Is Suzuki a Fraud?
This article has quickly become a hot topic in the world of violin pedagogy:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/25356629/suzuki-method-founder-exposed-as-a-fraud/
I have never been a huge fan of the Suzuki Method as it has been applied in the US (which is one reason I felt the need to develop some of my own material, thebeginningviolinist.com). However, I have always thought well of Suzuki as a teacher.
While there are various articles and responses floating around that either deny or support Suzuki’s claims I think there are a few things we should consider as we approach either side:
1) Whether or not his credentials are true does not change what he did with his students and whether or not it was/is successful. His method is not dependent on his credentials. If it’s good pedagogy it will remain good pedagogy. If it’s not (and I think there are some huge holes in it) than this just gives us more of a reason why that is.
2) Suzuki was never trying to make good violinists. His goal in teaching children the violin was to create “noble human beings”. If he never claimed to know how to teach violin well, only that he claimed teaching violin was a good vehicle by which to teach morals, self-discipline and appreciation of beauty, than we shouldn’t expect it to create good musicians in the first place. This doesn’t change by uncovering a fraud in his credentials.
3) If Suzuki wanted to create noble human beings, I’m not sure what he meant by “noble” if he was willing to lie to meet that end. This seems to go against what his original purpose was in teaching violin. Perhaps he got sucked in by fame an success and felt his background needed a bit of a boost, or perhaps it’s all a mistake and he was truthful.
Whether or not I accept his teaching, or his method as it has been implemented in the US, is not dependent on his credentials. I would lose respect for him if it turns out he did lie, but I have chosen to take what I believe to be good pedagogy from his instruction and reject that which I believe to not be good pedagogy based on my own research and experience. I think this is the most prudent way to evaluate what we include in our own teaching styles.
Emily Williams is the creator of Strategic Strings: An Online Course for Violin and Viola Teachers
Digg it StumbleUpon Facebook Twitter del.icio.us Google Yahoo!
Have you given up posting to your blog? Or perhaps you moved to a different URL?
I hope that you aren’t sick or injured.
Hi Howard,
Thanks for inquiring! I have not recently been posting on my blog. I have gotten out of the habit and have been busy with other things. I appreciate you mentioning it – I need to do more if people are listening!
Some random observations I have on Suzuki. Not necessarily in any particular order.
1) I know that there are parts of Suzuki’s story that don’t hold up to scrutiny.
2) I do not use Suzuki’s methods.
3) There is a “sameness” in the performance qualities of most of the students of the Suzuki method, which is an indication that his method subdues individuality.
4) With only a few exceptions, the Suzuki editions of several pieces I use for my student’s recitals are better than most other editions.
5) While I don’t use Suzuki’s methods, I do use his materials.
Not entirely on-topic, but last year, I took a group of children ages 6-9, spent about an hour and an a half teaching them how to play a recorder (none of them had any prior recorder experience, and only a couple had any musical training at all), and put them in front of a gathering of adults where they performed a recognizable tune.
Which, I think, does illustrate one of Suzuki’s beliefs that children can learn a musical instrument, and do so quickly — provided the public school system hasn’t already bludgeoned the creativity out of them. (which typically occurs by the 6th grade)
There is little or no evidence that Suzuki lied in an effort to personally profit from his method. As far as I can tell from reading his correspondences and those of Einstein and others relating to Mr. Suzuki, the most he is guilty of is name-dropping. So what?
O’Connor makes much of his use of the title “Dr.” As a recipient of numerous honorary doctorates, I suppose one could choose to use the title or not. I’m an M.D. and I don’t care if people call me “Mr.” or “Dr.” Above all, it’s hardly relevant.
I’ve heard a lot of violin students. I wonder if an observer were properly blinded whether he or she could discern so much “sameness” as to reveal what method an advanced student had learned by? In other words, could you really discern that a student was a Suzuki student by some quality of his or her performance.
I have strong opinions about Suzuki’s pedagogy based on empirical evidence in my family. I wonder if you would consider a post on what you regard as weaknesses of his methods? I’ve repeatedly heard it said that Suzuki students can’t read music well. Again, perhaps I haven’t seen enough Suzuki students because the ones I know, including my own daughter are excellent sight-readers. It seems like a myth to me.
By the way, I think he does a good job of expanding on what he meant by “nobility” of humans – compassion, kindness, gentleness, thoughtfulness.
Alan, thanks for your thoughts!
I’m glad that your daughter and other Suzuki students that you know are good sight readers and can read music well. I think that it would be a mistake to generally say that all Suzuki students are poor sight readers, just as it would be generally wrong to say that all non-Suzuki students are excellent sight readers. My personal opinion is that the success of a student is more dependent on the teacher rather than the method.
That said, from my own personal experience as a student who learned via the Suzuki method, and my experience as a teacher, teaching students who have come from Suzuki teachers, I do feel that the Suzuki method as it is currently implemented in the US does tend to produce students who are poor music readers. This was not the case with Suzuki’s teaching. I think there is a big difference between what Suzuki did with his students, and what US trained Suzuki teachers are generally taught to do. Suzuki himself was even dismayed at the way his method had been implemented in the US when he first came over here in the 70’s and tried to teach teachers what he did with his Japanese students. I think that what we hail as the “Suzuki Method” in the US is a poor copy of what Suzuki actually did. I think a clear distinction should be made between Suzuki’s teaching and the Suzuki Method, and that we do a disservice to Suzuki to talk about them as the same thing.
I think your point about Suzuki’s goal in teaching the violin (to create noble human beings) is also crucial to critiquing his teaching techniques. Suzuki was not trying to teach in such a way as to prepare students to study music professionally, or to even be good music readers. His goal was to teach students the disciplines they need in life to contribute positively to society. This does not mean he didn’t teach his students to be good musicians, but I do think it’s important to critique Suzuki based on his own goals.