Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum teaching v performing

I once asked my piano teacher if she ever gives performances and she said no she does not have time. I then wondered whether if you are qualified enough to teach piano to a high standard, then you could have a career as a concert pianist since you know all there is to know about technique and can play piano to the required standard to get students through high exams.

I think someone on this site said the two are very different and you have to be trained as a performer.... so I am curious, if a piano teacher can also switch careers and become a concert pianist? Would they need to be re-trained as such. What is there to learn? If the teacher is good enough to get a student through a gruelling exam playing all the dynamics as they should, pedaling in the right way and so on, then surely they are qualified enough to play as a concert pianist with an orchestra. Forgive me if I am being silly here but do you need special training for playing with an orchestra? Is reading a score for orchestra different. I mean, you have to know when to stop and let the orchestra play and then know when to come in again and play your bit.

http://youtu.be/wWKTkByq2eE

This is a fine example of what I was talking about.... is the pianist following the orchestra or is the orchestra following the piano. I was told by my teacher that the pianist is the prime focus and the orchestra is merely accompanying them so the audience is primarilly there to hear the pianist.

adultpianist Offline
Full Member

Registered: 12/01/12
Posts: 213
I once asked my piano teacher if she ever gives performances and she said no she does not have time. I then wondered whether if you are qualified enough to teach piano to a high standard, then you could have a career as a concert pianist since you know all there is to know about technique and can play piano to the required standard to get students through high exams.

I think someone on this site said the two are very different and you have to be trained as a performer.... so I am curious, if a piano teacher can also switch careers and become a concert pianist? Would they need to be re-trained as such. What is there to learn? If the teacher is good enough to get a student through a gruelling exam playing all the dynamics as they should, pedaling in the right way and so on, then surely they are qualified enough to play as a concert pianist with an orchestra. Forgive me if I am being silly here but do you need special training for playing with an orchestra? Is reading a score for orchestra different. I mean, you have to know when to stop and let the orchestra play and then know when to come in again and play your bit.

_______________________________________________

The short answer is that general practioners know all about the body, but do you want them to do your open heart surgery?

Many awesome performers do not necessarily make enough money, so they also teach, too.

As a lawyer, you have a great opportunity to make millions of dollars. But if as a great lawyer, you are not good at finding clients, you could easily starve to death. Same as teachers of music or any other subject.

Everything seems to have a link to business. I always said you can get a real estate license but if you don't like working with people what's the purpose of the license. I think most performers teach on the side. Being a musician give you the opportunity to be a jack-of-all-musical trades. I've had my fair share.

rada

Sometimes it is "merely accompanying," sometimes more like a duet, sometimes the orchestra is carrying the soloist.

Consider though that every member of that orchestra put in the same level of effort to master their craft that the soloist did. Those section jobs are extremely competitive.

It's a lot harder to be a true concert pianist than a decent piano teacher.
(Estimate)
Percentage of piano-players who could be successful concert pianists, and actually make a living doing so? 0.000000001%
Percentage of piano-players who could be at least decent teachers? 10%

Keep in mind, also, the MARKET for both is extremely different. While there are probably many people who are *talented* enough to be concert pianists, the percentage is so low b/c there are literally like what, 10 full-time piano performers in the world? (that's probably an exaggeration. There is probably a lot more depending on who you consider falls in that category. Solo performers? Or even full-time orchestra pianists? etc.)

Hi Adult,

"I think someone on this site said the two are very different and you have to be trained as a performer"

I don't think that's true at all. In the conservatory, the initial path for teaching and performing is the same. You have lessons, you present a program at juried exams twice a year, you learn chamber music and vocal accompanying (and you perform these works from time to time), you study the same theory, and you must give a recital of one kind or another to get a degree. So the focus is still on performing, even if you do coursework in pedagogy. You just do less of it than a performance major.

Playing a concerto with orchestra takes the same skill as chamber music, except that you, the soloist, are usually the star of the show most of the time. That, and you can't let the orchestra cover you sonically so you have to project much more than in chamber music.

Throughout history, star performers have also taught because it's just very hard to make a living as a performer. Most performers also teach. Menachem Pressler and the Beaux Arts Trio gave, oh I don't know, 100+ concerts a year during the height of their career plus recordings? And they've all held the same teaching posts at Indiana University for more than 40 years.

Not to mention that over the last 60 years, the classical music industry is dying out. There are fewer orchestras and opera companies, there are fewer concert presenters and recital series, and classical music recordings don't make any money anymore and haven't for a long time. So more top performers teach now than they ever did.

Thinking about this a little more, actually... no! In some ways, teaching is HARDER than performing. (or at the very least, they simply require different skills, and many people don't have both.) I have been teaching for about a month two students (kids) who had previously been taught for a year by a grad-student in performing at a very prestigious music conservatory, and you'd think they'd be fantastic, right? Not. They can barely read music. One of them literally did not know a single letter name on the bass clef. Their previous teacher was clearly ONLY concerned with having them be able to play snazzy sounding pieces, and therefore how he appeared as a teacher. {shudder} I'm sure he is a fantastic piano player, but that certainly didn't make him a good teacher!

The average solo concert pianist probably has been to a conservatory.

The average neighborhood piano teacher, on the other hand....................

Teaching and performing are two separate skills. I have both a teaching degree and a performance degree, but I do not kid myself that I could actually ever make it as a concert artist.

Do I perform? Yes. I find it necessary to not only maintain my skills, but challenge myself on a deeper musical level. I take an occasional lesson just to get another view and to challenge my thinking.

Many people think they can just start teaching and be successful at it simply because they play decently. Not so. Teaching is demanding -- it takes physical and mental stamina, an incredible amount of preparation, people skills, business skills.

The expectation for those who teach at the college level is that they will continue to perform. In the academic world this is considered the equivalent of publishing. A typical teaching load for applied teachers—individual lessons—is about 18 contact hours per week. Add to that departmental, college and university responsibilities such as committees and other faculty advisory groups and office hours for counseling and the time can come to rather close to a 40 hour week. So, your teacher probably doesn't have time.

In order to maintain repertoire, never mind learn new works, it takes enough hours per day to make teaching and performing nearly two full time jobs. This of course does not take into consideration travel time and time away from students, which somehow has to be made up. For single people with no other life, this might be possible, at least until one or other of the jobs begins to suffer for lack of energy or interest. When I was an undergraduate I knew a faculty member, Lillian Steuber, who practiced three hours daily in the wee hours of the morning before she went to her studio to put in a full teaching schedule. During the time I was at the university, I heard her perform the cycle of Beethoven sonatas, for which she was celebrated, the Tchaikovsky concerto, two of the variations with orchestra from Liszt's Hexameron and a solo recital that included the Op. 25 Chopin etudes. Her playing was immaculate. This is a difficult life.

Performing is a calling. The love and study of music do not necessarily result in the ability or even a particular desire to perform. Playing the piano at a high level privately and performing publicly at the piano are two different mind sets. Both have value. Both can, but not necessarily, result in excellent teaching. I know fine pianists, brilliantly schooled in the how-tos and wherefores, who are very effective teachers but not so convincing as performers. And we all know those great masters, the ones students flock to for guidance because of their great artistry, the ones who may or may not know how they do it or how to explain it to someone else.

Performing with an orchestra is a collaboration between pianist and orchestra. The audience, presumably, comes to the concert to hear the music. Yes, a particular artist is a draw, but in the final analysis, it is about the music. The orchestra can sometimes provide a supporting role, but how would the music sound without it? The orchestra is not merely an accompaniment but rather a partner. The relationship between piano and orchestra can change depending on the particular work. In Chopin concertos, for example, the orchestra has a more supporting role; in Brahms the orchestra is an equal, symphonic partner. The pianist studies the score in the same way he/she would in a solo piece, working out the solo part and adding to that the orchestra's contribution, so that the entire work is in the soloist's consciousness. This is like an actor in a play who has to learn his speeches, but also those of his co actors.

red-rose, I have your post, here:

since you know all there is to know about technique and can play piano to the required standard to get students through high exams.

Thinking about this a little more, actually... no! In some ways, teaching is HARDER than performing. (or at the very least, they simply require different skills, and many people don't have both.) I have been teaching for about a month two students (kids) who had previously been taught for a year by a grad-student in performing at a very prestigious music conservatory, and you'd think they'd be fantastic, right? Not. They can barely read music. One of them literally did not know a single letter name on the bass clef. Their previous teacher was clearly ONLY concerned with having them be able to play snazzy sounding pieces, and therefore how he appeared as a teacher. {shudder} I'm sure he is a fantastic piano player, but that certainly didn't make him a good teacher!

____________________________________


Good teacher do not have to look for students. There is a waiting list of the best, gifted, and ambitious students waiting on a list for their chance to be taught.

I completely agree. Renowned jazz pianist Fresh Hersch has said (in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KTBTcu9Fww ) that Sophia Rosoff, his teacher of 30 years, has never once sat down and played the piano with two hands in front of him, yet was an incredible teacher. He's gone on to teach, himself, and has also stated that the two are extremely different crafts and teaching is most certainly not for everyone.

There are so many things wrong with that post, I don't know what else to say but to laugh.

Some concert pianists are good enough to get sufficient work. Look at this example.

http://helenegrimaud.com/concerts/all

Helene Grimaud is never short of work so that she has large gaps in between concerts. It is the same with acting. If you are good enough, people want you.

To be a concert pianist, in addition to being good, I think you have to be at the right place at the right time, look just right, have just the right connections. As with acting, you can fail to obtain a certain position through no fault of your own. You look too old, too young, too classical, too modern, you live too close, you are too exotic, you have too much money, you have too little money, you sneezed at the wrong time, you schmoozed too much, you didn't schmooze enough, etc.

Music is a very competitive game for a professional. I am content to play for pleasure and have a day job.

When a pianist plays with one of the most famous conductors in the world, the orchestra is following the conductor, not the pianist. The pianist and conductor have to be in agreement on just about everything, except when the pianist is playing alone (cadenaza, etc.), so the conductor and the pianist have to agree. If it is a up and coming pianist with a famous, egotistical conductor, the pianist will follow the conductor.

No. Once you have been "discovered" and get fame, people "want" you. Check out some high-paid stars, see how much they were "wanted" before they broke through. Do you assume that they could not act until the got a break?

That "some" would be less than 1%.