Theodor Leschetizky (1830-1915) was a great piano teacher of the late 19th century. His teaching impacted his students so much that they became the biographers of his life. Leschetizky wrote very little about his own teaching strategies. But thanks to his pupils, we can gather information about his teaching philosophy and put it to good use in our own studios.

For me, one of the most impressionable statements about Leschetizky came from Ethel Newcomb’s (1875-1959) biography Leschetizky as I Knew Him (1921; reprinted 1967). According to Newcomb, and confirmed by other students, Leschetizky had no method. Newcomb credits Leschetizky to saying: “Don’t have a method; it is far better to leave your mind blank for the pupil to fill in. You will discover more easily, in this way, what he needs.” She goes on to express how strongly Leschetizky felt about abandoning a specific method as he would say “Write over your music-room door the motto: ‘NO METHOD!’”

I cannot speak for Leschetizky’s exact definition of a method. But his motive was to resist teaching one method for all. When I first read about Leschetizky, I was a graduate student in pedagogy, and these statements puzzled me. I wondered how any teacher could really teach without a specific method. What a challenge that would be! His rationale seemed extreme. But the more I teach, the further I am from depending wholly on a specific method. Today, our method of choice comes as a set of texts ranging from beginning through late intermediate levels. Teachers are closely attached to, and often dependent on, the methods that are commonly found in the hands of our students. But do we really “need” this method? And to what extent should it be used in the lesson? Finally, at what point in the student’s training should the teacher abandon the method system?

Recently a new transfer student came to interview with me. During our interview we went through the normal line of questions. But one question prompted an answer that caught my attention. When I asked the student what she didn’t like about her previous lessons, the student said that she was only taught to play “made up” songs. At first I didn’t know exactly what she meant, but after a few more questions I discovered that over two years of lessons she had only been playing songs from a method book (and had only made it through level one! — how frustrating that must have been for her.) I was so intrigued that this student was craving more than just the standard method. She was more than ready for the music of great standard literature by composers such as Haydn, Mozart, Gurlitt, and Bach. How exciting for this transfer student to come to me hungry for the classics! I was sure to select a book that would satisfy her craving, and out of habit I balanced it out with method, sight-playing, and technique books.

Since beginning lessons, this student has excelled in the book containing standard classic literature, but has moved VERY slowly in the method book. She is still young in her reading skills, so I thought the method would give her smaller goals to work toward and accomplish well. But now I’m doubting that decision. If she is so motivated by the standard literature, and so UN-motivated by the method, then it seems that I am just spinning my wheels. Why am I trying to make her do something just to follow the norm for students at her level. Even as I’m writing this, I realize more that my reasoning for giving her a method book was skewed!

I believe that method books can be useful, and are very important in certain aspects. But where do we draw the line? And how do we break free from our pre-conceived notion of what’s best for all students?

Who is the method book servicing — the teacher or the student?

Teachers must learn to have confidence teaching away from the method. I think that many teachers have an unhealthy attachment to method books. Especially those methods that offer a one-stop shop — from technique, to theory, to performance, and basic lesson skills. If a teacher has all of that, and if it works for the student, then the teacher has it made. But its important to question this setup. Who is the method book servicing — the teacher or the student? If you’re using a method for your security, then you must reconsider that rationale. The student’s gain should be the teacher’s number one concern. A method might work well for a student, but consider if that student is really reaching their full potential.

Give your students wings to fly — out of the method, that is

Method books offer great building blocks for beginning through late elementary students. But instead of building a structure for the student, give the blocks to your student to build it on their own! Again, its important for the teacher to teach. Method books are so good at giving all of the answers, but when the teacher branches beyond those pedantry guidelines, their students will flourish in their musical education. One of the best skills you can give your student is to be their own teacher. Students need to learn how approach the music. If you’re stuck on just pointing out everything that the method has already stated, then you’re not really teaching your students how to think independently. Start prompting your student with questions such as:

• What patterns do you see?
• Line two is the same as what other line?
• What are the differences between X and Y?
• Considering the title, and/or words, how do you want this to sound?
• Is there a rhythm pattern that repeats throughout the entire piece?
• Can you point out anything unusual that you need to prepare for — rhythm, notes or otherwise?
• What technique will you use to correctly articulate the two-note slurs?

Once they have gained these and other related skills fully, a method book may have served its purpose to the fullest extent. True to Leschetizky’s convictions, every student will reach that point at a different point and time of their training.

Improvising a build to suit method

It is hearsay that a publisher’s sales for books 1 and 2 of a certain method are always much higher than that of books 3, 4, 5, etc… This can be attributed to students dropping lessons after one or two years of lessons. But I have always thought that it might have something to do with the appropriateness of the content in relation to the student. If a student begins lessons as a 4th grader, they’re likely to outgrow a method series before they have gained all of the skills listed above. Many beginning methods quickly become too juvenile for older beginners. As an alternative, publishers often offer methods for older beginners. But I have had little success with those books. The content simply does not satisfy pre-teen and teenage students.

If you are stuck in this situation, you really have to be creative with selecting music. For example, if I do use a method series just to get an older student started, I push through the book as quickly as possible. I want the student to grasp the concepts, but sticking around the method too long will risk a disinterested student. Once the student can demonstrate their ability to read on the staff, I abandon the method and select early elementary literature books. These books continue to reinforce the basic skills of reading, and additionally offer a healthy musical diet for our more mature beginners.

Experimenting with different methods

Its no secret that I love the Music Tree method series (Francis Clark/Alfred publishing). I was introduced to the series when I began graduate school, and I firmly believe that the Music Tree approach to reading is the best. Nevertheless, I seek opportunities to use varying method books. This year alone, there have been several instances where the Music Tree did not suit the purpose of the student. So I have branched out to other popular methods that have been quite useful.

Change promotes growth!!! Don’t be afraid to branch out. Keep your mind open. Be creative. All of these qualities will help you be the best teacher for the greatest success of your students.

“Do not pin your faith to a method. There is good and, alas! some bad in most methods…. During the five years I was with Leschetizky, he made it very plain that he had no fixed method in the ordinary sense of the word. Like every good teacher, he studied the individuality of each pupil and taught him according to that individuality.” – Fannie Bloomfield-Zeisler (interview with James Francis Cooke, published 1913)

(To read more about Leschetizky, reference chapter 20 of The Well-Tempered Keyboard Teacher by Uszler, Gordon, and Smith.)