Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Not sure what to do here, parent only wants mediocrity

I have been giving my nephew free lessons for the past year and have spent most of the time focusing on rythm, sight reading (note recognition), fingering, musicality, in addition to general practicing concepts.

I spoke to my sister about the idea that I would like to spend more time focusing on scale drills and arpeggios etc... to prepare him for more difficult works.

Her response to me was, "well he's very busy doing other things and I just want him to be able to play some church hymns if he is asked to, not that I want him to be a great pianist, and i dont think he would want to play those things anyway".

Dagger through my heart!! Im not sure if I should feel like Im wasting my time doing something when they dont appreciate it on the same level as I do.

I love my nephew but Im not the type of teacher who lavishes praise on you for playing the piece poorly. He can stay home and get that from them if thats what they are satisfied with.

I guess when do you stop giving lessons to students that just want to learn the basics or dont really want to excell? I mean Do you see yourself as wanting to just go over the same concept on the beginner level forever?

IMO you're merging issues. First issue is economics. What is the value of your time and knowledge to your sister and her son? If you answered anything other than zero, then you probably don't understand economics very well. What is easily available at little or no cost has no perceived value. Sand in a desert, weeds in the fertile valley, air, water, etc., are common examples. Were you to now tell your sister that the gravy train has left the station, and from now on, your nephew will pay for lessons and be part of your studio following exactly the same rules as all other students, there'd be a major attitude shift. Most likely, they'd quit lessons (in a huff). And that would tell you exactly how much they truly value your efforts.

A second issue, very common to people not educated in the arts, is that foundation material, which you want to teach your nephew, is somehow superfluous. Sort of like going to a flying school and learning how to fly, but refusing to learn how to take off and land, because someone else can do that. You shouldn't take that as a personal affront, but rather explore ways to convey the importance of learning basics, regardless of what the student might want to play in the future.

It sounds like you are asking your sister if it is okay to do this or that in the lesson. I would just teach them the way you think is best without asking permission. Beggars can't be choosy...

I agree. You can teach him scales and arpeggios and Beethooven, Bach, Mozart, Chopin... secretely! ;-D

Your sister doesn't think that scales will help with playing hymns?

So why is it exactly that you are teaching instead of her - could it be you have greater skills? So trust them.

You should not feel like you are wasting your time at all! You didn't say how old your nephew is or why you started teaching him. Are you both enjoying the lessons together? Has he told you what he wants to learn?

Most of my piano parents don't understand the value of much of what I teach. They do trust and respect me and are very supportive but don't all have a musical background that would give them that understanding. Sometimes I have the opportunity to explain things but they usually don't ask and are content to leave the teaching and musical progress in my hands.

It sounds like you don't have that full appreciation and support from your sister (and what John said about cost and perceived value is true), but if your nephew is learning to play and lessons are going well why wouldn't you continue?

I'm not convinced about that analogy. Learning to take off and land -- particularly to land -- is the biggest part of a new pilot's training. If you can't land your plane well enough to use it again then you can't claim to be any sort of pilot.

I think a better analogy would be learning to fly a single-engine plane so you can spray your crops, with no plans ever to fly commerical operations in an airliner. I do wonder if a lot of early musical training is too much aimed at the musical equivalent of budding airline pilots.

Where I live nearly all kids have piano lessons -- it's just a thing you do, like school. Only a tiny fraction will ever become professional musicians, or even enthusiastic amateur players. Most drop the piano in their teenage years.

I wonder if treating all these kids as potential concert pianists really does them any favours? They often don't enjoy playing their instruments and see it as a chore. Perhaps if there were more teachers who could work at the level of 'mediocrity' (which I prefer to interpret as 'realistic goals for a teenager with no particular musical ambition'), more kids would keep up their intruments into adult life.

Having said all that, I was slightly concerned about this statement:

"...and I just want him to be able to play some church hymns if he is asked to..."

Playing for churches is not, I think, a trivial undertaking. It's a highly specialised job, and I've seen accomplished classical pianists struggle with it.

Hey, Kevin, I'm always open to better, more appropriate analogies. To me, being able to play evening, finger to finger, key to key, is an essential part of piano technique, so much so that I'm often put off by pianists who can play otherwise difficult music, but are unable to play even a few notes evenly in succession.

About playing for church - FWIW, in the past few years, I've had a number of new students who parents made that exact statement (I just want him to be able to play some church hymns). In addition to explaining to parents that this is much harder than they imagine, I explain to the parents that I teach basic technique using a classically based repertoire approach (because it works and has decades of proven success) but what students choose to play for fun, recreation, etc., is entirely up to them. They will be well equipped to do so. Perhaps when confronted by parents who have this expectation, it would do teachers well to explain just why it's harder than they, the parents, image. Most students will experience extreme performance anxiety; your technique needs to be several levels more advanced, so that you're not hesitating or pausing, even for an instant, while playing. Church instruments are notorious for being poorly maintained and are often undersized, so the player has additional handicaps to overcome. The list goes on . . . .

kevinb, I totally agree with you. What I see in our area is quite similar to what you see: many kids learn musical instruments through private lessons (many choose piano), all learn instruments at school (it's required in our public schools). Most parents think it's important to give the kids an exposure to music, but few take it seriously in the sense of developing excellent skills, even fewer have professional aspirations. For kids who spend very little time on instrument practice, what is the most meaningful way for them to use the time? How important is it for them to acquire skills in preparation for advanced repertoire? How important is it for them to acquire basic abilities to entertain themselves? And how important is it for them to acquire an appreciation for music as a form of art? How should teachers set priorities?

I’m often amazed when I see teachers complain about parents’ ignorance about music education. Private instrument lessons have existed for many generations, and free music education in public schools has also been around for many years. If the vast majority of today’s parents are still ignorant about even the most basic things in music education, what went wrong with the music education that they received as kids?

I’m not saying that the OP should not teach scales and arpeggios to her nephew. All I’m saying is that the mom’s point is worth thinking about.

What bubble do you live in?? Free, public music education is no longer the norm. You are lucky that your school district hasn't cut the arts completely!

Because of the recent economic meltdown? How does that affect the quality of the music education that today's parents received when they were kids?

Actually, the arts have been under fire ever since NCLB (or, no child left untested). Many school districts channel money toward remedial math and language arts programs in order to stay afloat. In my district, you may take elective classes only if you can score "proficient" on the state tests. 66% of the school district is "basic" or "far below basic." These kids have either two math classes or two language arts classes per day.

There are also a lot of immigrant parents who have never received any musical education in their native country. I once called up a parent and this parent doesn't even know what "chorus" is in her native language!

In my private studio, parents who have received continuous music education are much better informed than those who haven't had a music class since third grade (if at all).

They tried to cut my home district's music program to balance the budget. In 1992.
The rationale was, if people really wanted music lessons, they could pay for private lessons. Luckily that didn't fly. But it's always a threat - cut the "frills" and get "back to basics".

I'm sure they will, given sufficient time and commitment. I just wonder if there are quicker ways to get to the 'fun' stage, for people who are never, ever going to want to play serious art music. I concede that 'fun' is a vague concept, and that some of the things that kids (or parents) think amounts to 'fun' musicianship are actually surprisingly difficult.

I've never taught piano, but I have taught karate to kids and teenagers, and think there is an analogy there. Many kids said they want to learn karate because it would be useful for self defence. I told them that, in fact, karate is a long-term proposition, and is actually a self-defence liability in the short term. On the other hand, there are people who specialise in teaching practical street self-defence (and threat avoidance) techniques which actually work, and can be learned in weeks.

A kid who can follow a single-line melody in the treble clef and bang out a few chords from a lead sheet is reasonably equipped to make music with school friends, etc. I do know a couple of teachers who specialize in this kind of thing and, although it's never going to lead to Carnegie Hall, they do seem to be able to retain their students past the age of 13, which is pretty unusual around here.

I agree entirely that the methods you use are well-tested and have proven successful -- but they are proven at delivering success in a particular kind of musicianship.

I'm just guessing, of course -- I'm not sure how well my experience of teaching karate extends to the piano

At the entry level, the basics of playing piano are essentially the same regardless of whatever genre of music the person wants to play later on.

Its the same keyboard layout,, same notation, etc. etc., and the same hands and fingers that need development so they work in a relaxed and controlled manner.

Neither am I, but I'd love to see your chops!

I'd agree that some certainly are. But there are some skills that may be useful to the amateur music maker in the rock/pop genres that are not really taught in the standard classical program -- improvistaion, following a lead sheet, the importance of maintaining rhythmic flow even at the expense of inaccurate notes and (perhaps most important) ensemble playing. These skills are only to a limited extent extensions of what most kids learn in piano lessons.

That's why we teachers often argue over the merits of this method or that method. The ones I use do include these elements. That's why so many of us stress learning scales, chords, arpeggios, etc., because these are essential elements for improv. When methods don't include these elements, it's incumbent upon the teacher to add them. When teachers fail to do so, it's not the process that's wrong, it's the teacher who is short-changing his student.

All of those things such as playing w/an ensemble, improv, etc follows the basics, which the classical method does very well.

Plus, the students I have had who transferred from via a more "pop" program all had a poor grasp of the basics, whereas those from a classical training were all much more grounded in the basics .
S

Most recreational piano students will not appreciate lessons on the same level as us unless they're music majors. This is common in recreational piano lessons, especially if they're young.




Yes because sometimes it's fun for them. It's not all about what's gratifying for me.

Piano lessons don't have to be a furious climb to the top of Mt. Beethoven. Pitch a tent on a plateau and enjoy the scenery full of nothing but sonatinas for six months. Walk to the other side to study movie themes for another six months. As a musical sherpa, I would go this route.