Double Bass Suzuki Double Bass Books

[Andy Mopley]

They don't quite come up in the same aura as Simandl, Bille et al, yet they are often used a reference material -for example Glowing Tones, the subject of my next post, is a concept discussed in Suzuki's book, "Tonalization". So my question is, are the Suzuki methods essentially seen more as a kids introduction to an instrument, and DB in our case, OR are they perhaps under appreciated as a pedagogic tool?

Regards to all

 

[PaulCannon]

They were never particularly popular among bass teachers, as far as I know.

Rumor has it that George Vance was somehow involved in the early drafts of the bass edition of Suzuki, but there was a fundamental difference in approach between himself and Mr. Suzuki. Part of the problem was an insistence that the repertoire and techniques closely mirror that of the violin method.

By that time, Vance already had his own ideas about getting young bassists started and chose to write his own method, the Progressive Repertoire.

Take it with a grain of salt — I wasn’t there.

 

[Bruce Calin]

I was involved in coaching bass students in a Suzuki class several years ago because they were having difficulty keeping up with the rest of the strings in the class(I have no experience with Suzuki teaching but I knew the teacher, a violinist). There were several issues that made it harder for the bass students- different tuning intervals, lack of bass knowledge by the instructors among others. I could see why the bass kids were frustrated. It did seem like the written material was similar to the Vance books but the emphasis on group learning from the beginning just didn't work well for the bass students. I read recently(don't have any direct knowledge) that students trained in Suzuki can have more difficulty in playing outside of the structured group setting and generally play less as adults for recreation than students taught by an individual private teacher. I'd be interested in other peoples' experience.

 

[ILIA]

The very early Suzuki books were an attempt to expand the success of the Suzuki method to double bassists. It didn't go over well for bassists, and the method is still more or less ignored, today, even after the series tried to learn from its mistakes. Check out the early Suzuki books from the early 1990s, and you'll see what I mean. The problem was the editor at the time had to adapt the repertoire for double bass. Unlike the other string instruments, you can't play any of the Suzuki rep in one position on the bass. So while the young students of the other instruments in the string family don't have to worry about shifting so then can focus on bow hold, tonalization, posture, etc, and most importantly having fun because that is the power of the Suzuki method, young bassists had to screw around with a really weird "pivoting" + shifting system almost right away halfway through Book 1, in order to play the repertoire. I use the word pivoting loosely because it wasn't really taught properly as pivoting. It was notated as some kind of "low 1" "high 1" pain-inducing monstrosity.

The reason the Vance method works is because it fulfills the aims of the Suzuki method in terms of pacing, scaffolding, getting a satisfying sound, introducing mechanics, and most importantly, nurturing an innate love for music, but unlike the Suzuki method, repertoire was selected and arranged around the bass as opposed to the Suzuki way of forcing the bass work around the repertoire.

I'm sure there are still bassists who use Suzuki method, and I'm sure they will chime in, hopefully. But the sense that I get is that when you hang a shingle as a "Suzuki" bass teacher, you'll get more customers because parents don't know jack s**t about pedagogy beyond recognizing the "Suzuki" brand and the assurances that come with hiring a Suzuki-certified teacher. If you hang a shingle as a "Vance" method teacher, nobody, outside of bassists who don't need to take early childhood bass lessons anyway, will know what the heck Vance method is (or Simandl, or Rabbath for that matter).

 

[Bruce Calin]

Hi, Ilia,
That makes total sense to me based on my experience with Suzuki(see my post). Also, it seemed to me(nothing personal to anyone) that the Suzuki teachers I came in contact with were what I would describe as defensive when questioned about the method, especially as it relates to bass. It was a "square peg, round hole" situation as far as I am concerned. I seem to recall that a student of mine had an edition of Simandl that was edited by Suzuki himself. It had a lot of bowings that were not in any other edition that I have seen. Has anyone else seen this?

 

[Anna Doak]

They don't quite come up in the same aura as Simandl, Bille et al, yet they are often used a reference material -for example Glowing Tones, the subject of my next post, is a concept discussed in Suzuki's book, "Tonalization". So my question is, are the Suzuki methods essentially seen more as a kids introduction to an instrument, and DB in our case, OR are they perhaps under appreciated as a pedagogic tool?

Regards to all

 

[Anna Doak]

I think there is an important point that is being missed with regards to this discussion about the Suzuki Method. It is not just a book, it is a teaching philosophy based on the “mother tongue” approach. It focuses on the importance of community, inclusion, joy, and partnership with the parent as a daily practice partner. A Suzuki teacher essetially has 2 students, the child and the parent. I taught double bass as an adjunct professor at a university until I had my own kids, at which point I chose to focus on building my home teaching studio. I am a professional player had taught for 30 years using Nanny & Simondl and the usual sequence of technique exercises and solo repertoire, so when my daughter turned 3 and asked if she could play the bass I thought “no problem.” I bought a baby bass and we were off to the races. Boy was I in for a suprise. I did not have the skill set in my teaching toolbox to work with a student at that stage of their human development. Several years later my three year old son asked to play the violin. I hired a Suzuki teacher. What an eye opening experience. I few months later I started training to become a Suzuki bass teacher. The parent/teacher/student triangle is not as relevant for students who start playing bass in Jr High school or later, which is the case in many public school districts.. However I have found a lot of value in using material from the Suzuki books with older students, and the training I received as a Suzuki teacher has changed my teaching immeasurably. The “mother tongue” approach works great with adult beginners who are often afraid to try to read music. It allows them to focus on technique in the beginning stages of their development and they are able to build confidence on the instrument without worrying about learning to read what is esentialy a new language for them. I have former students who graduated from from the Suzuki books and have gone on to professional careers in orchestras and pedagogy. If you would like a better understanding of the Suzuki Method I suggest reading “Nurtured By Love” by Shinichi Suzuki. If you find yourself still curious after that, go to the Suzuki Association of the Americas web site and sign up for an “Every Child Can” course. You may be surprised at how much impact it has on your teaching.

 

[Leif Dering]

I think (as others have said) Suzuki is usually meant for pretty young kids, and most bass players start when they're in the age range of 11-14.

 

[Bruce Calin]

I will check out the book and website. What would really help me is some method that would be most efficient at helping a student who has what I would call a "prior commitment" and may have already "played" the bass with no meaningful or in many cases unhelpful instruction and has been called upon to play immediately in some type of ensemble. To get some of these students on the right track for a meaningful and enjoyable musical experience can be frustrating for both student and teacher. If the Suzuki concept could somehow make that situation easier and better it would be wonderful. To be able to teach a young student(or any student) from the very beginning is a rare thing for me. Trying to correct bad habits and develop good technique while trying at the same time to prepare for an upcoming performance of music beyond the student's capability is not much fun for anybody.

 

[Ed S]

I took some lessons as an adult from a bass teacher who taught Suzuki. She had a long history w/ the method, and would say what she agreed with and disagreed with. I didn't perceive it as inherently better or worse than the other materials I've encountered. Plus, there is the added benefit of sharing common material w/ other strings. Some of the Suzuki ensemble pieces are fun to play.

 

[Brilee]

As Anna said above, Suzuki is an approach to learning, not just a repertoire. I took teacher training in Suzuki Bass (to Bk. 3), Suzuki Violin (Bk. 4), Flute (Bk. 4), and the entire George Vance rep/system with George. I also have a master's degree in education with an ESL/bilingual emphasis. In language and music, the most natural sequence for acquisition, is absorbing by ear, then playing by ear/speaking, then reading, then writing. Without a teacher who knows how to work with this sequence, and with early child development, and with parents, it isn't really a Suzuki approach.

When I was totally burned out of the music rat race after my MM in flute, I decided to try "learning as a child" and had George Vance teach me like he teaches kids. It was a great process of discovery to learn the Book 1 tunes by ear and imitation, without staring at paper. Perfect antidote to my dependence on/worship of "the score" that I had through my BM and MM. My start on the bass was joyous; I'm very thankful.