Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Are all Teachers Potential/Former Concert Pianists

I find it odd that a dollar amount was attached to this. If a piano teacher could play Rach 3 for $50,000, then they could play it for $0.05. Money can't buy technique; either you can handle Rach 3 or you can't.

That being said, I seriously doubt most piano teachers could handle Rach 3, and an awful lot of them would have trouble with a Chopin Sonata. I know a teacher who has had several students win national competitions, and he himself would not be able to play a major concerto with orchestra. (Although his students can, and have.)

On another note, there are a lot of teachers who get passed over *because* of their performing abilities. Some parents worry that a performing artist-level teacher might be demanding, strict, or pushy. I think I fall into this category - most of my students study with me because they appreciate that I perform regularly and know how to keep my own skills up, but I've also lost students to people who find my rates and expectations too high. (This often happens before I have a chance to tell them what my rates and expectations are - they just assume...)

Leaving aside an economic view, if my town is typical, very few piano teachers are capable of performing at all.

We have 2 teachers who do almost all the performance work, for local symphony, accompanying students on other instruments for competitions, etc. They often complain that none of the other teachers will help out with this.

One of the teachers who does the performing doesn't even have a bachelor degree, much less higher training, and I suspect many piano teachers in our town have not done anything like a piano performance degree, or any higher degree in music.

I have gone through a few piano teachers. One was a concert pianist, and I learned from him in 2 months to play 2 pieces I had struggled with for months to over a year. He gave me no scales, used no method books...he gave me some arpeggio exercises to facilitate a trick part of a Chopin waltz, and a set of finger strenthening exercises. Otherwise, it was working on fingerings, correct note errors, and just getting the pieces right.

At one of our piano classes. there was a student who taught piano and who had difficulty playing a early intermediate piece. She just really couldn't play well.

The other teachers could all play well enough to work at churches, accompany, do chamber work...but not concerts. I didn't care for them.

I think the idea was providing incentive.

Your post was interesting - especially about parents/students assuming you're strict, and too expensive.

Are we to assume that, a few months ago, you as a complete beginner started on a Chopin waltz and mastered it? What an amazing teacher!

Or, had you taken lessons a number of years, either as a child, then continued as an adult after an hiatus, or for several years as an adult beginner?

I guess I really don't understand your point. Are you expecting your neighborhood piano teacher to be a concert level performer who just happened to give up a stage career, turning their back on fame and fortune, so they could teaching beginning piano to elementary school children?

Being able to play competently at church, in ensembles, accompany, etc., is quite an accomplishment in itself, and shows substantial mastery of the instrument.

from Nikalette:
The other teachers could all play well enough to work at churches, accompany, do chamber work...but not concerts. I didn't care for them. [/quote]

This quote could get a few of us teachers worked up in this forum.
Many fine pianists and piano teachers play at churches, etc.

They also "accompany and do chamber work" at concerts. The two aren't mutually exclusive.

It's always difficult to gauge church jobs. Some are pretty easy - play the same old hymns, keyboard style, week after week, with an occasional bit of "special music." If all you do is play out of the Methodist keyboard binder (those of you who do will know which one I'm talking about!), then it's really not a huge challenge.

But I've also had church jobs that were pretty challenging, including things like:

1) Accompanying a children's choir, which often included accompanying by sight from lead sheets, transposing at a moment's notice, or creating arrangements to fit the group's voices.

2) Accompanying a paid adult choir that frequently did choral masterworks by Bach, Haydn, Mendelssohn, Handel; even Messaien and Britten. I once had to accompany much of Haydn's "Creation" on 5 days notice. Also, there are a few anthems out there that can be pretty thorny, and I've never had more than 2 or 3 weeks notice in most situations.) Accompanying a choir like this can also involve open score reading; I had to read the parts of a Bach cantata once. Ouch!

3) Fill in as substitute organist; something that could bring a lot of concert pianists to tears.

4) Do P&W work, which often involved hand-written lyrics on a blank piece of paper with a few chords written above the notes. (The exact form of the song, along with several chord changes and requests for intro/fills, being decided at the Saturday evening rehearsal.)

Believe it or not, there are a lot of places where it's easier to find a pianist who can play the 4th Chopin Ballade than a pianist who can handle all of those different situations.

So right, Kreisler!

This past year I had to read, open score, double choir pieces of both Bach and Martin. Eek! Not for the faint-hearted, I assure you.

The reason I even asked this question and posed the hypothetical situation was because in America, let's face it, we've always separated the teachers/coaches/mentors from the performers/athletes. Some people believe that you're either one or the other and that you can't be both. Similarly, academia and the private sector are usually separate unless they are involved in finding jobs for the students. When the some people quit the private sector after making the big bucks they usually come to academia to take a break and just teach. With this university metaphor, in my mind private sector is the performance/players aspect while the academic side is the teacher/coach aspect.

But I've wondered if the piano teacher with the right qualifications that I've presented in my previous post (6-7 yrs teaching, 4-yr music degree, concert performance experience) could actually tackle the ultimate touchstone of a professional level pianist: the Rach 3. Could the piano teacher with these qualifications truly make a crossover into playing this piece? Now, I belief only half of the teachers with these qualifications could do this. Now lets take the $50k and keep everything constant meaning your student wages are paid for as well. So with potentially unlimited time besides family relationships, how many teachers who meet these qualifications would be able to perform the Rach 3?

My guess is that with much more time it would probably be 3/4 of the teachers.

But that's nevermind that, the point is that in America at least we've always separated the performers/athletes from the teachers/mentors.

"But that's nevermind that, the point is that in America at least we've always separated the performers/athletes from the teachers/mentors"

Hardly true. In academia, performance is almost always mandated in order to keep your teaching position. It's not so much "publish or perish" in music; it's "perform or perish," at least in the university setting.

in America also, sadly, we put a money prize on everything.
While I think I understand the gist of your question, I am still not clear why you had to post a money 'prize" for the hypothetical performance, since the point you want to make is that qualified teachers may not be able to perform at a very high level. Do you think that a money pot acts as a carrot?
A qualified piano teacher is a professional 'entity" per se, as is a concert artist. The two can and often overlap- or not. What is so strange about that? what does your 50K add to the equation?

What's odd is that I've met very few people who fit your description. Most people with concert performance experience (outside of their degree recitals) have more than a 4-yr music degree. And most people who've developed the skill to play Rach 3 have not sustained a full teaching load for 6-7 years.

This discussion seems pointless to me; you appear to have reached your conclusion before asking your question with the hypothetical situation.

Obviously, the response to "How many teachers could play Rach 3?" is neither 1/2 nor 3/4 nor any other precise number; it's impossible to determine, so why guess or speculate? The only possible answer is some could, some couldn't. I think that unless one is asking a deliberately loaded question with an agenda in mind, that answer should suffice.

Steven

It's probably good money was brought into the question. I would need $50,000 so that I could focus on practicing the piece without worrying about making a living. The question contains a false implication, that teachers should measure up to the false standard of being able to play Rach's Third.

But other factors would go into the mix. For myself, I have a heck of a time memorizing at a decent rate. I can only handle practicing two hours a day. For some teachers, arthritis might have set in, or some other cognitive impairment. It doesn't mean they wouldn't be fine teachers fully capable of leading a student to perform Rach's Third excellently.

What a loaded question

"My question is: Wouldn't most or every piano teacher be at the level of concert pianists if they really know their stuff? I mean piano teachers should have a strong grounding in music theory, technique, and strong sight reading skills, so why not?"

And then all the piano teaching chappies chime in with financial reward comparisons ... between the teacher and the concert pianist ... but all the time giving the impression that it was merely a personal choice at a fork in the road (where best to boost the bank balance) ... when the truth of the matter is that the teachers who populate the Teachers Forum (if they ever dreamed of concert performance fame) just couldn’t make the distance ... and fell into the old age category of ... "those who can’t ... TEACH".

But far from suggesting that piano teachers are wash-outs ... far from it ... teachers are the salt of the piano world ... the backroom boys and girls whose musical insight gives them the skill to maintain a bouncy enthusiasm in boosting the best interests of a wide range of hopefuls.

Concert pianists are a very rare breed who, for whatever genetic advantage (sight-reading/ memory skills ... , ambition, supportive environment ... etc) ... need the constant stage adrenalin-boost to face a new audience ... few, it should be said (it all came too naturally) make good piano teachers ... those however that are ... take home the big bucks.

There is another fork in the road. Some players—and I was one of them—are considered to "have what it takes" but just don't like the the emphasis on performing. In other words, there are people in every profession who are successful but who suddenly, for reasons of their own, walk away from it.

I discovered quite by accident that I prefer teaching to playing.

To stress this point, I don't think anyone thought that Chopin did not have what it took to have a career, but he actually preferred teaching, from what I've read.

I think a more important point is that it is nearly impossible to put equal emphasis on teaching and performing. A few manage that delicate balance, but it is really hard.

Gosh, you made some weird assumptions, that had nothing to do with what I posted. I never took piano lessons as a child. I took lessons many years ago for about 6 months with one teacher. Then I just played around with blues/pop piano.

About 2 years ago, I decided to learn classical piano. I signed up at the junior college, and I taught myself a Chopin Waltz and a Prelude from a book. I played it in my second semester with many errors. I played it my 3rds semester, badly also. I took a few lessons from a couple of teachers.

Hence, as I said before, I had struggled with the pieces for a long time, over a year for the Waltz, and about 3 months for the prelude. I took lessons with the concert pianist, and he was able to help me play the pieces well...he is not only a gifted pianist, but a gifted teacher...a rarity.

With his help, I was able to get both pieces completed in a couple of months.

That's what a good teacher can do for you. I also respected him so much, I practiced more than I had before, and I practiced "better."

And the other teachers I had may have been able to perform with some competence. No one would go to hear them in concert and they didn't know how to teach well.

Why the sarcasm? I hope I didn't hit a nerve.

Nikalette, I think the objection was that your post suggested the concert pianist was able to teach those pieces well because he was a concet pianinst. The other teachers (who you didn't care for) were not concert pianists and so were not good teachers. I bet that's not quite what you meant but it seemed to come out like that.

If the concert pianist taught you well then he was a good teacher. If the other teachers were not good it may or may not have had anything to do with their performing ability.

btb's 'fork in the road' is interesting and I suppose a very common assumption. Actually those people who love to perform will do so, regardless of their skills and talent. They may well give recitals and call themselves concert pianists although I doubt they get paid much for it. Teaching is a very different skill and is equally valid as a profession. It's not a case of 'those who can't do... teach'. Most of us here include some kind of performing and playing in our work but have no desire to take to the stage as a concert artist. As others have pointed out the professional concert artist has little time to devote to teaching although they often need to do a bit to support their performing income. A few people can manage both quite successfully but it's rare.

There are many that do both. All the teachers that I know also do some kind of performing. Not "concert pianist" performances, but performances non-the-less.

What happens to the retired athletes? Many go on to coach. Playing and coaching are not exclusive either.