levels? We try and be very clear about what we can do, and not do. What we can do (and guarantee) already almost stretches the limits of credibility because it is such a breakthrough, why exaggerate? Let them get a great start and find their own paths to go as far as they want to.

But above all, keep an open mind, there are many ways. Some work better for some, others for others. There are multiple intelligences at work, multiple strategies, a rounded diverse approach to learning will find those modalities that work best for each individual.

When you and Don were working on your program, you didn’t know any of these findings and I am not blaming you for that. I am not surprised, because I am training music educators (and professors, too!) and all what you wrote I use to hear hundreeds of times (about ABC v Do Re Mi, movable Do, different approaches being options etc. I spent 30 years to classify all different approaches and wrote a lot of works on them.

If you would find some time to read all my notes and watch all the videos, it would help you in a long run. Knowledge is a power and I was happy to share it with you and others.

Feel free to call me or write to me, if you would have any questions!

Regards,
Hellene Hiner

document.getElementById('recent_loading').style.display = 'none';document.getElementById('recent_page_box').style.display = '';

Page: 1/4  

Loading...

Members

• Total Members: 214774
• Latest: Darial514636

Stats

• Total Posts: 110526
• Total Topics: 19136
• Online Today: 654
• Online Ever: 826
• (January 22, 2020, 12:09:49 AM)

Users Online

• Users: 0
• Guests: 482
• Total: 482