Conversation with Suzuki Instructor and O'Connor

Conversation with Suzuki instructor Stephen Luchs and Mark O'Connor about the
Suzuki and O'Connor violin methods

August 2012

Stephen Luchs: Hello Mark, I never understood what the conflict between the Suzuki Method and the O'Connor Method is. As you know, I am a Suzuki teacher. I was fortunate to have John Kendall as my mentor. I also attended master classes with Dr. Suzuki. I also was fortunate get teacher training in the O'Connor Method two and a half years ago at UCLA. I have embraced both with much success. Ever since I started teaching in 1973, I have always sought out alternative forms of music to teach my students and styles which I use in my own performances. My point is – Suzuki is not about the repertoire, and Suzuki himself never claimed that his approach is the answer. It is a philosophy with ideas. It is up to the individual teacher how to approach any method. Any teacher who refuses to keep an open mind, whether it be Suzuki, O'Connor, or any other method, is not an effective teacher in my opinion. Also, I am convinced that if Suzuki were around today, you would see American music in the Suzuki repertoire. He would be very excited about the contributions you are making to music education. The bottom line is – the method doesn't make success. The teacher does.

Mark O’Connor: Steve, yes…it really is about the fact that the two books are different methodologies. As you said, both Suzuki's and my philosophies behind our methods concerning children learning, becoming good people and productive and loving citizens is a global philosophy in most every culture. What violin teacher doesn't want children with good hearts and playing the violin? But for some reason, there have been some teachers who have encouraged a "my way or the highway approach" to students, and after having many Suzuki teachers turn down students who want to learn out of my Method books, even after those students and parents purchased my books for such a purpose, in many places with no other teaching option, including right here in Mississippi. I am in Mississippi today in fact – and finding out this happened again right here, it is really sad, and very upsetting.

We have heard about certain branches of the Suzuki association telling their members not to a support me, or not to come to certain seminars, like the one we put on in California last year. One time, the host of one of our teaching seminars purchased an ad in the local Suzuki Association Chapter newsletter for the regular amount of money they charge anyone for ad space. After stewing about the fact that it was a seminar of mine, they actually sent the check back and refused the ad space. Then I have heard from other Suzuki teachers that their Suzuki studios have American music, creativity, improvisation and fiddling covered already…and there is no need for my Method – only at most for supplementing. After decades of research and work I have done, it is too much. I know for certain that Suzuki did not teach American music, and most likely, from all of the research I have done, did not like it. And I can't sit idly by and watch a major organization come after me and dismiss my Method and me like that, without saying something. If some of their teachers want to support that behavior, I would think that would go completely against what Suzuki would have wanted. It is also unfair to believe that if Suzuki were alive today he would embrace American songs, styles and concepts. During his lifetime, American music was known the world over. We know major classical music pedagogues who still do not support American styles, so there is simply no evidence that Suzuki would have. American music was hugely popular at the time he authored his Method. The entire twentieth century was an American music century. If he liked it, he would have included it then. Were Bill Monroe, Louis Armstrong, Joe Venuti, Glen Miller, Duke Ellington, Hoagy Carmichael, George Gershwin, etc. not good enough or well-known enough?


SL: Mark, it's no surprise that certain teachers would reject yours (or any other approach) other than their own. I've known teachers like that and I've dismissed them as incompetent. Many of them don't even have any Suzuki training but call themselves Suzuki teachers because they believe it will attract more students. But that's beside the point. What is very distressing is what you said about Suzuki associations taking an official position which rejects yours or any other method. If that is true all I can say to you is that I am sorry, I totally disagree with that position and I agree that it is sad and totally against Suzuki's philosophy. You know that I personally have always been open-minded and have embraced your ideas. Some of the most eye-opening musical and pedagogical experiences in my life have occurred at your conferences and performances. I have truly embraced your Method and ideas, have incredible respect for what you have done for the teaching and performing community. And I think I'm a better teacher (Suzuki and otherwise) and performer because of it.

As for the discussion regarding the absence of American music in the Suzuki repertoire, we will never really know the answer, we can only speculate. Until after WWII western music and culture was virtually non-existent in Japan. Suzuki received his training in Germany and developed the method in Japan. I don't think he anticipated the movement going global. Who knows, maybe he didn't know who Joe Venuti, Louis Armstrong, and Bill Monroe were. Or possibly didn't understand the music at the time.

MOC: Steve, at a time when Suzuki was putting his method together for the United States, another Japanese violin player came to the states and became the wealthiest American fiddler in history: Shoji Tabuchi (he had one of the top shows in Branson, MO). He was introduced to American fiddling in Japan, at one of Roy Acuff’s tours. (As you may remember, Roy was a mentor to me as a 12 year-old). Tabuchi not only loved fiddling, he actually thought that he had a chance to “make it” in Nashville! He came, and I guess the rest is history. Easily the wealthiest fiddler ever known in the world. The lobby of his theatre he owns in Branson is plated with gold! The public bathrooms too! His is the same era as Suzuki. He also married a white woman, and she handled his business. Interesting parallel stories of both Japanese men just a few years after the war. They both saw America as a place for either them or their material. Here is something else about that WWII history:

During World War II, Japanese kamikaze pilots would attack American ships yelling, "To hell with Roosevelt! To hell with Babe Ruth! To hell with Roy Acuff!" 

The Japanese definitely knew what American music was. In the rebuilding of Japan, many, many American performers played in Japan (including Roy Acuff).

President Truman approved a document titled "US Initial Post-Surrender Policy for Japan".[7] The document set two main objectives for the occupation: (1) eliminating Japan's war potential and (2) turning Japan into a western-style nation with pro-American orientation. Allied (primarily American) forces were set up to supervise the country, and for seven years until 1952, following its surrender in 1945, Japan was at the mercy of an army of occupation, its people subject to foreign military control. As a result, this period was one of significant American influence, having been already identified in 1951, that "for six years the United States has had a freer hand to experiment with Japan than any other country in Asia, or indeed in the entire world." By the end of 1945, the U.S. had 350,000 personnel in Japan for the occupation.  

  These are the exact years he began to formulate his method. To not think that Japanese knew about American music is not possible.

Do you know much about Shin'ichi Suzuki? Is there any kind of bio on his life by an expert objective journalist? Just curious if this has been done on Suzuki. Or is all we know about him through his wife, who was a business partner with him and marketer of his method? Similar situation with the other bios I have read from his assistants – they were in business with him, marketing the method and benefiting in any success from that association. The one assistant who wrote about him evidently started two or three Suzuki chapters in major American cities for him during the time she wrote the biography.

If there is no "serious" biography on him, could he be the first iconic musician to have never had a serious biography done by a major writer? Or is there something you know about that you could pass along?

SL: Mark, I must admit, you gave me a history lesson. Did the kamikaze pilots really yell "to hell with Roy Acuff"? Wow! As far as a bio goes – I don't know of any bios in book form. There are a lot of short bios on the net. One of them was written by Michelle Higa George, a colleague of mine. She produced the video Nurtured by Love, which was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Documentary. The award that year went to The Beatles Anthology. Michelle probably knows as much about Suzuki as anyone. I will be seeing her at a conference this summer and I plan on engaging her in a discussion about this. You have really piqued my interest. I still believe that if he were around today he would embrace all styles of music, or at the very least, would not object to it. The last time I saw John Kendall was about 10 years ago in master classes at Occidental College in L.A. The class got into a discussion regarding teaching music outside the Suzuki repertoire. He encouraged it, and made the comment that fiddle music develops great bow technique.


MOC: I have read this bio by Michelle Higa George. These are all non-objective materials. I am talking about a real biography – the ups and downs, the good and the bad. He may be the fist important musician who has passed away and to not have a real biography written on him. Why is that?

John Kendall reviewed my first two books, O'Connor Method Books I and II and gave them a thumbs up, by the way. Of course fiddle tunes produce good technique: now we have a whole new issue of "technique only" fiddlers from Suzuki classes. A lot of bad has come of this Suzuki approach to teaching fiddling. The main issue, and I agree with this, is if you teach fiddle tunes for acquiring technique only, but do not allow for the creative aspects of that music – adding your own variations, improvising, obtaining knowledge of the great players and the great traditions – you basically are playing "memorized fiddling," or as many of the old-time and bluegrass fiddlers are calling them, “robots” or "fiddlebots". I think there is yet another huge issue here with Suzuki. What I am trying to do is to straighten all of this stuff out with my Method and my camps. It is hard to watch the Suzuki Method producing so few top classical soloists, no top player-composers, certainly no top improvisers, but now that Method is going to produce “memorized fiddling” too? Very tough! 

The Suzuki Method uses a different philosophy of ear training leading to memory training but without creativity, without the ability to hear intervals, chords, etc. I have exposed all of this, and maybe I should expand on it more as it is hugely important and many are missing this. It would be nice to read a real biography on the man, though. For instance, I’d like to know where and how he adopted the name “Dr. Suzuki.”

One of our teachers who also has known the Suzuki Method teaching for 40 years, wrote this to me after reading my recent blog:

“…every note that every Suzuki student plays is EXACTLY the same as every note every other Suzuki student plays! Putting on a head band and pretending to look like a gypsy is not creative music making.  Sticking your bow on your head, walking under a human bridge, playing while lying down, is not creative music playing. It's fun, and has its place, but it's not creative.”


SL: Mark, I am doing some research regarding the bio and will get back to you on that.

What I didn't mention to you when Kendall made the comment about fiddling creates good bow technique he also commented that fiddle music should be taught because it is fun. If you went to a Suzuki camp, you'd see all kinds of non-Suzuki stuff going on besides Suzuki. There is fiddling, jazz, as well as other alternative styles.

In regards to students being taught note-for-note by memory from the book with no creativity: I agree that beginning students, especially the real young ones are taught this way. This is also true when students play together in groups. When the groups of kids play together in your classes, don't you want them to play the same notes and articulate the same way? Any good teacher is going to encourage creativity in their students. A good teacher, Suzuki or otherwise, will encourage the student to be open-minded and experiment. This is especially true when the student will perform in a solo recital. I will not defend ALL Suzuki teachers – I've seen some really bad ones – but I believe the method has made great contributions to music education.


MOC: I think there is some confusion you have between the Suzuki Method, and teachers going "off script." A Suzuki teacher could teach Rock and Roll, or basketball, but these things should not fall under the description of the Suzuki Violin Method. About the camp: It is a celebration with extra additions. Just like my Fiddle Camps have Bach being taught, and Telluride Bluegrass Festival has James Taylor and Chick Corea performing. We should not get confused what is what, as experts, as teachers.

SL: Thanks Mark, I understand and respect your point. Although I teach fiddle to beginning and intermediate students, I never considered myself a serious fiddler.

MOC: The only point that I will want to sink in here is that you can't say you are teaching the Suzuki Method, and not teach the Suzuki Method – no matter what the secretary at SAA says is okay to include! It is what it is. Suzuki laid it out with Kendall. How can you change the man's method after he dies? If you were learning only German music, and a French piece got inserted, then it should be distinguished for what it is. It should not fall under the umbrella of German music. It is too distinctive to blur. Does that make sense? Suzuki is a Japanese philosophy for teaching German classical music to violin students. What did Suzuki know or care about African American, music for instance? I would say little, if absolutely nothing. We have to get our talking points together here, and so far, Suzuki teachers who have claimed African American music tradition as a part of Suzuki, as well as our fiddling tradition and American improvisation, etc., etc., is unfair, and needs to stop. If it does not, I am afraid that I will have more to say on the issue. Because it would be absolutely ridiculous to allow people to believe this, more or less tricking or misleading parents that this is a way to get great American music education.

You obviously have your foot in American music; I am not talking about you in this description. You are by every description "off script" as any kind of Suzuki teacher – teaching very good fiddle students for instance, your being able to play guitar, improvise…just the fact that you even know who Joe Venuti is for goodness sakes, proves that you are not just a Suzuki teacher! You have your own thing going. I am talking here about Suzuki teachers who teach Suzuki, and who are claiming that Suzuki includes American music now! Thoughts?


SL: I totally agree that American music is not part of the Suzuki repertoire. It would be crazy to think otherwise. And I appreciate the fact that you are not throwing me in with a group of closed-minded teachers. But my point is, and I'm speaking for myself, that I can get out of the box and teach all this other repertoire and still be a Suzuki teacher. And believe me, I am constantly looking for new material. If you came to one of my public school performances, you might be surprised as to how little Suzuki repertoire we actually play.   


MOC: Do you know what defines a method? Its materials. A method is not a method without materials associated with the method. If you are you not performing Suzuki materials, then you are not performing the Suzuki Method. He is not known for anything else other than his method. He is not a composer or a recording artist who wrote pieces to perform. So on the flip side of that, why should Suzuki get the credit for your performance then, when American music should rightly take its position in academia? This has been the problem: American music, fiddling, improvisation, repertoire, styles, etc, keep getting swept under the rug, or hidden within the recesses of a Suzuki camp or the music conservatory. Why should Suzuki and his Method get a single ounce of credit for something that he not only didn’t do, but probably disliked? Or he would have included it. I have a lot of material in my Method that is quite old, some pieces older than Suzuki’s repertoire.

We already determined that Suzuki should not get credit for American music training because he knew nothing about it. That would be like me dying a few decades from now, and an O’Connor Method teacher turning my Method into a Grunge Rock class. Advertising it as the O'Connor Method and the teacher is teaching Grunge or Goth Rock or something… music that I know very little about as it is not quite my thing.


SL: Mark, there is a distinction between the Suzuki Method and a Suzuki Camp/Conference. The one thing about the "Mark O'Connor String/Fiddle Conference" in San Diego that made it so great was the diversity. You had the best musicians in the world representing classical music, East Indian music, Asian music, Latin, on and on. It was fantastic! Why can't we give you credit for putting all that together w/out having to give you credit for creating it? I don't know about Grunge Rock (hmm…grunge strings, might be an interesting idea), but would you not be interested in Hip Hop (Mira Ben Ari?) added to your arsenal? Additionally, you may not remember, but several years ago, when I was an instructor at the San Diego Fiddle Camp, you listed my description on the program (I didn't request this designation) as "Suzuki."    


MOC: So what you are saying and confirming here is that I have featured Suzuki at my camps. Alternatively, I heard some interesting news this last summer from the Rocky Mountain West, where a Suzuki Camp there “banned” my music from my Method even during the student’s “free” period. These student’s teacher who taught them out of my Method, described it to me this way: The students could play anything they wanted in the free period, except from my books – even after children asked to play it during their free period. Hopefully people will take a look at all of this. 

Back to my camps, there is a major difference. Shin'ichi Suzuki is known for his Method, and that is all. In addition to authoring the violin method, I am known for being an artist, composer, bandleader, arranger, session player, band player, classical soloist, improviser, etc. And it is in those capacities as well that I host a festival like the one you took part in. So when I potentially take credit for programming jazz, hip-hop or something else, it is not in the capacity of my Method, but in the capacity of an artist, jazz musician, music producer, recording artist etc. Very different. Now, if I were only known to the public and all musicians and educators for my Method and method camps (like Suzuki is only known for), then I would suspect that camp should reflect my Method.

I did read the biography again about Suzuki that you recommended. It is biased and written from a surrogate. There are big questions. Not the least of which is: What, if anything, does Suzuki know about American music, American music history, creativity, improvisation, American repertoire – that is, the American System as I have described it in many articles? After the careful review of his method, his thirty-something teaching video presentations, and his biographies by surrogates, I would say he either knew nearly nothing of it for the violin, or disliked it and refused to have anything to do with it. If we are going to teach American music, we must move into teachings and philosophies that reflect this great music, creativity, history, traditions and the inclusiveness that this art form represents. Like Suzuki, I want children to play music, have a good heart, and be beautiful people…and there is so much more. Music is a powerful force for good in the world, and there is no better example than the music and the philosophy of music from America! It represents individuality, freedom of expression, creativity, diversity, community – it represents democracy. Yes, it is "fun" and good for "great bow technique," but really, it so much more, isn't it?