Where to Buy Digital Versions of Suzuki Violin School 1–10 by Shinichi Suzuki?


Recommended Posts

Hi. I'm trying to find the Revised International Editions (not the old green edition, old blue edition, or Asian edition) for the Suzuki method. I use a digital music reader.

I plan to teach the violin full-time so I think I should keep myself updated and to analyze the ten books thoroughly. Thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Carl Stross said:

You're looking for trouble...  :)

Perhaps, but I can justify my comments completely, and sadly, all the comments I have against the Suzuki books Apply to every single other system I have looked at, and in 40 years I looked at quite a few.

That’s why I have my own system and for 25 easy payments of $1000 a month I can share it with you!

Call now! Operators are standing by!

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rue said:

Well, I phoned...and was told "this number is no longer in service"...

Your business model sucks.

That made me Laff. Good thing I had already swallowed or I would have spat out a bitefull of lunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

after reading a few pages of suzuki 1 i'm thinking to myself that i'm glad i had old school teachers along with their methods of teaching - non- suzuki style.

one question though - was it difficult to comprehend what a major scale is while learning through the lowered numbered suzuki books or was it a easy, learnable lesson/chapter when gotten to? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PhilipKT said:

Perhaps, but I can justify my comments completely, and sadly, all the comments I have against the Suzuki books Apply to every single other system I have looked at, and in 40 years I looked at quite a few.

I believe you can but it won't matter - Suzuki people do not listen to critics and rightfully so. Suzuki is primarily a marketing tool not a violin teaching/learning "system". It's ( primarily ) a way (musically ) unqualified "teachers" extract money from parents. And then of course, qualified and competent teachers must Suzuki so that they don'rt look out of touch...   But even a broken clock blah, blah ... Suzuki does have here and there a couple of good moments. And who knows, it might work fine wen applied to other instruments. It's the violin / viola / cello I see a big problem with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzuki had a brilliant insight, that we learn music the way we learn language. But he ignored several important things:  .not everyone who can speak can orate. Assembly line teaching eliminates the individual creative impulse. Children learn as individuals and the approach must be variable for individuals. 
One of my mantras is,” we collect solutions” because often, something that worked for those kids doesn’t work for these kids, and we need more arrows in the quiver.

Technically, the Suzuki approach ignores the second finger in cellos( and high second finger on violin) and focuses on specific keys(d and G major) for so long that the child develops bad habits, both physical and conceptual,  that must be carefully fixed before any meaningful progress is possible, such as automatically assuming that every C and F are C# and F#, and that the only finger possible for those notes is 3/high 2.

Ridiculous. And unnecessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/9/2021 at 3:37 AM, PhilipKT said:

1. Suzuki had a brilliant insight, that we learn music the way we learn language.

2. But he ignored several important things:  .not everyone who can speak can orate. Assembly line teaching eliminates the individual creative impulse. Children learn as individuals and the approach must be variable for individuals. 

3. One of my mantras is,” we collect solutions” because often, something that worked for those kids doesn’t work for these kids, and we need more arrows in the quiver.

4. Technically, the Suzuki approach ignores the second finger in cellos( and high second finger on violin) and focuses on specific keys(d and G major) for so long that the child develops bad habits, both physical and conceptual,  that must be carefully fixed before any meaningful progress is possible, such as automatically assuming that every C and F are C# and F#, and that the only finger possible for those notes is 3/high 2.

Ridiculous. And unnecessary.

1. Not the kind of discussion I'd have on MN but I think ( and knew many who did too ) that's simply not true. It sounds right but it's just a digestible juxtaposition of words. Consider that we still don't know how language is learned. Just for starters...

2. That's very true. I knew quite a few articulated retards. Lots of words, nothing made sense.

3.  That's how things should be and unfortunately they aren't. Very few teachers are responsible enough to understand that the pupil pays the heaviest price : unrecoverable time. Most teachers afaik just go through the motions and when that is combined with discarding non-performers at the drop of a hat they become "famous".

4. Very, VERY true ! But no immediate solution and not close to a solved problem nowadays. The old way to learn violin was NOT scale based. Again, not an MN subject, unfortunately. In the 70s I knew an old violin player of some success who learned the (complete ) old fashioned way and who insisted to give me a couple of lessons. By that time I wasn't playing anymore but I grasped enough to understand there was SOME merit. Not a lot, some. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Carl Stross said:

1. Not the kind of discussion I'd have on MN but I think ( and knew many who did too ) that's simply not true. It sounds right but it's just a digestible juxtaposition of words. Consider that we still don't know how language is learned. Just for starters...

2. That's very true. I knew quite a few articulated retards. Lots of words, nothing made sense.

3.  That's how things should be and unfortunately they aren't. Very few teachers are responsible enough to understand that the pupil pays the heaviest price : unrecoverable time. Most teachers afaik just go through the motions and when that is combined with discarding non-performers at the drop of a hat they become "famous".

4. Very, VERY true ! But no immediate solution and not close to a solved problem nowadays. The old way to learn violin was NOT scale based. Again, not an MN subject, unfortunately. In the 70s I knew an old violin player of some success who learned the (complete ) old fashioned way and who insisted to give me a couple of lessons. By that time I wasn't playing anymore but I grasped enough to understand there was SOME merit. Not a lot, some. 

I appreciate your comment, and regarding number one, I must disagree. Music is sound, and we learn sound through repetition. The technique of music is no different than the technique of, say walking or skipping: a physical activity that is learned through repetition. In that sense Suzuki was exactly right. But as I said, and as you agreed, he was incomplete.  There is vastly more to music then merely repeating sounds, and his approach eliminates all that. However, when 100 million children are learning this Suzuki method, it stands to reason that a significant number will make the leap from mechanic to artist, and will give credit to the system.

regarding #2, In the book, “To kill a mockingbird” the most meaningful scene, for me, is where the narrator is being slapped down by her teacher for being different, for accomplishing a goal in a new and exciting way but being admonished because “that’s not how we do it.” 
I despise teachers like that. And they are all over the place, including, invariably, in positions of authority, because you advance by not making waves.

At the cello blog I frequent, I am constantly seeing posts by teachers who share their latest blog post about something technical and I read it and find that they make the same mistakes yet again., And yet these are-presumably-established and successful teachers.

Talking shop is my favorite thing to do, because it gives me a chance to learn things I do not yet know, or discover things that I should forget, ha ha

Edited by PhilipKT
Link to post
Share on other sites

What I don't understand is the "cult" mentality...and I mean the "culture mentality" of anything. 

For our purposes; learning is not rigid. Teaching can't be rigid.

Yet, having said that, if you are teaching a group (versus individuals) you can't possibly cater to everyone's individual needs effectively either. But...you can still incorporate some wiggle room.

I don't understand why one can't broadly follow a method (that one finds effective) and supplement with additional materials as needed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Rue said:

What I don't understand is the "cult" mentality...and I mean the "culture mentality" of anything. 

For our purposes; learning is not rigid. Teaching can't be rigid.

Yet, having said that, if you are teaching a group (versus individuals) you can't possibly cater to everyone's individual needs effectively either. But...you can still incorporate some wiggle room.

I don't understand why one can't broadly follow a method (that one finds effective) and supplement with additional materials as needed.

 

I think you are exactly right, but the method one chooses as the foundation should be the best available.

In Mark Twain’s hilarious essay, “the awful German language” he laments one of the rules of German grammar,...”which is followed by the admonition, ‘the student will please make note of the following exceptions to the rule’ And then finds more exceptions to the rule than instances of it!”

It makes no sense to use a system that is so flawed that almost everything needs to be supplemented. Instead it makes sense to incorporate the good aspects of that system into your own approach. 
I don’t start children as young as a Suzuki program does, so the benefits of the program are moot for me.

I use Belwin Mills String builder volume 1 and 2, With a whole lot of modification, because Belwin Mills makes the same mistakes, but is easier to compensate for. I use the Klengel Technical studies for scales, And as soon as possible I get the kids on real music.

Edited by PhilipKT
Link to post
Share on other sites

i didn't try looking up when the old rubank violin was published first but while having a look through i see it didn't take very long to get to scale work farl -  old to me elementary wise would be before the mid 1950's and just opinionating here anything before that couldn't of been as good for learning.  The string builder series may lead to sooner scale learning too but i wanted to get back to here to chaf you some.

I see some advantage with suzuki 1 - it does no beat around the bush imo so any sleepy,tired, lazy or uninterested students will be weeded out quickly.

I think i understand some about suzuki's thinking back then -  let's see, they have sor, they have sousa and now they'll have suzuki.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Rue said:

What I don't understand is the "cult" mentality...and I mean the "culture mentality" of anything. 

For our purposes; learning is not rigid. Teaching can't be rigid.

Yet, having said that, if you are teaching a group (versus individuals) you can't possibly cater to everyone's individual needs effectively either. But...you can still incorporate some wiggle room.

I don't understand why one can't broadly follow a method (that one finds effective) and supplement with additional materials as needed.

 

You are speculating. And a long in the tooth teacher might have one or two reasons against #2 and  #4. Reasons which might make a lot of sense when seen in practical context.

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, PhilipKT said:

Music is sound, and we learn sound through repetition. The technique of music is no different than the technique of, say walking or skipping: a physical activity that is learned through repetition. In that sense Suzuki was exactly right.

It'll come down to you defining ( for me ... ) in a mutually acceptable way what "learning music the way we learn a language" is. I am pretty flexible.

This "idea" is very old - it's not Suzuki's find by any stretch. It's done all the time - that's how most Eastern folk musicians learn their craft. Though there is a twist in that...   Of course one should learn music the way we learn a language - is there any other way  ??? But afaik and please correct me, Suzuki does not teach music. It teaches musical instrument manipulation. Which aspect of Suzuki's method is "music" ???

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Carl Stross said:

It'll come down to you defining ( for me ... ) in a mutually acceptable way what "learning music the way we learn a language" is. I am pretty flexible.

This "idea" is very old - it's not Suzuki's find by any stretch. It's done all the time - that's how most Eastern folk musicians learn their craft. Though there is a twist in that...   Of course one should learn music the way we learn a language - is there any other way  ??? But afaik and please correct me, Suzuki does not teach music. It teaches musical instrument manipulation. Which aspect of Suzuki's method is "music" ???

 

Oh although I would not say it that way, I basically gree with you. Suzuki teaches the mechanical aspects of music, but it also teaches sound. It teaches us to play in tune, and it teaches us to play accurately in terms of time and location.It does not develop feeling or emotion or nuance.

It can even be argued, although I don’t have any anecdotal evidence for this, that it actually restricts individual thought by forcing the student to do things in a rigid and predetermined way.

so in that sense, we do agree, and I think we agree completely. But yes, I do agree with Suzuki that we learn music the way we learn language.
Certainly, the inflections that we place on words, the emphasis we use, to indicate sarcasm or surprise or anger, are things we only learn through listening. Certainly there is no indication on the written page of how we should say something.

Although I will grant that the basic concept did not necessarily originate with Suzuki,According to the story in his book, he did come to the concept independently, and what he did with it certainly is unique..

Edited by PhilipKT
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2021 at 12:50 PM, Carl Stross said:

 Which aspect of Suzuki's method is "music" ???

  imo, the very first notes you run across in book one - four sixteenth notes followed by two eight notes followed by a quarter rest.  {or quavers,if that terminology is still used}.

  What was uncomfortable to me about that first measure of music is the three beats - why not four beats?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/11/2021 at 12:23 AM, PhilipKT said:

Oh although I would not say it that way, I basically gree with you. Suzuki teaches the mechanical aspects of music, but it also teaches sound. It teaches us to play in tune, and it teaches us to play accurately in terms of time and location.It does not develop feeling or emotion or nuance.

It can even be argued, although I don’t have any anecdotal evidence for this, that it actually restricts individual thought by forcing the student to do things in a rigid and predetermined way.

so in that sense, we do agree, and I think we agree completely. But yes, I do agree with Suzuki that we learn music the way we learn language.
Certainly, the inflections that we place on words, the emphasis we use, to indicate sarcasm or surprise or anger, are things we only learn through listening. Certainly there is no indication on the written page of how we should say something.

Although I will grant that the basic concept did not necessarily originate with Suzuki,According to the story in his book, he did come to the concept independently, and what he did with it certainly is unique..

Ok, I'll go trough those point by point, tomorrow. Have you seen this ?

https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/30090/Ebin_Zachary_2015_PhD.pdf?sequence=2

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Carl Stross said:

Ok, I'll go trough those point by point, tomorrow. Have you seen this ?

https://yorkspace.library.yorku.ca/xmlui/bitstream/handle/10315/30090/Ebin_Zachary_2015_PhD.pdf?sequence=2

 

I have literally stopped my daily duties to read this, and I am on page 7 and I have a brief response so far. When I read Suzuki’s biography, which I did with great pleasure, I did not come away with the sense that he claims that musical talent is learned, only that musical ability is learned, and there is a difference.

It is an educational truism that any subject can be taught in an intellectually honest way, to anyone at any level. That is as true if music as anything else.

Everyone can learn the mechanics of bow movement of finger placement and so on, so everyone can make progress. That doesn’t mean that everybody is going to be a musician on any level, Only that they can learn the basic mechanics and knowledge of the instrument and of music. What Suzuki does is teach, and teach very young, so that those with genuine talent are discovered and developed, and those without come away-and come away rather quickly- with a valuable knowledge they would not otherwise have, ans hopefully, an enduring appreciation for music. This is both the flaw and the virtue of Suzuki.

It is ridiculous to suggest that genius can be taught. Skill can be shared. Talent can be developed. Genius can only be guided. The examples I’ve read about in the first seven pages are examples of genius discovered and guided, and NOT genius created.

It is the duty of every teacher, every parent, every society, to protect and nurture every child because we don’t know where genius lies, and Humanity suffers when genius is lost.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have great respect for the Suzuki method. For 33 years of my adult life I lived in a small city in the California high desert that had an outstanding Suzuki school/program. The founder and leader of the school was the violist in my string quartet as well as a violinist, pianist and organist. Many excellent young violinists came out of that school, which had the good sense to sent the most promising of them 150 miles south to Los Angeles to more "historically conventional" teachers as that promise became evident. One of this youngsters was Anne Akiko Meyers. So I got to see her in solo performance with our community orchestra when she was 6 and 7 - and then again when she was 12 and performed the Mendelssohn Concerto as a "gift" to her teacher (who led the violas in our orchestra - I was the concertmaster at that time, so I had the best seat in the house). This was after "Annie Meyers" (as she was known to us) had performed it with the LA Philharmonic and before she went off to Dorothy DeLay at Julliard.

I did some violin teaching in that town and for 12 more years after I moved away, for a total of about 40 years. At one point a number of the less studious of the teenage Suzuki students were shuffled off to me (the ones whose concerto aspirations exceeded their grasp). That experience led me to start using the Suzuki books in my teaching, supplemented by other etudes, different editions, etc. as I thought necessary. I actual;ly found little difference in much of the printed material and its intent from my own formal violin learning that had started in 1939.

Many of the youngsters from that Suzuki program were accepted into the violin section of our community orchestra about the time they entered high school. Some were very good - those were the ones who were had transferred to LA teachers by then. A number of them subsequently became violin majors in college - but they continued to play in the annual Suzuki concerts if they could get back home for them. And they continued an enduring love of their first teacher, the founder of the town's Suzuki school.

Based on my observations, I agree with PhilipKT's observations above.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Philip, 

Overall, I agree with your perspective with the Suzuki Method.  Having said that, I am a product of the method, and even though my first non-Suzuki teacher did not like the Suzuki method and told me that I had to pretty much start from scratch, the reality was that I had a solid foundation.  

I use the Suzuki method to get my students to a certain level.  BUT--I also do alot of creative work arounds for many of the pieces because I also disagree with some of the technical aspects.  

The umbrella goal of Dr. Suzuki was not to make hundreds of millions of world-class violinists.  In fact, he says, not verbatim (and I am not entirely sure how accurate I am being), that one of his goals is to make caring human beings through the art of music.  

I always tell the parents of my students that: 1) I am not here to make your child the next Hilary Hahn, 2) I am here to teach your child how to make beautiful music for the sake of music and nothing more, 3) the benefits of a learned approach and structure to learning music will help the child's overall abilities in math, reading, science, etc.  Based upon my understanding, the Suzuki method closely mirrors my goals as a teacher.  Again, I disagree with many of the technical skill studies, amongst other things, but it is a well-established system that introduces music quickly to students.

I hope that you don't hate me for sounding like I am a proponent of the Suzuki method.  Just my 2 cents.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.