Musical training from a young age

Post Reply New Topic

Has anyone had musical training from a young age (five-seven years and older)?

A number of studies show that musical training, especially starting young, can dramatically alter and develop connections in the brain - connections that might improve function of those with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Of particular interest, musical training can increase the connections between the brain's hemispheres, the area known as the corpus callosum. Musical training can also increase the ability of an individual to comprehend what they are reading, as well as to be able to distinguish speech from background noise.

The Auditory Research Laboratory at Northwestern University is studying auditory problems in autism as well as the effects of early musical training.

Did you start your musical training at an early age, and do you think learning and performing music has been positive for your development?

Z

I've had music training - I started picking out songs on the piano at 5 so my parents got me into lessons. I don't know how much it's helped me with reading or distinguishing voice from background noise but I was an early reader. It might have helped me with left hand and right hand coordination. I think the biggest benefit it's given me is an identity. I am a musician.

I began cello lessons at 5 years and am currently studying music composition and cello in college. It is impossible for me to differentiate the impact of music from the severity of my condition. However, I'm glad that I have an obsession that can become a career, though it may not be the best. I would take the position that music education can be good regardless of neurological problems. Martial arts probably had the largest impact on my coordination. Piano might be more effective in developing coordination than cello, but that's arguable. Dance, anyone?

Speaking as an undiagnosed aspie and a professional musician (and former educator), I'm highly skeptical regarding many of the supposed scientific findings of connections of brain development with musical training. The reason I'm skeptical is because most of the research I've read is grossly biased and only serves the purpose of keeping music teachers in jobs and teaching method publishers in business. When the "Mozart Effect" came out, I shudder to think how well recordings of Mozart's music sold not because of genuine enjoyment of his music, but because of the number expectant mothers I imagine holding headphones up to their bellies!

I'm sorry, of course, if this seems harsh, but I've always had a more esoteric view of music and I find it disturbing that people pick it apart to sell it, rather than allowing it to stand on its own for the enjoyment of all. Yes, music is a business. But basing that business by repurposing music for something it wasn't meant to do is, well, just wrong.

OK... Now that I've gotten that off my chest...

One thing that music IS is language, and because of what I feel is its esoteric, intrinsic value, I believe without a doubt that music can certainly be useful in developing language capabilities.

I myself am a visual learner and have had to take HUGE strides in appreciating the purely aural aspect of music. In the early stages of my musical training, which started about 11 rather than many who start much younger (around 4 or 5), I became quickly adept at reading music notation and reproducing what I saw. It wasn't until I'd played clarinet for a few years and started auditioning for MUCH more exclusive, advanced ensembles than my school band that my teacher forced me to focus on more expressive aspects of music than simply playing back a bunch of notes.

In high school I briefly studied just enough music theory to begin writing my own songs and instrumental compositions, but it wasn't until a few years after I finished my master's degree that I was really able to write and play music based on what I heard rather than formulating the notation based on visual constructs (I wrote a lot of atonal music back then and used various geometric mathematical models to determine musical material). I took all the music theory and ear training courses required of undergrads, but never really had cause to use it until I began teaching, which I did for 5 years. I eventually joined a rock band, which differed entirely from my classical training in that everything had to be learned entirely by ear. Sure, I'd picked up improvisation on my own, whether it was a part of composing or in playing jazz (reading charts is still a visually-based skill), but I'd never been COMPLETELY dependent on it. Having to play rock and pop styles entirely by ear and memory did more to help me develop the aural aspect of musical understanding than anything else. I had to leave classroom teaching, but I do maintain a private piano teaching studio and I emphasize the fact, as I've come to know it, that music is primarily a LISTENING art. While I do require my students to have a thorough knowledge of musical notation as well as technical facility, I will eventually require them to learn to play by ear and improvise. I put less emphasis on music theory beyond what they need as performers, but I will teach it if a student shows interest and aptitude. In terms of music as a language, it's really important that students learn to "speak" independently as well as playing it back from notation. I don't teach finer points of theory and composition because the synthesis of a written musical language is like trying to get a 5-year-old to write a great novel after just learning the ABC's (it is possible for SOME, but that is an extremely rare ability). My focus is on performance FIRST in effective musical communication and only getting into specifics as the learner's desire directs. Beyond a certain level, actually, my students have almost complete control over the direction of their instruction.

Here's what I've found in working with these students: The demographics of where I teach reflect a poor, rural, predominantly black population. Most of my affluent white and asian students come from the same private school while my younger black students come from area public schools (my studio is split between the private school and a college extension, hence why I have public school students as well as adults). Four of my extension students are high-school age or younger. The oldest two are high school and upper middle school, one of them had piano lessons before and the oldest has participated in band for a few years already, but had NO piano experience. The band student has excelled at piano and progressed rapidly, due in part to already having rudimentary experience in reading music. The other had become bored with a previous teacher, so I've focused on piano literature, technical studies, and interpreting lead sheets (as a creative and practical way to segue into ear training and improvising). One of the younger students has been absolutely exceptional in recent months after graduating to "level 1" (it took her a year to learn the basics in "primer" level, but she's a little monster now!) while the other is apparently mildly learning-disabled. I'm used to LD kids, so this in and of itself is not really a problem. The thing I've noticed about the three who have been more immediately successful as opposed to the one who is taking so much more time is either: 1) Desire to succeed, 2) Parental involvement. All 4 show a desire to succeed. The oldest is independent enough that desire to succeed is an intrinsic value and no parental guidance is necessary. The LD child has performed well (performing well as compared with average student, not even taking LD into account) as long as there haven't been any interruptions in the lessons. With the LD child, the mother has frequently tried to micromanage the lesson when she was present, whereas if she stepped out of the room the child tended to do better in a more relaxed setting.

In terms of grades, which is something I often ask about, the three I mentioned are doing quite well, BUT they were doing well before they began studying with me. The child I suspect is LD is probably around average if not slightly (but not alarmingly so) below average. The reason for her poor performance in piano, and perhaps, too, with her grades, is that her mother interferes when unnecessary (constantly correcting her posture, fidgeting, and so on) while probably not involved enough in her education (working odd hours, being more of a disciplinarian rather than actually helping her study). Her poor performance overall in piano has more to do with the fact that her mother RARELY even brings her to a lesson, and I can't teach someone who doesn't show up.

I have another student at the private school who has some obvious social issues, and for me piano lessons are just a disguise for counseling. I suspect she might have AS. Her grades are not a problem, but she is given to occasional meltdowns and outbursts in class. Because I voluntarily take the role of counselor and mentor, she manages to stay relatively calm as long as she has her lessons and does tend to get in trouble when I'm not there (I have a sick child to take care of today, for example). Oh, yeah, and she DOES know how to play piano, but her mother is not very involved. They won't even get a cheap keyboard for her and her brother to practice on, so I just have to pray that she's retained information from lesson to lesson. The bright side is she's about where I expect with reading notation. I may change strategies in favor of more rote-learning and ear training because without practice and learning beyond the lesson, there really isn't much I can do.

Those are exceptional children in one way or another. My students in general tend to progress rather slowly, which reflects more on the skill of the teacher than the student. The others that ARE doing exceptionally well, all things considered, do tend to be the "smartest" kids in their classrooms ("smart" meaning high grades). My conclusion is that students who show high aptitudes in most subject areas will show high aptitude musically, also.

Based on my experience--as a former educator schooled in the usual psychology and exceptional children courses--I find that perhaps a better advantage to musical study is the focus on detail, creative effort, and the mentorship of a knowledgeable adult, rather than forcing the early development of neural pathways, and so on. Formal, classical music training can also rapidly discipline a child much in the same way, in my opinion, as study and application of martial arts. That doesn't mean these other findings aren't valuable, but one should certainly consider behavioral, including cognitive behavioral consequences of musical study. This might help with coping and socializing mechanisms of AS and ASD clients.

My little boy is almost ready to start training (3 years old is POSSIBLE, but it's rare to find someone willing to try it). I think he likely will turn out to be NT, and I'll try not to hold it against him. You can write me back in 5 years and see what kind of progress we've made!

Z, what a fantastic question. I have also wondered about those corpus callosum studies and how my early musical training may have "headed off" some of the severity of ASD traits, especially considering that the autistic corpus callosum is supposed to be smaller than average and the musician's corpus callosum is supposed to be larger than average. It's hard to say definitively, though. And AngelRho, what a great perspective! Thank you so much for sharing.

I started formal piano lessons at age 7, but I was immersed in music well before that. I remember being 2 and playing on a small little plug-in organ (equipped with a motorized bellow no less). I was picking out melodies other people were singing to me. It was just so natural for me, and I was so into it... I think that's how I acquired absolute pitch. When I did start piano training, I remember I hit the ground running, having learned a year's worth of teaching material in a week. That was when my parents knew that something was up.

I agree with poster about music giving me an identity. Musicians are almost expected to be a little weird, so you get cut a lot of slack you wouldn't otherwise be given. I think if I hadn't had that for both myself and the adults in my life to rally around, I wouldn't have had so much positive support growing up and my problems today would be a lot more magnified.

Thanks for the responses everyone!

Thanks for your comments, fiddlerpianist. I asked the question because I strongly related to the autism spectrum mindset, yet I communicate pretty effectively, unless I am under stress or overwhelmed, when my abilities tend to diminish. Having said that, I began reading music, playing the piano, and singing in public when I was five, and playing the trombone at age eight. For years I had to practice music for an hour a day, six days a week. I started out with language and reading problems, which pretty much cleared up when I was eight or nine, except it took me much longer to write well (writing composition).

I had read about the corpus callosum studies, and wonder if all of the music practice helped develop my corpus callosum and increase my proficiency in some areas. Recent research into reading and language comprehension got me thinking about my overcoming some of my early language problems. Anecdotally, I have cousins with similar language problems, and those who are musicians seem to be better at verbal communication that those who have had no music training.

I can't be certain that music training helped me, but in light of recent research, it makes me wonder.

BTW, the website of Auditory Research Lab. at Northwestern is really interesting and worth spending a couple of minutes perusing.

Z