9 replies to this topic

[fiddlewallop]

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone has had any personal experience with the O'Connor training method? I was just reading about it briefly, and it sounded interesting:

http://markoconnor.com

I don't have any experience with the Suzuki or O'Connor methods. It almost sounds like the only difference between the two methods is that O'Connor uses American music instead of classical music to teach. I don't know if there's any other theoretical/philosophical differences in his approach. Just wondering if anyone had any input.

Thanks!
FW

[Tommy]

It is hard to find any factual information or sample from his method (other than to see that he put the Copeland in it which I cannot stand). I have been a long time admirer of his fiddle playing and owner of a vhs lesson from about 20 years ago which was very well done (fiddle tunes). Having said that and seen him live in concert several times over the years, I think he has gotten a little full of himself. Those original compositions of his are less than enjoyable to listen to, even when played by the author imho. He is probably a very nice person and a great teacher in his fiddle camps but I think that he would be better off just sticking to his mullet hairdo and playing fiddle tunes and finger style guitar, where he truly is a master.

[fiddlewallop]

Hehe - yes probably.

I just discovered him recently through his collaboration work on the Heartland CD. Heard a song he plays fiddle on with James Taylor on vocals.

[robertdo]

I am quite certain that nothing replaces a teacher. It doesn't have to be a top soloist teacher (they might not even be good teachers) but a critical external opinion probably makes you progress much faster.
Just a simple example, it's difficult to concentrate on 2 things at the same times, so that even with a simple tune, when you start you have to think about the fingering and the bowing at the same time. And having someone correcting your bowing while you can take care of the fingering makes a massive difference. Never mind the name of the book, or the name of the method.
the suzuki method is an ensemble of principles that basically apply only to young children (it's the mother tongue theory) but if you start as an adult a suzuki teacher will teach you more or less the same as any other teacher (I mean when you're 30 you don't go home and ask you mum to go through the day exercices like it is supposed to happen with the suzuki method). my teacher is training as a suzuki teacher so she often tells me about her experience with kids and all the small tricks she is using to make them improving, but of course she can't do that with me.

When I started my teacher was using the S. Applebaum books, but it's only a series of simple tunes. it's only with the guidance of the teacher that the purpose of these tunes appear really evident.

[La Folia]

the suzuki method is an ensemble of principles that basically apply only to young children (it's the mother tongue theory)....

Actually, Shin'ichi Suzuki's method was based on a philosophy that applies equally well to everyone. As it so happens, he taught mostly children, but except for one tune there's nothing inherently childish about the method or the repertoire. His teaching principles include positive reinforcement and respect rather than punishment; memorizing repertoire; continuing to play and polish tunes long after they had been learned; and much more. I wish my teachers had done so well.

Although most Suzuki programs are designed specifically for children, I too have seen adults go through Suzuki programs.

By the way, Dr. Suzuki's name is always capitalized, like all other names.

[richardz]

I don't have any experience with the Suzuki or O'Connor methods. It almost sounds like the only difference between the two methods is that O'Connor uses American music instead of classical music to teach. I don't know if there's any other theoretical/philosophical differences in his approach. Just wondering if anyone had any input.

Thanks!
FW

Many Suzuki teachers are also Teaching the O'Connor Method. The advantage is it also teaches Improvisation and chord theory so one can assimilate better into the "21'st century music world". Suzuki teaches how to play the music of others whereas I would guess with the OConnor method you would be more able to play others music and well as your own. It also appears to be more fun because you can "jam" with the other students who know the same material. If you study his material you would not be limited to one genre of music. You could play classical folk, jazz etc.

People who criticise his composition perhaps do not understand the business side of music. If you write your own music you get paid publishing royalties when it is performed or played live or on the radio, tv, movies etc. He has had at least one top selling record on the classical charts, and one of his symphonies is the most performed modern classical composition....which he gets paid for whenever it is performed I believe. The upshot of that is he will have large sums of money rolling in for the rest of his life from his compositions, recordings, teaching method, and teaching camps in his later years, unlike someone who is strictly a performer or soloist playing other peoples music.

[robertdo]

I didn't mean the method was childish, simply if I understand the small book I read (while waiting for my first lesson), the basis was the observation that a young child form any country was able in the first few months and years of his/her life was able to acquire perfectly any language his/her parent was speaking. But this was not so true as the child grows older. So he thought the same should basically apply to anything taught early in life, especially from one of the parent. Usually one of the parents are present during each private or group lesson, and there is a series of exercises that have to be done afterward at home.
But as for the repertoire, of course it has nothing childish since on book 4 (where I am now) you find the classics.
But for example my teacher (trained as a Susuki teacher) showed me how she was teaching tempos to her pupils. Like using a sentence with names of different fruits or animals with different amounts of syllabus. Or the fact for a child to receive a treat upon completion of 100 let's say twinkle twinkle stars, etc... (as you say it's positive attitude). Of course you can use the same method for adult but for example I don't participate to the group concert (and my parents don't come with me... ), or this kind of event.
So although my teacher is using the Susuki method, I am having private lessons more or less the same way I was having with my first teacher during the first 2 years, using different series of books. the main common point between both teachers is that they were really keen in teaching and really love classical music. I believe this is what makes the difference between good and bad teaching.

[richardz]

It is hard to find any factual information or sample from his method (other than to see that he put the Copeland in it which I cannot stand). I have been a long time admirer of his fiddle playing and owner of a vhs lesson from about 20 years ago which was very well done (fiddle tunes). Having said that and seen him live in concert several times over the years, I think he has gotten a little full of himself. Those original compositions of his are less than enjoyable to listen to, even when played by the author imho. He is probably a very nice person and a great teacher in his fiddle camps but I think that he would be better off just sticking to his mullet hairdo and playing fiddle tunes and finger style guitar, where he truly is a master.

One of the best things I ever learned from looking at Mark is that just because you are successful or the best in one pre-determined setting/career in life where all your peers would say "you have arrived! made it! etc", it's ok to trash it all and move on and follow your passions and interests and set your own course. He has mastered many forms, but never got stuck and burned out or become a parody of himself. He doesn't fall for the illusion of success as most people do. He is always changing.

[reedman]

My understanding from Mark a number of years ago, while he was writing the books, was that they mirrored the Suzuki books, so that each method complimented each other.

[vlngeek]

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone has had any personal experience with the O'Connor training method? I was just reading about it briefly, and it sounded interesting:

http://markoconnor.com

I don't have any experience with the Suzuki or O'Connor methods. It almost sounds like the only difference between the two methods is that O'Connor uses American music instead of classical music to teach. I don't know if there's any other theoretical/philosophical differences in his approach. Just wondering if anyone had any input.

Thanks!
FW

I am a veteran Suzuki teacher (25+ years) and a former fan of Mark O'Connor. "Former" because he has been, in an effort to promote his "method," trashing the Suzuki method on his blog and on various violin pages on FaceBook, as well as taking out of context various quotes from professional violinists raised in the Suzuki method, that seem to diminish the influence of their Suzuki training. Instead of positively partnering with the Suzuki Association of the Americas, he is seemingly trying to diminish the method by claims that the Suzuki method and philosophy has no room for "creativity, improvisation, composition or arranging music."* He is upset that the Suzuki method doesn't contain any American music. Well, there are no Japanese compositions, either, in the core repertoire.

What O'Connor fails to realize, if he really took a look at many of the best Suzuki programs across the world, that there is a lot of supplemental repertoire included, a lot of it culturally sensitive to whatever area that particular Suzuki is located. For example, I've seen Suzuki programs based in Southern California that have a mariachi ensemble. When I was teaching in Knoxville, TN, we included a lot of traditional American fiddle tunes in the repertoire, for just two examples off the top of my head.

Also, from what I've heard from some of my Suzuki colleagues who have taken the O'Connor method "training" (really, just an introduction to the repertoire, not much else) there is little emphasis on HOW TO TEACH THE MECHANICS of violin playing. One of my colleagues tried to engage the instructor in "how does the O'Connor method teach the bow hold and proper violin placement" and she kept being re-directed to the repertoire.... Since there is no real emphasis on teaching technique, the O'Connor "method" is NOT a method, rather, just a book with fiddle tunes to supplement the violin student's (Suzuki or traditional) core repertoire and technique exercises.

O'Connor is shooting himself in the foot by alienating the Suzuki community. I think he has a lot of natural talent and just hasn't had to think much about the mechanics of violin playing, ergo, he thinks by compiling a book of fiddle tunes, one can learn to play the violin. Sure.

*He has a blog on his website called "Parting Shots." How engaging. It's really just post after post of how his "method" is equivalent to the Second Coming, how his "method" is far superior to the Suzuki method and will overtake the Suzuki method because it is more fun, includes improvisation, blah, blah, blah...... Get back to me, Mark, in about forty years, to see what method is still going strong.....