Talk:Suzuki method

Criticisms: Pyramid schemes and cults

I removed the following text from the "criticism and response" section because I have never heard or seen this criticism published (If anyone has a reliable source for this criticism, please introduce it. Otherwise, it seems more like a smear than a valid criticism.)

"In addition, there are troubling ways in which the Suzuki organization itself resembles both pyramid-scheme models and cult:

• Teachers must pay for each level that they move up within the structure, by becoming "certified" for each book of the method
• The only way to become "certified" is to pay for membership and training, which enables one to use the Suzuki image and name for self-promotion
• Materials put forth by the organization stress the sharing of methods and knowledge only within the body of members
• The members of the organization hold a quasi-religious reverence for the founder
• Suzuki materials continually refer to "Dr. Suzuki," who held no formal education beyond the high school level, and only held honorary or ceremonial "doctorates"
• The group as a whole sometimes refers to itself as the "Suzuki Movement"; this term has no equivalent in any other form of music education
• On his death, Suzuki handed off the organization to his own adopted son
• Suzuki often used millennialist-type language, as in videos produced for the organization members: "Everybody awake and walk together!"

J Lorraine (talk) 08:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi J!

I'd like to thank you for not just removing these points, but keeping them here on the talk page. I actually really appreciated those points and think that they are very valuable. They are not flatteringly positive, but in their criticism, these remarks provide valuable points, that may lead to an improvement of Suzuki method and how it is "run". (I can identify with the points raised and think they are relevant.) So I'm definitely in favour of having these points returned to the article.Slkjgvn (talk) 07:39, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

hmm. Thanks for your input. Although I do think that some people are quasi-religious about the method, I also think most people are not. Regardless of this, I still think we need cite-able, vetted information for the article. J Lorraine (talk) 02:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Alfred or Albert?

A recent edit changed "Albert Einstein" to "Alfred Einstein" and claimed this was a common error and cited the biography on the australian suzuki website. But the international suzuki website, along with the documentary "nurtured by love" both say "Albert Einstein". I'm inclined to think the australian website bio is a typo. J Lorraine (talk) 01:37, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I have (again) reverted "Alfred" back to "Albert". I haven't got anything against Alfred, but since the source cited in the "References" section (the documentary) does explicitly say "Albert Einstein", and I note that Evelyn Hermann also says "Albert" in her book on Suzuki "The Man and his philosophy", and (as I noted above) the "mother" website to the australian site says "Albert" as well. All this source material points to the conclusion that the au. site has a typo. I realize that sources are not "democratic" and "more votes" for Albert does not make it so. But I believe the australian website bio is a "late" source compared to the earlier published books (such as Evelynn Hermann's). Earlier sources tend to be more accurate than later ones. I also believe that, in comparing websites, the "higher authority" in sourcing should fall on the international, as opposed to the national, organization. If you want to change it again, please either cite something other than a website which appears to have a typo, or explain here why the one Au website has a higher authority than earlier sources, such as books which were printed and published closer to the actual event than any website. J Lorraine (talk) 19:06, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

In relation to Suzuki, i dont know what you are speaking about, but there are two of them. Albert the physician and violinist, and Alfred the musicologist and specialist of Schubert. There were cousins. Pipecat (talk) 01:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote: WP:ONEOTHER or disambiguate?

A hatnote was added by an IP user in 2024: For the similarly titled Gorillaz song, Left Hand Suzuki Method, see Gorillaz (album)#Track listing. This seems like a bad hatnote to me, the song title just isn't that similar (and it doesn't even point to the target of the redirect for Left Hand Suzuki Method). I've retargeted to the one thing that does share the name: Suzuki method (actor training), which is a redirect with potential to Tadashi Suzuki#The Suzuki Method of Actor Training. This is a genuinely confusing thing, as they're both schools of performing arts training. My gut is that ONEOTHER applies here, but are there other opinions--do we need to a Suzuki method (disambiguation)? —BrechtBro (talk) 04:35, 3 April 2026 (UTC)