Don't just tell. Show. Then have the student do it. Then do it again.
And as BartK mentions, most of this is not theory, but introduction to the keyboard. As an aside, music 'theory' is a poor term, imo. These are conventions, rules of the game that have come to be accepted over time. There is no theory in music theory.
Stub music 'theory' is a poor term, imo. These are conventions, rules of the game that have come to be accepted over time. There is no theory in music theory.
I was so surprised when I found out what music theory entails! I thought it would be the theory of music. Like, what makes music music? And, for instance, theories about why certain combinations of notes would be experienced in a certain way. Not just major usually sounds more happy and minor usually sounds more sad, but theories about why.
*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...
So, I actually have a question. It's a bit of an odd question probably and I didn't want to start a new thread for it. I think it might tie in nicely with ranjit's topic anyway 
Right now my theory lesson talks about tonic, dominant and subdominant (I - IV - V) and then proceeds to talk about the circle of 5ths. It also talks about the importance of IV being the subdominant not because it's below the dominant (V), but because it's the same distance below the tonic as the dominant is above the tonic.
This is very fascinating and I love learning new things... but my question is: what is the actual practical value of this knowledge other than just theory? I'm not sure how to ask this so it probably sounds like a clumsy question, but what I'm trying to say is how can this enhance my learning new pieces?
I mean the next page is just another piece that seemingly is entirely unrelated to this knowledge... so how does knowing about these things make a difference, other than the fact that education is the premise of progress?
Am I making sense here?
Sophia This is very fascinating and I love learning new things... but my question is: what is the actual practical value of this knowledge other than just theory? I'm not sure how to ask this so it probably sounds like a clumsy question, but what I'm trying to say is how can this enhance my learning new pieces?
What I find most useful is being able to analyze the function of chords. So, you think -- tonic goes to subdominant goes to dominant, then back. The specific chords can vary but the principle is the same and it gives you a kind of structure to understand what is going on.
Can you explain that a little further please? What does it mean that tonic goes to subdominant goes to dominant, then back? Are you saying this information ties in with chords and their inversions?
Hi Sophia, many pop songs follow a particular chord progression. One of these progressions is I (tonic), IV (subdominant), V (dominant) and then repeat. For example, in the key of C, this would be C, F, and G. So, I could be playing the root with fingers 1 and 5 in the left hand, an octave apart. And in the right hand, the actual chord (either inverted or not, inverting can help to stay within a certain keyboard range and avoids jumping around with the right hand). I play some of these progressions as warmup, as they are bound to sound "good." I believe Ranjit says that you could predict where the song is going. If you have just played the IV chord, then likely the next chord is going to be V, and then back to chord I. And when he says the specific chords can vary, he means that the name of the chord changes for I (tonic), IV (subdominant), V (dominant) dependent on which key you are in. For example, the tonic in the key of C is C while the tonic in the key of G is G.
Below are more examples for chord progressions:
https://online.berklee.edu/takenote/common-chord-progressions-and-how-to-make-them-your-own/
In the below chord chart, you can see the chord progression: C, Am, F, G, C ... in other words, for the key of C, this is 1, 6, 4, 5, and back to 1. This is another one of the progressions that sound good. Sorry, I don't know yet how to make the picture smaller. So, you could be playing this song mostly by just remembering the chord progression because that chord progression should be largely repetitive throughout the song. And if you want to transpose in a different key, that would work as well. For example if you would want to play the song in the key of G instead of key of C, then the 1 chord would be the G, the 6 chord the E, the 4 chord, the C, and the 5 chord the D.
So, I know this best from the world of pop songs, etc. (non-classical). Whether this also applies to some classical pieces, I don't know. But just check the song in your book on the next page and see in which key it is, and then see if you can recognize a chord progression (for example in the lower staff; the chord could also be arpeggiated).
My favorite resource for this is www.pianoforall.com This is an incredible course that explains much of this in detail. This course is also available on udemy sometimes for around $15. If you contact Robin Hall, the course creator, he might send you a coupon.
Best,
Sophia Yes. Most classical music follows certain chord progressions. For example, when I tried learning Fantaisie Impromptu, the chords were initially a mystery to me because they used different voicings than the ones I was accustomed to. But when I realized that the starting was essentially I -> ii dim -> V in C# minor (ii dim is a substitution for the subdominant, like a different flavor of subdominant if you will), the whole thing clicked into place. He keeps using very similar patterns and so the chords are actually fairly "easy" to memorize, but the left hand patterns make it quite difficult to see this.
If I may add to this.
When you play I IV V I (for instance, C F G7 C), you hear that the phrase "comes home", back to the tonic, when you play I at the end. There is this feeling of something finished.
But when a phrase finishes with another chord, for instance, V, it is not finished. The V chord creates a tension, an anticipation of more to come.
For instance, in Alfred's When the saints go marching in, the G7 in m8 creates this unfinished feeling, also F in m12 does not finish the piece, but C in the final chord does.
*
... feeling like the pianist on the Titanic ...
Thanks Animisha, that makes perfect sense as well It's funny how the books tells us about chords, inversions, I IV V, circle of 5ths etc, but then doesn't make clear what the application is. That way it becomes nothing but dry theory that you just wish to skip. But the way you guys explain it, the material becomes alive, useful and fun. It actually makes you want to learn 
Sophia Another aspect that hasn't yet been explicitly mentioned is that two triad chords next to each other on the circle of fifths will always have a note in common which contributes to why moving between them has such a natural flow. If we look at the IV chord and the I chords, both include the tonic (for instance F and C chords both have the note C in them). Similarly, the I and V both have the dominant (C and G chords both have the G note.)
It can be argued that the very reason why the fifth is included in both minor and the major triads is that it is the second most consonant interval after the octave so it is very easy on the ears. On the other hand the fifth on its own doesn't carry much character or add much extra info. A fifth chord, also called "power chord" or "rock chord", with only the two notes root and fifth lacks any major or minor character.
Fun fact: The circle of fifths is considered so useful that the chord buttons on accordions are arranged according to this progression. Next to the column of different C chords you would find the F chords and the G chords on either side, thus minimizing the movements needed for the most common chord progressions.
This is also why some people advocate practicing your chords in the sequence of the circle of fifths (both clockwise and anti-clockwise). That way your hands will get used to the most common shifts between chords. Obviously this will not cover 100% of chord shifts in popular music, but it is a good start.
Youtuber David Bennet has a lot of videos in which he demonstrates different chord progressions with several popular music examples. I think it is useful to listen to examples like that and then play around with the progressions on your own to get a feel for them and not just read about the theory. Here's one video of his. Chapter 6 focuses on the three chord progression "I V IV V". Chapters 1 (I V vi IV), 2 (vi IV I V) and 5 (I vi IV V) are also of interest for beginners as they too focus on some of the most basic progressions.
Lower case, such as "vi", indicates that they are minor chords.
My method book recommend writing down the chord name in letter and in roman numeral on the score. This is supposed to help understand the underlying chord progression. In the example below, G D and D7 are all primary chords of G major.
I have been doing this exercise for new pieces. To be honest, the full benefit has not sunk in yet. Hopefully one day it will just click.
Edit: just realized my mistake as I post this. Em7 should be vi7 (lowercase), not VI7
Thanks once again, wow, so much useful information!
iternabe To be hones, the full benefit has not sunk in yet. Hopefully one day it will just click.
That's exactly what I thought as well. The new book is eager to mention theory and of course I realize the importance. It was only after I asked my question that I'm starting to learn the benefits of this knowledge.
I know that's a subtle difference, but it's important to me 
All the answers given complement each other so nicely and I'm starting to see the light... somewhat 
When I took lessons I studied theory with my teachers but I wasn't deeply engaged with theory so my knowledge was superficial. I knew about chords and could identify them in sheet music if I thought about it, but mostly I just read the notes and played.
While learning to improvise I've spent a huge amount of time internalizing I ii iii IV V vi vii° for every major scale (and also the chords for every harmonic minor scale). It's still a work in progress but at this point I hear/feel the different chords in a scale, sometimes without having to think about them.
Now when I read sheet music I'm more aware of the harmonies than I used to be and it helps me read and understand the music better.
Learning how the theory translates into the sound and the feel of your playing is beneficial and rewarding! In my case it didn't suddenly click. It has been slowly sinking in over the last few years.
There is more to music theory than scales and chords. I have a long way to go on my journey!
Ok, since you have all been so helpful in providing useful answers, of course your "reward" is more questions. You'll be sorry you replied
All jokes aside though, the book is now introducing more scale degrees: mediant (III) and submediant (VI). But again that is just stated as a fact, with no obvious application or benefit.
Are we supposed to learn those terms just so to pass a theory exam (in theory, that is) so that we can give the proper term to each interval? Or is there more to it than that?
Mediant is the mid-point between the tonic and dominant and sub-mediant is the mid-point between the tonic and sub-dominant below the tonic.
Names aren't all that important. It's more about undertanding function. Most people don't use those names anyway and almost everyone says "the three chord" or "the six chord".
Ahh I see. Yeah the next page actually handles the remaining two (Supertonic - II and Leading Tone - VII) but I'll treat those terms as just good crossword knowledge, nothing more (for now)
It's funny how Alfred skimmed so much on theory in the first two books, and now suddenly offers page after page of it. I think it once again ties in with ranjit's original question about teaching theory to beginners... apparently this method seems to think that if you stick it out for two entire books, then obviously you must be dedicated enough to handle the tough stuff
Sophia Right now my theory lesson talks about tonic, dominant and subdominant (I - IV - V) and then proceeds to talk about the circle of 5ths. It also talks about the importance of IV being the subdominant not because it's below the dominant (V), but because it's the same distance below the tonic as the dominant is above the tonic.
This is very fascinating and I love learning new things... but my question is: what is the actual practical value of this knowledge other than just theory? I'm not sure how to ask this so it probably sounds like a clumsy question, but what I'm trying to say is how can this enhance my learning new pieces?
Some thoughts (have been discussing this with someone recently).
The most essential thing that music does is it starts at "home", goes away from home, and then you want it to come home again. If someone plays music and stops before it finishes, you're itching for it to come home - you might actually sing that last note out of frustration. "home" is the Tonic or I chord with the 1st degree notes usually being the final melody note. The Dominant - usually the V chord or even more strongly the V7 chord - is both "away from home" and also "want to go home". The V7 has a natural pull back to the Dominant. GBDF in the key of C major - B wants to slip to C, F wants to slip over to E (both a semitone apart so in a close hug), and the tritone BF creates an uneasiness we want to hear solved.
Dominant is also a function or role, as described. Later on you might hear of other chords that play the same role, this being the Dominant function.
The Subdominant "goes to the Dominant". (It is also literally below or "sub" the Dominant since F is below G). It's a nice intermediary between the Tonic and the Dominant. Much later on you might get a series of chords that hang together within these functions. [Tonic - buncha chords][Subdominant - buncha chords] [Dominant - ditto maybe] [Tonic - bunch chords hammering home that we are indeed home]. That's when i saw these three names actually used in any kind of practical way.
For all those names: Tonic, Supertonic, Mediant, Subdominant, Dominant, Submediant, Leading note -- mostly I don't see/hear people referring to these much (other than the three) but still learned them. I did recently watch someone explain things about the structure of some music, and he did use words like "mediant" because maybe it was faster to say than "3rd degree note / 3rd degree chord".
I found where I ran into the word Mediant being used.
"The local Tonic itself can most easily be transformed into a common precadential chord that leads to the upper mediant (arrow goes to A#) ...."
So it does get used, by some people, sometimes.
Here around 5:19
Thank you @keystring for taking the time to explain that Funny enough I didn't plan on learning those terms, but then found they managed to wedge themselves into my memory anyway. Well, there are only seven anyway, not exactly rocket science
Up to now, I found chords a mystery. I mean, of course I understand the concept... but I didn't understand how it applies to classical music as well. Just now my book explained the Alberti bass and suddenly it makes sense that the C-G-E-G sequence is the "tonic chord" (If that is the correct expression). Then B-G-F-G is the dominant septime. Something I heard a LOT throughout my life, but never understood
I'm really happy that that this book is going deeper into those concepts now. It also treats us to more and more truly gorgeous pieces like Haydn's Serenade (for string quartet), a piece I always loved. For the first time since I started learning piano I see those separate notes, and I'm beginning to recognize the chord behind it.
I still don't think that's something to burden a "first week beginner" with, but once you reach the stage where, well, one starts to learn stuff that might sound a little bit like real music, it's nice to get a little extra background knowledge. I'm really stoked for the rest of this book!
