I'm asking this question out of curiosity. I'm wondering what I lost out on when I was still studying piano.

A few postings in this forum suggested that the teacher must be able to perform pieces at your level. How important is that? And what would be missing if the teacher doesn't actually play your pieces?

I had several teachers growing up. My very last teacher when I was taking RCM Gr. 9 and 10 levels was a wonderful teacher. She connected with me. Her son (she was his teacher) became a concert pianist. Her son had students who played in concertos for small orchestras. Her students play in many competitions. However, she had arthritis and could never demonstrate to me.

On the other hand, she was able to talk me through pieces. She fixed some of my technique. When my fingers stuck together, she knew the exercises to unstick them. She would talk me through some images in my head to get the power needed for some Beethoven. She made me envision some long-legged spiders running across a smooth surface to get a light touch in some other areas. I definitely learned a lot from her.

She even once told me when I was playing a Bach 4-part fugue that I'm like a salesman with a money bag crossing a river, and the water is so deep up to my chin that I'm putting the money bag over my head. That was to say that while technically, I've hit all the right notes, I played so badly that it's not recognizable as a 4-part fugue.

Although she taught music history and analysis, I didn't take those from her since I attended the conservatory classes for those. However, she did teach Method of Teaching to a group of us, and we brought our student to her every so often. (I was never interested in teaching, and I'm still not, but I was with the Bank of Mom and Dad at the time, and took her Method of Teaching class as a short-term opportunity, and took on the student as temporary assignment.)

I felt that her other qualities compensated for her not being able to play. Maybe I've missed out on a whole other set of skills that I'll never know about, but I didn't feel that being able to perform a student's piece is a hard-fast rule.

I've had teachers who have tought me pieces they have never played themselves. These were usually pieces I chose. When this has occured, the teachers were still very helpful.

You describe a teacher who used to be able to play the pieces, but later couldn't because of a physical problem. I think it is useful to distinguish between this sort of teacher and one who was never able to play pieces at that level.

It sounds like you had a wonderful teacher, and I'm sure there would be many examples of teachers who are highly valued for what they can teach in spite of physically not being able to anymore.

I have a hard time imagining my teacher being unable to play any of my pieces. Perhaps it isn't the norm but I'm certain he could play anything I brought to a lesson. Then,accompanying is what he does for a living

If you reached that level in RCM, I'd say not hearing your teacher play the piece wasn't a problem. She clearly knew how to get you to play well and you enjoyed it. Professional football coaches can't play as well as the players they coach.

Did you hear the pieces played by other people? My teacher has more than one instructor, each with different styles and strengths, and often attends workshops by still more instructors.

It really depends on the experience of the teacher, and the ability of the teacher (as a teacher). I would think it is vital that the teacher know how to play the piece not so much to demonstrate anything to the student but more so that they know the pitfalls and trouble spots that the student will encounter. Even reasonably experienced teachers do not necessarily foresee these problem areas without playing it through themselves.....

It sounds as if you had a wonderful teacher, btw.

Perhaps as a generalization, with all its possible pratfalls, one should say a teacher should be able to play/demonstrate at least through the early advanced level. At that point, we tend to transition into coaching rather than teaching, because all the foundation technique has been laid in (or should have been) and now we're refining musicianship/interpretation skills.

That said, I make it a point to master, really master, any advanced repertoire I assign. And I take it to another teacher for critique. Two minds and four eyes do make a difference.

I don't play every advanced piece I assign (and I teach many advanced students). There aren't enough hours in a day! However, I could master any piece I assign. You cannot teach what you do not know yourself, but that doesn't necessarily meaning knowing every in and out of a piece. It does mean knowing the technical gestures necessary and having a broad knowledge of the literature, a good sense of style and a good ear for detail.

A good teacher will have a well-developed skill of observation and know how to lead the student through the process.

I also have accumulated a large CD library and have multiple recordings by various artists to help broaden my students' listening experience.

I think the situation of a teacher who can *no longer* play because of arthritis is different from a teacher trying to teach above their own level. The latter cannot work... I don't think.

Like Minnimay, the pieces I work on with advanced students are not always pieces in my own repertoire. But, just because I can't sit down and give a great performance doesn't mean I can't help them with it. Since I certainly *could* learn the pieces if I wanted to, I know how to guide them to learn it. Then, there are always passages I can sit and work out for them to show them how to practice it.

Rachel, while I respect the fact that we may want a student to learn something which we've not played, and may not always have the time to really polish it ourselves, I personally feel really uncomfortable about not knowing it well. I find that often, there are some little "secrets" in the piece which you only discover playing it, and they are what make the piece work in the end. Now I'm really curious how other teachers feel about this.

I don't think the little secrets are the same for everyone. What works for me may not always work for my student. We have a different physiology. And musically, I don't want my students to be a "mini-me"; I want them to come with their own ideas. We work through things together. I think the discovery process is a great teaching tool.

Like Rachel, when the student comes up against some difficulty, I can sit down and work through it, but that is also part of the teaching process -- how to solve problems. I think it ultimately is more helpful for the student in their practice to see me go through the process rather than just hand them a solution.

Well...

Performing means practicing. I can't imagine a student of mine bring me a new piece every week (advanced) and me having to study it every way, in order to perform it. Of course my occupation as a composer allows me to analyse music rather easily, so I doubt anything is lost, and perhaps it would take me a long long time to learn a Prokofiev concerto, but I don't think that I couldn't teach it (nor that it would play an important part if I couldn't play it, since this is hardly a student requests at such a level. I mean such an advanced student shouldn't expect their teachers to show them how to play something by playing it themselves, right?)

On lower level students sight reading works fine I think...

Having to play absolutely everything our students learn, advanced students anyway, would be extremely limiting. I play several Beethoven sonatas, but I won't limit myself to teaching only those. Because I have played several, I know the ins and out of technique and style.

Branch out! It's very exciting and interesting!

I don't think we disagree on having a broad repertoire selection - just whether the teacher should know the piece well himself/herself. For example, you could use the opportunity of assigning something new and different to learn it yourself. You may have too many advanced students to learn 100% of what you assign, but I only have a few, so I can learn what I assign. Also, we might be talking apples and oranges when it comes to the meaning of advanced repertoire. I don't have any students currently who could tackle (or should even consider) a Prokofiev Sonata, but I have one who could, for example learn the 3rd Saint Saens concerto. I don't know this one, but it's one I'd like to tackle someday. I haven't learned all 24 Chopin Etudes; as the purpose of these is to solve pianistic technique problems, I feel it would be irresponsible to assign one to a student without really knowing it very well.

I agree with John to a certain extent. I may not work on a piece up to performance level, but I do like to play it enough to be able to demonstrate it to a student and to know the pitfalls they may have. Of course, I do not have student later than early advanced, and would not feel comfortable teaching beyond that level at this point.

It's all about context, isn't it? When I was learning the piano as a child and adolescent I tackled some pieces of repertoire for which I was ill-prepared, and I think that students who need to learn the technical skills a piece requires while they are learning the piece are doing things backwards in the extreme.

If the teacher 'knows' the piece (which is not the same thing as being ready to deliver a recital including this repertoire) then the teacher will prepare the student for the piece. Teachers who are well-trained but clueless as to the specific content of the specific piece being worked on do not deliver value to students. But this is the way most piano teachers work.

Students who are learning music of an appropriate level of difficulty, who have been taught how to analyse music (not simply note-read), and who have learned how to practice will, in the course of their own practice, sort out many of the problems the repertoire throws up. But if a teacher is familiar with the music (in a practical way) the teacher can pre-empt time-wasting dead ends and genuinely act as a guide to the student mastering unfamiliar music.

In no other culture would we even be discussing this.

I think we are all saying almost the same thing. I can play *most* of my students' repertoire very easily. However, there are a couple of people who sometimes want to play very specific things that I have not studied. I'm talking about something BIG... like Brahms Paganini Variations or Beethoven Opus 110. Now, those happen to be two things I never studied, but I don't think that means I shouldn't allow my student to play it if it's something they are ready for. Time permitting, I'll practice bits of it, but essentially, in these cases I'm teaching pieces I simply cannot play.

I agree with this 100%:

But isn't it the goal of all teachers to bring all their students to a level above the teacher? Which would mean eventually every teacher has students playing pieces very challenging for them, perhaps even impossible?

My son is an instrumentalist and composer in his last year of grad school. Recently his teacher asked if another student, at another school, could perform a piece for her recital that my son had written. Of course, my son was thrilled with the request. I asked how the teacher would teach this piece, as it is obviously not standard rep., and the teacher has never played it. My son said his teacher (same teacher at both schools) taught HIM (son) the piece when he was preparing it for his own recital last year. Even though my son WROTE the piece, and the teacher had never seen it before, he seemed to understand what my son was trying to do with it, and gave valuable technical and interpretive suggestions.

Teachers of students at the early advanced caliber with any of the selected assignments for this students should be able to:

1) Audiate the music while looking at a copy,
2) Teach and discuss the analysis of the piece,
3) Problem solve the music technically when working with her/his student,
4) Play musically, interpretatively, and very close to accurately with the prima vista reading.

The teacher might not want anyone to tape or video record it on the first playing through, but with more time and effort, the teacher could (decision on their part) memorize and perform this piece on their own.

In my opinion, we don't have to have full experience of having completely learned and performed a piece in order to teach a piece as long as we can do the above. In my situation, I have lost some of my performance abilities because of serious injuries to my neck and right shoulder several years ago and now arthritis, so my playing through is no longer as easy or predictable as it had been. The musical brain can express, discuss, and teach the music in ways other than being able to play it.

But think of the teacher who does work this way of getting to an indepth playing of a major performance piece before teaching it to her already accomplished student. She is honoring his intelligence and his curiosity and his potential future. It's also amazing that these quality teachers know their history so well and can address the era, ornamentation, styles of the day, and paint a realistic picture far beyond just what it "sounds" like.

What a wonderful gift the teacher is giving of themself.

That's not realistic. My goal is for my students to be independent musicians. They do not need to be able to play above my level to do that.

It's certainly insightful to read the opinions of the many teachers (and some students) here. Everyone seems to agree that there is still a lot of value in a teacher's experience and interpretation. How the teacher prepares for a piece to teach seems to vary.

I'm glad, too, that we clarified the difference between teachers who never reached that level of difficulty versus teachers who used to play at that level, but no longer can because of physical disabilities.

Being the original poster, I should qualify by saying that in my teacher's (the one with arthritis) later years, she taught mostly students like me, who were not students in her most advanced group, and not planning on continuing with music study as a career. The repertoire I had came mostly from pieces she had already played herself before or pieces that she taught before, so she was intimately familiar with them. Even then, I still had a vast selection to choose from and didn't come close to exhausting her collection.

She hated 20th century music. So when it came to that repertoire, she had one of her former students teach me.

"She hated 20th century music".

Too funny. Yep, the old 20th century, such a yawn.