I had started another thread about John Thompson and having to use it, but this whole experience has turned out quite positively. It turns out that my student now understands the danger of playing purely by finger number and is quite content to use Thompson, just because she is emotionally attached to it, as a supplement only.

Furthermore, it is working out rather nicely, because she is now using the grade one as finger exercises, which are developing an acceptable hand position, while my own materials are forcing her to work out music without the aid of fixed finger numbers. I started out with a student I did not think I would be able to teach at all, and she has turned out to be cooperative, curious and as making rather fast progress.

This is just one little story, but I thought it might be time for a few more "pleasant-suprise-stories", since so often we vent about problems we are having.

Gary: that's great to hear of your and her successes! I heard a new word the other day, a word that I had of course known before, but hadn't really used. This person said to celebrate your victories each day. This sounds like a victory for both of you! I think we have all been there: you have a student that has a particular issue and it seems as though you don't make any progress. You as a teacher start to feel bad about the lack of progress and try to find different ways of approaching the student, but all of them fail, week in and week out. Then suddenly, you land on the perfect solution for that student and that particular issue, and the veil lifts...it's all clear now. Congratulations to you and your student for sticking it out!

Glad it worked out, Gary. I will add that I am also glad that you were willing to go the extra distance to accommodate the student's desire to work with the Thompson book. As you know, there is frequent debate here and on AB forum about the extent to which students should be able to have input into curriculum choices. I am confident your student is much happier with her lessons--and much more likely to persist in piano--because you were willing to take her wishes into account, even though it has meant extra hassle for you.

Monika, Morodiene, thank you both for the encouragement.

In fact, I have always been open to all methods and all kinds of music. The only time I get my back up is when I sense that something destructive is happening, or will happen unless I make a change.

This particular student was so adamant about wanting to use John Thompson that I confused her enthusiasm for stubbornness, which was purely my fault. In addition, there is a minor language barrier.

When I expressed my frustration with John Thompson, it was about the series as a method, terribly flawed, but not about the music contained in it. As I have stated before, I have used at least a couple pieces from nearly every method book on the market and from several no longer in print. In fact, the greatest strength any kind of method has, in my opinion, is flexibility and richness of materials. Therefore my own "method" is not a method in the traditional sense at all but rather a collection of materials graded in a way that makes sense to me and including ANYTHING I find that is not under copyright and supplemented with countless books and other materials that I throw into the mixture.

I look at music a lot like reading/writing. We all have natural paths determined by our personalities, and from there we branch out, in time to new things that are a bit less comfortable but also challenging and intriguing. So, for instance, someone who is in love with New Age and starts out with little interest in anything else may move towards some of the Romantic composers, movie scores, and so on.

I started with a love of 19th century Romanticism even before I had a piano lesson (I did not know that, but it was a natural path for me), and I was very resistant to the Classical and Baroque periods, which seemed tame and dry to me. If I had had a teacher who had forced me to play Mozart and Bach, I believe I would have quit. Instead, I moved towards those composers later, and I moved forward, towards the much edgier sounds of the 20th century in my own time, eventually developing a great love of Bartok.

The point is that if we allow students to at least participate in their own path towards playing, I think it works better for them, and I think it is much more rewarding for us, as teachers, since we are often introduced to new music THROUGH them.

I just this moment realized that I named this thread:

"Unepected breakthroughs that are unexpected"

Do any of the rest of you ever want to scream, "I'm not really illiterate, it's just that my fingers are possessed by Satan."

LOL

Aren't you glad you didn't study with me? Ha!

Several years ago, I decided to teach Bach to everyone in my studio. It worked well for a period of time, and I could literally hear students improve after learning just one Bach piece. I'm glad I stuck with that idea.

Mozart, though, is not for everyone. I had a student do the F Major Sonata two years ago--it was cacophony. I had him try the C Minor Sonata. Disaster. C Minor Fantasy. Even worse. I decided he just doesn't have the temperament required to play Mozart. Well, I'm happy to see a breakthrough recently: he has gained enough control of tone and is now able to work on K. 333 with no problems.

Now I'm curious...
What kind of temperament do you need?

Gary D. Are you talking about the missing x? People read for sense not phonics (which is why proof-reading is quite tricky) and so this kind of thing slips past everyone most of the time - I didn't even notice it was missing until you confessed that Satan has you in his thrall.

Actually, I never saw the missing "x". I was concentrating on:

"Unexpected breakthroughs that are unexpected"

It should have been:

"Breakthroughs that are unexpected"

AH - well, then... That's what I thought you meant, actually, and my response to that is that I noticed it and read it as a hilarious retake of the previous thread - basically, I thought your repetition was witty, not evidence of Lucifer's influence over your extremities!!

1) Wit (I somehow find Mozart wittier than Haydn)
2) Generosity
3) Finesse
4) Absolute control of tone, articulations, and dynamics
5) Vocal feeling
6) Occasional drift into the virtuoso

It's funny how some kids naturally play Mozart really really well. I hated Mozart when I was younger. My college professor re-introduced me to Mozart.

AZNpiano, I agree - it's a rare child who has the temperament to play Mozart, and I like your list of qualities that equip one to play Mozart well....

One additional thought: Mozart often is "no-glory". It usually sounds and looks ridiculously simple, and when it is played really well, it all seems effortless. And because it is tonal, lacking the kind of bombastic sound effects and complicated, chromatic displays that became all but the norm by the mid 19th century, even non-musicians hear obvious "clams".

In short, there are a million ways to ruin Mozart, but non-musicians think it is nothing special when Mozart is played well, because his music sounds so deceptively easy.

Also in complete agreement with that assessment, Gary D.! SO TRUE!!!!

Well, I just heard a live performance of Mozart by a local professor.

While her control and phrasing were impeccable, and obviously much planning went into her dynamics and phrasing, something was clearly lacking: TONE! I've played on that same, glorious instrument before, so I know Mozartian tone can be achieved on it.

Her Romantic/Impressionist and Modern pieces were much more convincing.

Maybe this little Mozart love-fest deserves its own thread...

I got to hear Mitsuko Uchida perform Mozart a couple weeks ago, and every single note she played was painting a beautiful picture. It was so captivating. I didn't know Mozart could be played so exquisitely.

I'm going to hear her play Mozart on Thursday. I'm so looking forward to this!

But not all of those are part of a person's temperament, are they? It seems that some are traits which can be developed over time. (I think of temperament as something that is a relatively unchanging part of someone's personality.)

I always find Mitsuko Uchida a very charismatic performer and a truly wonderful communicator when talking about music. There are a few clips on YouTube of her being interviewed. Even when she is talking in German (with subtitles) she is still someone who I learn from and come away inspired by her. She is completely fluent in English (her home is in London, unless she has moved recently), German and Japanese.

Years ago she used to be even more enthusiastic when interviewed - with almost an uninhibited teenager-like passion. Wonderful to hear.

I would say that as a player you have to have the ability to express the emotions that are peculiar to any composer.

For instance, you do not have to be an angry person to play Beethoven. You do not have to go around insulting everyone or display temper tantrums in order to establish yourself as a great player of Beethoven's music.

But you have to be able of expressing those emotions while playing, the violent emotions contrasted with unbelievable beauty and calm. You have to be good at expressing extremes. And so on.

So for Mozart you don't have to be witty, but you have to sense the wit in his music and have ability to express that as you play his music, or it will fall flat.

In other words, the point is not to *be* Mozart but to *express* his music with at least something approaching his richness of personality.

CPE Bach said 'A musician cannot move others unless he too is moved' (though he nicked that from Quintilian).