Actually, I have been reading them carefully, though it's possible that I have comprehension issues...

I don't HAVE a stereotype about teachers, classically-trained or not. Teachers are individual people and, as such, cannot be generalized about beyond what they have in common due to their training. In that light, then, I take issue with the statement quoted above: "We can offer everything!"

My experience (remember Monica K's "empiricism") is that SOME of you can offer everything. I know classically-trained teachers who can't play rock to save their lives. Oh, they can play the notes and approximate the tempo, but it's unmusical.

I know music teachers who can teach (and play) decent jazz improvisation, but who cannot play a credible Rach.3.

The generalizations I'd make about "classically-trained' piano teachers would be limited to:

They have a performance level of at least Grade 8 RCM (Canada).

They probably have a good basis in music theory and harmony, at least in the context of the classics.

They may have had a course or two in jazz harmony and improvisation or maybe not. I would expect them to be able to sight-read at about the grade 4-5 level RCM, possibly much more.

I would expect them to have at least a few courses in and some experience in piano pedagogy. Whether they can actually teach in a useful and inspiring way is an empirical matter, but I'd expect that they'd be able to get most students through the curricula they were familiar with.

While I would expect them to be able to read and play through ("type") most pop music, I wouldn't necessarily expect them to be able to play it convincingly. If they are able to, their technique and grasp of theory (and then probably the quality of their improvisations) would make tham far superior musicians to pop players without their training.

That's it. Those are my assumptions.

Arrogance, snobbery, close-mindedness, etc are attributes available to all of us, regardless of training or musical preference, and for the record, while I had one piano teacher who claimed to have been a "classical snob" when she just graduated with her B. Mus., she had gotten all better by the time she taught me. All my other music teachers had very broad tastes, though often a preference for the classics.

Can you teach someone how to play a Sorprano sax solo over a complete arrangement in any style they chose by pressing a button? Can you show someone how to use sequencing to create your own arrangements? Can you offer lessons on how to record,edit and create CDs of your creations on a PC or stand alone multi track recorder? Can you teach them mike technique if they want to sing and play? Many want to sing the melodies rather then play them. Should they seek out an Opera Singer to train them to sing as well?
I could claim if you are not doing all that you are not helping them do all they can do either.


I am not the one who invented those stereo types. They exist for a reason. I suggest one studies the source of them as they are often distorted generalizations of the truth. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Excuse me, but you're not teaching anything, and I wouldn't use the term "lessons" for what yu're doing. What you describe is showing people how to use machines they've bought from you.

YOu admited that you aren't very good at piano, and can't read. How can you justify taking money from people by saying you're "teaching them"?

If there's a problem with the list of piano teachers you give people in the store, then you're giving them the wrong list. Try finding out who the good teachers are, and give your customers a list of those people. You're not qualified to teach piano, yet you do. Part of the service you say your store provides is a list of good teachers, and you're not providig that. That's probably what you should address first.

[/b]

I guess the operative word would be "some". I apologize for thinking that you were indeed meaning "all." -- and I also wanted to distinguish myself as not belonging to this group of "some."

Posted by jutur :

"But keyboard, the "goal" of my soccer playing wasn't "to be a mediocre soccer player" - the goals, as I said, were to get some excercise, laugh with my friends, and be outside instead of inside (altho we did also play indoor soccer - like playing golf in a tile bathroom [Big Grin] ), and if one *has* to judge *those* goals on a scale of "did poorly" thru "did mediocrely (sp?)" to "excelled" I'd say I excelled. But *I* don't feel like I have to make that judgement. "

That's fine, but you didn't pay someone a professional rate to teach you how to play soccer at a mediocre level.

I don't think your saying if you HAD the time you'd take soccer lessons, your saying you don't wish to improve - or am I wrong? Thinking you can go out and GET some exercise, laugh with friends, be outside is a very American thing. You can't buy (obtain) these things - they come freely and unbidden supplement to an authentic activity. They are the bird you kiss as it flys. You're there to play soccer.

But I *did* pay someone, at probably a professional rate, to lead a workshop on how to play piano at what you might consider a mediocre level -

Cathy

No sweat. In fact part of my outrage at the snippet I quoted was that it discredited the not inconsiderable dedication --let alone mastery of the instrument and music in general-- that is required to succeed in a "classical" music education by perpetuating the tired old stereotypes.

And while I understand the resentment that people who have undergone the discipline can have to those they perceive as poseurs who undermine their profession --I'm prety snippy with hacks who try to teach my students incorrectly-- I have learned to avoid feeling threatened when someone gives a student a superficial or even flawed "quick course" to get them started using the equipment that forms the basis of science courses I teach in. With the proviso that they're not going to break my $500,000 machine, of course!

I would think that any teachers who can provide what Pianitis does --and perhaps better than he-- AS WELL AS being able to offer all the other dimensions of musicianship, would look at his intial post, shrug and say "Nice work if you can get it" and go about training real musicians...

I don't think your saying if you HAD the time you'd take soccer lessons, your saying you don't wish to improve - or am I wrong? Thinking you can go out and GET some exercise, laugh with friends, be outside is a very American thing. You can't buy (obtain) these things - they come freely and unbidden supplement to an authentic activity. They are the bird you kiss as it flys. You're there to play soccer. [/QB][/QUOTE]

Well, keyboard, perhaps we have reached the philosophical divide here - and you may not even agree with that - but for me, no, I wasn't there "primarily" to play soccer. I was there to be with friends and get some excercise. Soccer may have been the vehicle that particular time, and climbing a "fourteener" (a 14,000 foot mountain) may have been the vehicle other times, but the primary reason I was doing it was the exercise and the friends. And yes, "improving" wasn't really a consideration. To each their own -

This is a fun thread, isn't it?

Cathy

" I would think that any teachers who can provide what Pianitis does --and perhaps better than he-- AS WELL AS being able to offer all the other dimensions of musicianship, would look at his intial post, shrug and say "Nice work if you can get it" and go about training real musicians..."


Well said, Pastafarian!

I think Cathy your probably in the majority, though I'd hate to be your coach. It's why I gave up playing in amateur orchestras.

What I can't get my head round is why anybody would conclude that unless you're committed to becoming an expert at any endeavour you shouldn't do it at all.

There are a lot of domains where I simply don't have the time or interest to be anything BUT mediocre, e.g., sewing; drawing; cooking (well, I'd rate myself a better than mediocre chef but by no means an expert); chess; sports; computer know-how; etc. etc. Does that mean I don't enjoy doing these things? Not at all. Does it mean I shouldn't even be attempting to do those things at all? I'd argue vehemently that it does not. Does it mean I'm not aware I could be better if I invested the time and effort? Not at all. It simply means that I am okay accepting the fact that I won't learn everything there is to learn in a particular domain. And I don't need to take lessons from Emeril to learn how to make banana bread.

People have different goals for what they want to be able to do in music, and some people have goals that don't measure up to the lifetime mastery that has been described here. That doesn't mean their goals are wrong.

I can understand the time problem but the interest? I disagree, if your not interested don't do it.

"And I don't need to take lessons from Emeril to learn how to make banana bread."

That's true -- but I wouldn't expect to pay "Emeril-level" rates (or even close) to learn how to make banana bread from the lady down the street (and she does make good banana bread!).

"Interest" isn't an all or nothing variable, keyboardklutz. I wasn't saying I wasn't interested at all, only that there are domains like cooking where I wasn't interested in becoming an expert. That's a big difference to me. I'm still interested in those domains and feel good about engaging in those activities, even if an expert would say I was "mediocre" in ability.

We didn't have a coach There was a recreational league put together for folks like me. For folks like you, and there were plenty, there was a competitive league. For folks like my niece there are even more competitive leagues, up to and including pre-Olympic and beyond. That's the way I did *soccer* - as I said, for other things I put in more time and commitment. I certainly do for music. But you might not enjoy being in the band I play music with. That's fine. I'm happy for you if can play music with folks of your calibre and your aspirations, and it might be that I'd enjoy your music. It might be that your music wouldn't be good at all to dance contras to. Mine is. To each his own.

Gee, I haven't gotten any work done today

Cathy

It may not be possible to explain this to you. That's not a bad thing, necessarily, it is admirable to want to be as good as possible at what one does.
Anyway, to take an example from my own life: it is useful (and interesting to me) to learn about many of my colleagues' and students' areas of research. I find most of them interesting enough to pull a couple of current summaries (called "review articles") of what's what in their field.
Reading a review article in no way makes you an expert in a field. To be world class in knowledge about something takes years of study and thinking about it from various points of view, weighing evidence.
In academia it involves doing research, submitting and having it rejected (and eventually accepted) by the peer-review process.

But even if we stop before the research stage, I have no interest (even if it were possible) in settling controversies between various schools of thought, slogging through hundreds, even thousands (want to become an AIDS expert?) of journal articles to accumulate minutiae about a topic that is not my life's work , or anything more than a mild interest.

Once the mild interest is satisfied, I can explore other things in life without the desire to become an expert.

The same applies to everything I do: sure, I'd like to be a better golfer, tennis-player, carpenter, pianist, etc. but I only have so much time. So to make the most of my time, I don't want to spend my whole life "paying dues". I'd rather do the best I can at the time, while being very happy in my mediocrity.

If a lack of skill is interfering with my enjoyment, then I'll do the cost-benefit analysis of what it takes to improve.

Usually, I'll conclude that I don't need to improve to get what I want out of an activity.

Piano falls into the category of things that i want to improve at and will "suffer" a little for.

That stops short of Hanon, though. :p

Remove the time constraints and it IS all or nothing.

But since we can't, it isn't.

So, why say this Monica - There are a lot of domains where I simply don't have the time or interest to be anything BUT mediocre,??

Maybe this whole issue is about trying to teach students by following their interests and working from there to give a music education. I see many students who come from important teachers in town (one even sports "I have performed at Carnigie Hall" on their business cards). These students are on the verge of quitting because the Alfreds method book was all the repertoire they were given. 3 lessons on material they want to play puts the joy back in it and now they are willing to eagerly learn again. In the process, there is room to talk about all the important aspects that make for good musicianship.

I belong to the local teachers group. It seems that most of them do stick to a rigid method. I am trying to change that from inside but I do not see much acceptance to broadening their perspective by the members of the group. Student numbers are going down, by the hundreds at 1 local retailer. I am assuming it is because the teachers are not meeting the demands of their pupils.

Pianitis must have something that other teachers in the neighbourhood are not providing since students come looking for him and he doesn't advertise his teaching service. Perhaps being good sightreaders is just not on the agenda of his students. Anyone with great asperations will hit the wall soon enough and be forced to learn reading. Sounds to me like Pianitis might even know where to direct them when they get to that point.

What he charges for his time is really nobody's business but his own.

You need to do some homework here and read the entire thread before chiming in late with nonsense.

BTW It is not MY decision, nor YOURS, who is a "good" teacher. That would be up to the student. Good for me may be terrible for you. IN fact I am sure they would be. I give them a list they do the interviewing.

If it's solely up to the students to assess what is or is not good teaching then surely we DO have the lunatics running the asylum.

The dirty little secret rears it's head. LOL
You don't understand.Its the STUDENTS who must meet the demands of the teachers!!!!Some old school teachers still think that way.
All I have to offer is alterntive. Nothing more nothing less. I think 10 students is almost too maNY. I could never keep track of 30 student's individuial needs and requirenments. I guess thats where the "methods" come in. People who want to read music can get that skill from any piano teacher. I can see how difficult it is for traditional teacher to accept anything but tried and true methods by their responses. "It cannot be done" "It should not be done" "Its too expensive" and my personal favorite He will INJURE the poor people,

This thread has become required reading for those who are taking lessons from me.
You would think that would be as non relavant as paying $5000 for a watch is to someone's self esteem.

Keyboard Klutz: I guess that makes me a lunatic.
Do you hand out the certifications?

As an aside, I collaborated very briefly in trying to sow the seeds of some of Pete the Bean's ideas with some local piano teachers, who were not the hidebound, one-track-mind monsters of the stereotypes, but just comfortable with what they knew and not persuadable to try a different curriculum.

I don't know if it is related, but at about the same time, I decided that I wasn't benefiting anymore from the services of a young, talented, well-trained (Master's in Harmony and Composition) piano teacher, in view of my particular set of goals. That's not to say I didn't pick up a few technical tips and re-think how I approached my material of choice, but just that I felt as though I was making more progress on my own.

What is new about teaching to the students needs and abilities? I don't use method books - ever. I use music supplements from music education composers with styles and rhythms, we learn performance from the start. What we sound like and how entertaining we are is not ignored. Classical comes later when mastery of basic notation, fundamental theory, acquiring technique to control the body and mind is understood and used. There is a vast library of music choices to support this.

As far as arrogant goes, I'll look it up for complete clarification. I would prefer "opinionated" and "articulate". I don't write poorly, or communicate poorly, I don't consider my viewpoint to be anything than what represents myself and my thinking.

I feel that teachers are out of necessity defensive on the issues in this thread.

Betty

I'm afraid there isn't one for those who don't do the course.

Keyboard Klutz:
It is entirely up to the student what it is they want to learn. They are paying the bucks.

In one sense, but whose going to lead them to water?

I think you should educate yourself about what piano teaching is - you have demonstrated several misconceptions, as have been pointed out - and find out who the good teachers in your area are. You're not qualified. I agree with the person who said you have no basic respect for your "students" or for piano playing.

Anyway, I don't have a horse in this race. I was just lucky to have had very good teachers who when I said "I only want to learn this," they pushed back a little. Guess what. I found out I did want to learn more, and in order to, I needed a teacher who knew what they were doing.

When people are beginners - know little about something, and have not acquired skills - they may not know what they want to do when they acquire some skills. It's human nature to want to push yourself a little.