Will I ruin my son's music future forever?

[Gill the Piano]

To correct his hand position, get him to imagine he's holding a mouse/hamster/gerbil in his hand which he must neither crush nor let go - worked for me!
As to methods, yes, your way is a quick-fix in some ways - eminently satisfying but not thorough. It takes such little effort to have him taught 'properly' and then find his way round the keyboard having fun with you as well. I'd talk to a teacher - perhaps one who teaches jazz as well as classical - and tell him/her your boy doesn't want to get into the exam sausage machine (unless he really wants to later on) but is learning FOR FUN.(There is a fantastic range of pieces by Christopher Norton called 'Microjazz', and they allow even really early beginners to play a little jazz/rock/boogie. And now they're sometimes included in the (straight)exams! ) That doesn't mean learning badly, it just means not doing exam after exam. He has to learn scales and arpeggios, as they are - however much we hate them! - the backbone of good playing. They also teach him WHY he's playing what he's playing - bit like the Highway Code in driving.
In short, I'd find him a teacher, but be VERY CAREFUL in my selection of teacher Ask around, find a good local musician (jazz,pop,straight - doesn't matter which) whom you respect and ask them for recommendations.
Good luck - I hope you both enjoy yourselves!

PS I'd also buy him a proper piano, but then I'm biased!!

[pasdedeux88]

Heya!

I agree fully with the importance of scales and arpeggios. I detested them very much because I never seemed to be able to get my head around them, or my fingers for that matter. But having spent quite a fair amount of time this year practicing them I found my ability to play pieces improved very much.

I think its prob best if you let your son decide what style of music he wishes to learn and whether or not he wishes to sit for the exams. That way he will probably enjoy learning better.

Also, it would probably be best to speak to other people who take piano lessons and ask about the sort of teaching styles of the teachers so you can find one that suits your son best.

Hope I was of some help =)

Best of luck finding a piano teacher!

[KateP]

and just how many people do you know that have taken all their grades by the age of 18 and never played again. I wrestle with myself about my young sons, grades, teachers how far to insist on practicing but though I recognise they both have more talent than I have i feel that desire and joy are most important. Their teacher is creative and talented and I ask him to give the boys what they want... simpsons theme tune, blues by ear, a bit of ska, beatles...I want them to love this... and last week bought a digital, yes, it's a good one but also has all the knobs and buttons a boy could want. No easy answers I'm afraid..but I hope given opportunities they will find their own path.

[Gill the Piano]

I totally agree, Kate; particularly with boys, you have to go with the flow, otherwise you lose them completely. I can't tell you how many people I tune for whose kids are learning but who won't touch the piano themselves because of some early trauma involving a knuckle-rapping inflexible teacher.

[Nyiregyhazi]

"But if I looked for a teacher, would it be reasonable to expect a teacher to support my own viewpoint on making composition/improvisation the central part of teaching, since they will "know better" than me? Also, do people on this board agree or disagree with my thoughts on learning? I'd like to hear opinions, particularly of people who disagree!"

To be honest I would indeed disagree with your viewpoint, but not entirely. The idea of teaching around improvisation as a core is deeply flawed. To work around improvisation as the core of playing assumes a most unusually good mind and ear, if it is to be succesful. Many fine improvisers are good at what they do because of their firm basis in standard teaching. Those who are simply good at it were just born with remarkable talent. You can't expect these things to be picked up in the vacuum that is the idea of just letting a kid experiment.

Teaching basics of technique and music is essential if you're serious about your son becoming a good improviser. You can't expect anyone to improvise well without any foundation (except those few geniuses that can do so on instinct). I believe many jazz teachers see a good deal of importance in standard Associated Board grades.

Improvisation is a very good thing to teach to a child. HOWEVER, you really can't hope for big results unless you combine it with standard teaching of scales etc. There's simply no way you can expect big results if improvisation is seen as the central part of everything. Scales and harmonies open doors to improvisational skills, they don't restrict anything.

You'd have to be careful to find the right kind of teacher but, with respect, I feel that maybe you really should submit to the idea that experienced teachers do indeed 'know better than you' but attempt to find one that has a lot of respect for what you're looking for.

Andrew

[Nyiregyhazi]

If I think about how I'd have liked to learn when I was young, then I'd much rather have it based around simple composition and improvisation rather than learning songs from books. I'm not against learning to play other people's music, but would prefer it to be the thing to learn as a sideline, not the main topic of learning.

Just to add to my last post: the suggestion of learning other people's music as a 'sideline' rather than being the main topic of learning strikes me as rather similar to a joke in Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. The fictional horror author proudly claims the dubious 'achievement' of being the only author to have written more books than he has read. I can't help but see a similarity between this and your idea.

It strikes me that even those geniuses that seem to be able to play from nowhere, without formal teaching, almost certainly have very good ears. From experience those people who learned by experimenting are usually able to play back things they have heard instantly. They had a natural ear for music. No doubt they analysed music music they heard (conciously or subconciously) in a way that most people cannot. In that sense, even they were taught, above all, through the music of others.

Andrew

[Nyiregyhazi]

If I think about how I'd have liked to learn when I was young, then I'd much rather have it based around simple composition and improvisation rather than learning songs from books. I'm not against learning to play other people's music, but would prefer it to be the thing to learn as a sideline, not the main topic of learning.

Just to add to my last post: the suggestion of learning other people's music as a 'sideline' rather than being the main topic of learning strikes me as rather similar to a joke in Garth Marenghi's Darkplace. The fictional horror author proudly claims the dubious 'achievement' of being the only author to have written more books than he has read. I can't help but see a similarity between this and your idea.

It strikes me that even those geniuses that seem to be able to play from nowhere, without formal teaching, almost certainly have very good ears. From experience those people who learned by experimenting are usually able to play back things they have heard instantly. They had a natural ear for music. No doubt they analysed music music they heard (conciously or subconciously) in a way that most people cannot. In that sense, even they were taught, above all, through the music of others.

Andrew