I know some teachers who tack on a piece of their own at the end of a student recital, and then there are others who give entire concerts solo.

Also, my teacher recently gave a solo performance concert and not many people showed up. I asked him about it and that I was sad to see so few people and he actually thought a turn out of 60 people was pretty good. I guess 60 people look smaller than they were.

It was just frustrating to see so few of his students show up for the event which was at a school that taught another 500 students... and only 60 adults and well wishers showed up.

I usually perform on my students' recitals at least once per year. I have given a full solo recital previously, but so few people attended, I didn't do it again. We have a local performance group that gets together once a month and gives a yearly recital that is well attended. This seems to be a better route to go, since they get the advertising required to attract an audience.

I give a solo recital about every 2-3 years. Sometimes I substitute a duet/duo recital with duo partner. We usually have about 125. Depends on how it's advertised.

I don't have enough decent, presentable repertoire to warrant solo recitals, but I do make a point of partaking in at least one or two teacher recitals per year. I play about 5-6 minutes worth of music, and that's stressful enough for me to keep up with the practicing.

My "day job" is as a freelance accompanist, mostly for students at the local university. During the school year, I play a dozen or so recitals. I also try to give a solo recital every few years - hopefully I can do one next fall.

Like Kreisler, my "day job" is also as a freelance accompanist, and I do several recitals a year. I haven't given a full solo recital for quite a few years now, but I often do a solo spot in a concert with a singer, for example.

I don't do recitals!! There are loads of recitals on in Sydney throughout the year, and I can't imagine why anyone would want to come and hear me give a recital in some local community hall (and I assume I couldn't come close to filling the Opera House with my performances of Ravel, Scriabin, Bartok and Beethoven).

But yes, I have done plenty of accompanying, and even some gigs!

Why do you ask?

I was just curious is all. I always presumed that piano teachers gave recitals, and it never occured to me that many people in the community would not be interested until recently.

D4v3, it's a natural presumption. No problem. However, being a recitalist is a full time occupation, not just something you do on the side, as a whim. Most recitalists develop recital repertoire, which they then repeat over and over, as they move from venue to venue. Preparation takes hours every day, just as rehearsing already mastered repertoire. Full time teachers, while practicing daily, just cannot put in the additional hours required to maintain a solo recital career as well. It would be like working two full time jobs.

Many years ago, Carol Montparker, former editor of Clavier magazine, wrote an extensive summary of preparing for a recital. It was an arduous undertaking and she detailed the preparations. Don't know if the article in in an archive somewhere, but it would be worth a read.

Why should piano teachers give formal recitals? Well, if it enhances their teaching, that would be a decent argument. The fact that a number of teachers here are active accompanists suggests that there are many things that teachers do besides give solo concerts, so performance should perhaps be thought of more broadly.

I will admit that I moved my son to his current teacher in part because she is an active musician and not just (and I use that word cautiously) a pedagogue. I thought then (and think now) that there is some mileage in getting out there and performing publicly if you are teaching advanced students who themselves have an interest in performing publicly. I certainly wouldn't advance this proposition to an absolute, but it has legs nonetheless. The fact that she gives a number of public performances every year (some free, some sponsored, and some paying) gives her a window on the music world that is valuable. She also puts her money where her mouth is, so to speak, since she can draw an audience that wants to listen.

But not all teachers work with advanced students of this sort.

Lastly, performing publicly and 'giving recitals' is not quite the same thing. The former is much broader in context, and it includes all sorts of gig playing and accompanying work. "Giving a recital" suggests the usual solo repertoire in a stuffy atmosphere in front of a group of retirees in the community center.

(.... oh, and there is nothing wrong with performing before retirees. They're often quite knowledgeable and appreciative).

There is something I'm not quite catching. In what manner do recitals enhance teaching? In other words, in what manner does a teacher's act of performing cause that teacher to enable a student to learn (which is what teaching is)?

Yes, I suspect most of us perform publicly, either in a support role, or as a participant in a group situation. But performing in this manner is not even close to giving a 90 minute or 2 hour recital consisting of heavy works. My sense was he was discussing the latter.

With any other instrument I'd expect my teacher to make the majority income by playing. Maybe it is not needed but I'd wonder about a guitar or bass teacher who didn't perform most weekends or do session work. It fact the teacher would lack credibility to attract students without a full performance schedule or credits on recordings.

Yes I know it's different for classical pianists, there is simply not much demand.

With other instruments students expect to be taught to play what is currently relevant to today's listener. The student starts to think "who are you to be teaching me to play drums when you can't get a job as a drummer?"

Yes I know it's different for classical pianists, there is simply not much demand.

I think for teaching non-classical keyboard (electronicia, hip-hop, pop rock and maybe some kinds of jazz) the teacher would have to also be a performer if s/he wanted to teach. To teach this you'd have to be very familiar with the local music scene.

Piano teaches tend to be unique from other music teachers in that few perform in public and even fewer earn any income doing so.

keystring,

I suspect you may disagree, but I find that someone who performs on a regular basis may have a deeper understanding of what it takes to perform under pressure than someone who does not perform. Yes, you can master all relevant teaching skills from reading about it, I suppose, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think that there is a greater likelihood that a performer who has actually experienced nerves and stage fright issues (and come out on top of them) may know a few tricks of the trade that a non-performer may not know quite as well. And that's only one aspect of performance. Someone who is a concert performer may understand the need for perfection (if people value this) better than someone who never ever faces the public and gets reviewed. A concert artist may bring a different set of attitudes to playing than someone whose whole persona is wrapped up in developing young beginners. They may bring more insights into the score and a higher set of demands for perfection in phrasing and articulation, because that is what their own performances demand.

None of this is to suggest that a non-performer is always and everywhere handicapped by comparison. But my observations over the past thirty-five years tell me that there is at least a strong positive correlation between strong teaching at the high end (with very advanced students) and actually being a public performer.

There are of course vast differences in support/participant/collaborative recitals too. I've played quite a few that were every bit as demanding as any solo recitals I've done. But I know that wasn't what you were talking about. And you're right about this being like having two full-time jobs. That's in fact why I'm only a part-time teacher!

So you are saying that a performer has certain knowledge that he can impart to the student, and this is how performing helps him to teach. Now it is clear. You are talking about knowledge that is brought back into the studio.

I spend a lot of time practicing music for group situations in addition to attending rehearsals. It takes up a lot of time and while it's a service and enjoyable and all of that, it does take time away from practicing solo works, at least for me.

Not just that.

Kids seem to be forever being told to do something by adults who don't do it themselves. "Do as I say, not as I do."

If, as piano students are often told...performing in public is a valuable part of being a musician, that even when it might be difficult or uncomfortable, it's worth it to suck it up and get out there, that your performance does not have to be note-perfect to be worthwhile...if these things are true, they are as true for adults as they are for kids.

Kids aren't dumb. If the adults advise them to sit up straight, eat their vegetables, practice and perform in the upcoming recital...and the adults saying it slouch, eat junk food, and refuse to play in front of others ("thank goodness I'm grown up now and I don't have to do all that stuff that's good for me"), then the kids are going to see thru that in a minute, and rightfully disbelieve that things like vegetable eating and playing in public are worthy and important.

If, however, the adult giving the advice plays in public...even if it is a small, short, informal home recital for their students and families, then the teacher is putting their money where there mouth is.

You don't have to 'bring what you learned back to the studio'...teaching by example, having the students hear the teacher say "I'm a little nervous right now" before they play...then walk out and sit at the piano as if they are cool and in control...is a valuable lesson in itself.

Thank you for your answers Piano*Dad and ProdigalPianist. They were aspects I had not considered. The letter P has it today.

I think a teacher's performance activities often affect their attitudes in the studio as well.

Since most of my performing is as an accompanist, I tend to expect of my students the skills I find useful - learning repertoire quickly, exact rhythm and tempo. A couple of other pianists in my area play mostly solo recitals, and they tend to focus on polished performances, even if it means learning 3 pieces a year (my students learn more than twice that much repertoire.)

I also know church pianists who focus on things like sight-reading and transposition; and correct notes - amateur church choirs often have a hard time handling things when they hear wrong notes in the accompaniment!)

Then there are teachers who have only played recreationally. This I think is the most difficult situation for a teacher because you have to adopt an attitude that you yourself don't follow. (Which kids pick up on!) Sometimes these teachers bring an attitude of having constant fun and enjoyment, even at the expense of challenge and quality. The students of these teachers are too often the ones who give up when things get difficult. As soon as they have to learn two octave scales or a Bach invention, they throw their hands up and quit because hard work isn't always fun and games.

Nobody goes to medical school because it's fun. People go to medical school for three reasons: money, prestige, and to help people. (Mostly money. If it wasn't about the money, dermatology wouldn't be one of the most competitive specialities; and if it was about helping people, there wouldn't be a shortage of family practitioners and psychiatrists in the world.)

Well, I have a wife who has 'been there and done that.' Sometimes people do actually seek out hard things for the challenge and because they like doing those hard things. Yet your basic point is well taken. Doing the hard things usually is not 'fun' in the conventional sense of the term.

As far as piano goes, I do think the teacher's attitudes toward performance can have an impact on students (both positive and negative). And the kind of performance the teacher is engaged in can indeed affect the skills they stress to their students.

Ill give my thoughts as a student. The teacher I have is a woman with very small hands who has a doctorate and studied under the "resident artist" at our school, which the 'resident artist' is an accomplished concert pianist who still plays recitals (multiple hour long sessions) around 2-4 times a year. Now, while I have my private lessons with the woman, I also attend a "masterclass" sort of setting with the resident artist, so I get both worlds so to speak. In the master class the students enrolled are required to perform a certain number of times throughout the year which he will evaluate their playing, and usually he plays the parts which they are struggling on to aid them. Or he will play a piece that he will use to teach a lesson to us with. I respect this teacher simply because I have heard him play. I know that he can play well and teach well so it is to my benefit to give the utmost respect and attention when he is teaching.
My lesson teacher I have never heard actually play a piece beginning to end, although when she does play during my lesson it usually is not polished, which is expected. As well the parts that I struggle with would be difficult to pick up cold and sight read. However, I am learning so much, and making great progress, which lets me know that she is a good teacher.
So the talk about a teacher performing to benefit the teaching I think would only be significantly beneficial to someone who is pursuing a skill such as concertizing. Otherwise if my teacher can play rach 3, big deal! I can't yet.