Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Is it wrong to have two teachers?

This reminds me of those who want to study more than one martial art at a time, i.e. judo and kung fu. The way I see it, it's really up to the student.

Some will be able to do this. Others won't. Try it and see how it goes. It's really the only way you'll know for sure.

So now I have to ask: why would a teacher be uncomforable with you taking lessons from another teacher, too? Is it for purely personal motives, or do they think that the methods of the other are wrong? And if the methods are wrong,how am I to know that they really are?

Zimbelstern, one thing could be that even if both methods are good, the student will be confused if they get contradictory advice. Sometimes maybe not even realize it. It could also mess up the teachers planning. It makes it more difficult for the teacher to know what the student already knows or doesn't know. And as Monica, I think, pointed out there was a debate about playing at other teachers recitials on the teachers' forum.

Yes, you are so right about letting both teachers know about each other. For some teachers there would be no problem, but I'm sure some teachers would not want to have their lessons and the assignments you are working on together be compromised by time and effort you have to put into a second assignment. This might not be feasible from the point of view of the amount of work load that you have from either teacher.

Let's go to the scenario that you came up with about your 2nd job - usually that works as it's just you scheduling additional hours and the work required could be completely different and easy for you to do. Howver, if you went to work part time for a competitor of your full time job, doing the same work, you are probably not going to want them to know that. Why do they feel that way? Basically because you do not have you full attention on your first job and you have diminisheded your energy level as to what you can give them during your 40 hours. You might be tired, sidetracked, cranky from trying to cover so much territory both in input, output and total time required.

I don't think this would work at all for someone who was not fully independent in their musicianship. Then the requirement would be simply like in changing styles of music being played with each teacher and proceeding through the music assignments with high accuracy regardless of its composer.

Something a beginner is not going to be able to do as there still is skill building, reading notation, counting rhythmically, interpreting dynamics and expression, many, many tasks.

If someone suggested such a situation to me I would most likely say choose one teacher or the other and I would not want to be involved in the situation since my experience as a teacher finds this situation problematic from many different perspectives.

It's not about "can you afford paying for two teachers" it's about "can you handle everything happening with lessons from just one teacher?"

Problematic? Potential problems? I think it would be less than successful.

I would like to go back to something mentioned earlier because I think that's the actual critical point.


You have written "technique" and "style" and I'm wondering what you imagine under the word "technique". When you start out, the manner in which you use your hands and body in playing gets guided and formed by a teacher: the shape of the hand, the touch, the way you sit. It's before style. This gets shaped over time in collaboration. If you have two teachers both trying to shape this, then it won't work very well. It's like one is tugging one way, and the other tugs the other. It can also get confusing.

One would have to assume that the student is able to satisfy both teachers. There might not be a compromise. Actually I'm wondering if sometimes the two might enhance each other if there are different strengths?

By "technique" I'm referring to the mechanics of how a player accomplishes things, or perhaps more simply the "tricks of the trade" which they have learned. It's how they treat the technical details. I think of it more as the difference between me playing the Moonlight Sonata, and Horwitz playing it. It is the same piece, but somehow his sounds better. Perhaps I use those two words too interchangeably. The style is how you play it, but the technique shapes the style.

I think time would be the major consideration for me, as several people have pointed out.

As for style - I do think it would help to have a teacher who actually plays the style of music you like. Classical really isn't like jazz in its feel - even if it's true that the physical techinique needed to push a key down or make a particular accent is the same, the timing, the spaces between beats, the syncopation, is simply different. Yes, I know one pianist who was classically trained who is a super duper dance pianist, but I know about 6 others for whom that transition has been long if it's ever happened. I've found it the same with fiddlers. And I know that there is a contingent, of both teachers and students, who think if you have classical training you can do anything. It just hasn't been my experience

So, I think it's up to you, and what limitations or opportunities you have in terms of time, money, commitment, teachers who are willing, or any other consideration. As you can see, there's lots of differing opinions here, and different experiences, so in the end you have to make the decision based on your considerations anyway

Cathy

I hope they sometimes do. There are a few teachers who send me students for extra lessons prior to exams for aural training, theory, scales. I get cellists, violinists and pianists. Some stay on for years. It's been a good way to attract students. Of course the one thing I don't touch is "how to play this note" sort of questions. We do foundation/musicianship activities e.g. singing in parts, aural skills, composing, theory, transcribing, sightreading. It doesn't really address the issue of the OP because our areas are mostly separate, but they do cross - it's not just a theory class! But the improvment that these students make is very satisfying for both teachers.

Just recently I began asigning pieces to learn for one of these piano students, a few levels below what she does with her main teacher. This is a bit of a bold move and I will phone the teacher to touch base anyway. It's been really great to be part of a team with these very experienced teachers.

And I'm pretty new on the scene still, so I had no idea that teaching could involve relationship issues like those described Reminds me of a cat we once knew... found out he was 4-timing. Cats!

I've got about ten teachers right now: Keith Jarrett, Bill Evans, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Miles Davis, Wayne Shorter, Diana Krall,.... did I miss anyone? =)

I don't know if this is mentioned already, but the biggest problem happens when you have two teachers telling two contradicting suggestions.

I had a regular jazz teacher, but I met up with this great player who was willing to show me stuff. he didn't charge me, but it was basically a lesson. He told me to not say anything if my teacher said something that contradicted what he taught me. Basically he didn't want me to tell my teacher "but so and so said that is wrong".

So in that respect you may put the teachers in very difficult situation if you aren't discrete about it. I personally don't think it's a good idea to have two teachers unless there is something seriously wrong in your lesson.. like pain in your hands, or you have a problem that your teacher can't seem to find a solution for.


In jazz it may be a little different, since lessons may not be as regular. Sometimes you seek someone out just to pick their brain, and you might not come back after couple of times. And I think it's best that you have a classical teacher to help with technique if your technique is not that solid. The important thing is to find a classical teacher that will take you for who you are as a jazz pianist.

Canonie, I really like what I'm reading. Essentially then you are touching areas of musicianship that may not be happening in regular lessons, since they would be concentrating on other things. Probably the instrumental lessons with the "main" teacher would involve how to play the instrument and do the standard repertoire. You would develop their ear, sensitize to certain elements of music. They would then apply this in their lessons. Their teachers could also refer to more things as they teach, because their students have more knowledge to draw on. I also understand that you are collaborating with the other teacher, or at least touching base.

A while back the ABF made a survey in which we found that a relatively large number of students wanted to have more theory and technique. This was brought into the teacher forum, where one of the responses was, "How can we possibly have time to fit everything into a lesson? There is not enough time as it is." This is one answer.

Just today, I did two lessons with my two teachers!

I have a regular, week-to-week teacher and another teacher I go to for occasional coaching sessions and I take lessons from her in the summer when my teacher goes on vacation. This is my annual do-it-yourself adult piano camp.

I appreciate what I can learn from both of them. I have a good, solid program of development with my regular teacher and with my other teacher, I work more on phrasing, dynamics, gestures and hand motions. They complement each other well. Both know about the other and it doesn't seem to cause any problems.

Yes Keystring! if you acquire good theory and technique then you can continue more independantly, otherwise you're more likely to want regular help.

I try to teach as usefully as possible. I deliberately sacrifice the category "perfection of pieces at the edge of abilities" for musician-skills that I imagine a teachers would love to have in every student; good pulse, rhythm, ears, sight singing, part singing, memory, pattern recognition, analysis, chords, reading, an appetite for lots of new pieces, theory stuff...(more). I hope no-one is too shocked: I often leave a few misinterpreted notes, even rhythms uncorrected. I might mention it, but decide to spend the time on other things. So just one of the specific tasks I teach is "how to perfect a piece", just before a performance.

It's a bit confronting because my kids stay doing easier pieces for longer. After a few years they will taste bigger repertoire, get the hunger, and begin serious and effective practice (and surge forward?... I hope)

The reason I am interested in your comments KS is that i've been teaching only just long enough for a couple to enter the Hungry and Effective stage, who knows what the long term results will be. I have quite a few areas where I hope to improve my teaching, all very exciting.

I'm enjoying listening to everyone, although I think it does ultimately come down to deciding based on certain circumstances, and not a general rule.
Can I take lessons from you, Canonie? You said that you teach your students to have an "appetite for lots of new pieces". I think I have too much of an appitite. I am always hearing new pieces and trying to learn them, which gives me much more material than I can actually practice. Perfecting pieces is something that I don't know how to go about. Perhaps I will learn soon!

hehe In your case you don't seem to need any help in this area. If I had an imaginary Zimbelstern student I would focus quite a lot on perfection of pieces But I'd teach you theory and make you sing, out loud mind you. You'd also have to do various stepping patterns that relate to time signatures while 'saying' the rhythm syllables "ta, tiki..." This is nearly like dancing. And you'd have to perform in the concerts too.

You see I only teach kids (it's my referral system). I'd love some adults but I wonder what they'd think?!