In spite of the number of similarities in approach, one fundamental difference between the two approaches is regarding the age at which a child should begin formal music instruction. Suzuki students are encouraged to begin instrumental lessons as early as age two or three. On the other hand, students in a Waldorf school do not begin lessons with string instruments until third or fourth grade. My personal opinion is that Suzuki, for many children, starts too early, and that Waldorf schools may start too late. Based on my research and observation, I believe that age seven is a more appropriate age for most children to begin private music lessons -- for many of the same reasons that make seven the ideal age for a child to begin formal, academic learning at school, according to Waldorf philosophy.
In Waldorf pedagogy, formal academic learning does not begin until, ideally the age of seven. This comes after a period of intense growth during the first seven years of life, after which, according to Rudolf Steiner, the founder of Waldorf education, the child's "etheric" or life forces are freed up for more cognitive pursuits. As a child of seven is better able to sit and focus on formal "lessons" than a younger child, so a child of this age would be better able to focus on formal music instruction, and to be capable of practicing. I have questioned many different music teachers - Suzuki teachers, traditional music teachers and Waldorf music teachers -- on whether there is a great advantage to starting children on an instrument as early as three- to five-years old and, by and large, most teachers I've talked to seem to agree that children who start when they are older (say, seven or eight) are not at a disadvantage; they are usually able to catch up quickly with the children who have been taking lessons since they were much younger.
Within a few months of starting cello, I observed that my seven-year-old caught up to the same place as another seven-year-old boy in his class who'd been playing for a full two years. My child, I would say, has fairly average musical ability. He is musical, but not precocious.
I think it is unnatural for a child under seven to be asked to sit down and practice an instrument daily, no matter how short or playful the practice session. I feel strongly that children under seven should be moving, playing and engaged in their imagination without the pressure or stress of practicing, or worse, performing. They are learning an enormous amount -- taking in the world through their senses, developing their imaginations through play and the experience of life. This short and precious period of childhood should be free from the pressures of performing and feeling the need to please others.
On the other hand, most Waldorf schools don't start teaching strings until third or fourth grade. I worry that this is too late. Recent brain research indicates that there is a musical learning "window" of opportunity that closes around the age of nine (similar to the "window" for language acquisition). Based upon my research and observation, I believe that it is more difficult, though certainly not impossible, for children to become proficient at an instrument if they start after the age of nine. Waldorf students are, of course, learning to play the pentatonic flute, and often the soprano recorder, before the age of nine, which is absolutely beneficial and helps to develop the student's musical ear. There are many Waldorf teachers who would argue that learning to play a stringed instrument or the piano would be inappropriate for a child under nine. I do not agree with them. My own experience with my children has been entirely rewarding and positive, having started them with music lessons at ages seven and eight.
No comments:
Post a Comment