Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Self taught piano player teaching non traditional methods due to need...

I was actually going to bring this analogy up in my earlier post but decided it would be too much of a hijack... so I'm glad you gave me this opening. Here's how it operates in most states: The term "psychologist" is protected, and the practice of psychology is governed by state licensing boards. You cannot call yourself a "psychologist" unless you have been licensed by the state (which requires an appropriate degree from an accredited program and passing state licensing exams). So even though I have a ph.d. in psychology, I am not a "psychologist" because I don't have a clinical license. (This is something I stress any time anybody on the forum asks me a clinically-relevant question.)

However, the term "therapist" is not governed. Any Joe Blow off the street can hang out a shingle and call himself a therapist and charge whatever he wants for "therapy." And you see some pretty bizarre "therapists" (e.g., past-life regression and the like) out there.

As you can no doubt guess, this causes "real" clinicians no amount of consternation. And it puts the onus on the client to learn the difference between a licensed and non-licensed practitioner.

Piano teaching is also not governed by a licensing board. So like it or not, there is nothing stopping Pianitis from calling him or herself a piano teacher.

Hijack over... to get back to the debate, when I start my son on piano lessons, I will find a teacher like you Chris, or John, or any of the other highly conscientious teachers on this forum. I would want my son to have a solid grounding in the basics.

But for the adult who has no interest in learning anything but the easy play by ear method that Pianitis is offering, I see nothing wrong at all with what he's doing.

Hmm.. "caveat emptor", I guess.

Well, I see something wrong with it. As much as yes, the client is responsible for knowing their options I still think people should be honest. To charge that much for something that could either be done much cheaper, or at the same price get that service along with someone with more experience and knowledge (like Minaku's example), isn't what I like to see.

Actually, I just don't agree with the premise that there is this need for an alternative - at the place I learn, anyways, there are plenty of teachers who will teach adults whatever they want to learn, I see advertisements for jazz courses, ear training courses all the time. These people are very experienced, university graduates, but with specific interests outside of classical, and yet don't charge 25$ per lesson...Looking at Pianitis' posts I can't see anything he offers that I can't already get if I wanted to...

If he makes this clear than I don't see a problem with it....but it seems like he would be leading his clients to a conclusion by saying "hey, if you're tired of boring scales and the drone of a metronome...I have a solution" etc...doesn't seem honest to me...

Chris asked Monica:

"Now let me ask you a question. Let's say I knew someone with emotional or mental health problems. Would it be OK for me to offer to act as their therapist and charge them 'the going rate' for the privilege? I am not a psychologist like you but I think I know enough about it to give it a go. Where's the harm in that? I might even offer a slight reduction for those who can't afford someone qualified."

Monica, I've been thinking the same thing that Chris said since I read your first response which is kind of a 'live and let live' approval of teaching by someone with limited skills. Teaching? Demonstrating? Programming?

If your receptionist (were you in private therapy and counseling business) who had 6 months of experience working for you, picked up the jargon without understanding at the depth you understand (qualified) and could expound on only what the people wanted to hear, and ended treatment of the customers when she ran out of things to say, left your employ and set up business in your building, charging what you charge per appointment - would that rattle your personal cage?

Hypothetical? Maybe, but my interpretation above of how others in different fields might relate and react to a situation like ours here.

People keep referring to what we do as a "business" and it seems anything goes in business. I think most of us teaching thing of it as "an educational art form and passing of a legacy one being to another being - involving brain and body and spirit."

We are not in the "entertain yourself business" we are working with the whole being of a person, creating a musician who is an independant thinking and can follow his path to become the best musician he knows how to be.

I think there is a huge,huge difference - and unfortunately most novices will take the "fun" and "easy" approach lacking the information to know the difference of projected results.

This issue smacks of salesmanship, demonstrating an instrument to make it even approachable by the self-learner, charging comporable fees to professional and experienced teachers. All the while calling it a business.

I don't consider myself to be in business - I do enough to make good decisions business wise, and I submit to the IRS my accounting, but I am not "in business". I am in "music education", I am a piano teacher. Many of us have students for years of study, we accomplish things together. Many of us have decades of experience. We're here for the long run.

This is a "start up business" were getting excited over. This is someone, primarily a salesman, demonstrating the clavinova to people who need help finding the on switch.

Those that choose this are welcome to it. They are choosing not to be a knowledgable, finessed musician in their own right, and they are paying top money for the privilege.

Betty

HONESTY is the importand word here!

If Pianitis is upfront and honest and clear about what he's going to teach then other's should just MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS!

What are we Piano Teachers afraid of? A little competition!

If we are confident teachers, students will come our way and we are not going to be afraid of someone taking on a few students. There are enough students to go around!

Also, someone should read all this to Ray Charles because he wouldn't be able to read any of it! I'm sure glad someone didn't stop him from taking lessons!

Diane, Pianitis came on here asking our opinoin, and we are giving it, so "minding one's own business" wasn't the original purpose of the post. No one (well, I speak for myself) is afraid of anything, except that what Pianitis is doing may be damaging to the students, whether or not they realize it at first, or ever. No one feels threatened, becasue we obviously all have our own teaching businesses and aren't worried that Pianitis is taking them from us even if we happened to live in the same area.

And no one is suggesting anything about stopping people from taking lessons. Music should be encouraged for all who wish to study it, to whatever extent. But they should be encouraged to learn from someone knowledgable enough to teach them what they need to learn to obtain their goals. That is what people are taking issue with.

Sorry to disappoint you but Ray Charles is dead. Died in 2004.

Once again I don't have a problem with what Pianitis is doing. Maybe my view is largely based on the negative experience with my second piano teacher as a child/early teenager. It took a great leap of faith and confidence to reach to the point where I now currently have a piano teacher (a traditional teacher). Personally when my children are old enough to have piano lessons I would prefer for them to have traditional instruction. I realize piano instruction may have changed for the better compared to when I was doing lessons as a child. So hopefully my children will not suffer the way I did when I did lessons as a child. (It was not uncommon for some of the children who took lessons from this teacher to come to the lessons in tears and leave the lessons in tears as well. While I don't recall crying at lessons for many years even as an adult I felt like a complete moronic idiot around the piano thanks to this teacher's constant putdowns.) Unfortunately there are many adults like me who had negative experiences as children with piano lessons. These adults now have children and even grandchildren. These adults may more likely seek non-traditional methods such as what Pianitis is doing for their children based on their own experiences.

While there will always be very strong views by the issues raised let us not forget that whether we are traditional teachers/learners or non-traditional teacher/learners we are all in the minority in undertaking an endeavor (piano playing) that many persons in today's society consider irrelevant. Also many people dream of being able to play the piano or some other musical instrument but for whatever reason do not accomplish their desires. On these forums we continue to demonstrate that piano learning while frustrating at times takes a lot of effort and time but can and should be fun. That's why it is called "playing the piano."

So if I wanted t go to Ray Charles or Erroll Garner or Blake, Wonder...and the rest of accomplished successful keyboard player for "lessons" to play like they do I would have to consider them unqualified and myself "damaged"? They can't see if my body is rigid and my wrists "fluid".........Yikes.

Sorry. I do not SOLICIT students. This is not my living. I worked with one 15 year old and it went from there. I have only 10 people non under 15 most over 40. I do not want any more although there are more who are willing to come by.

Chris I am sorry but you are the embodiment "classic" elitist. One way the right way. It does not work that way in the Arts. There are those who if painted and submitted Sunflowers today in a college exam would not get the "Masterpiece" designation of Van Gogh.

Good music is a matter of personal opinion, not "professional" opinion. Is Erroll Garner MORE professional then Mr Brooks or Chris because he has sold a ton of his work to the "unsuspecting" public who do not realize he cannot read a note?

The GRAND assumptions
1. I cannot play anything people want to play.
2. I have to convince people traditional methods are bad. I Don't. They convince me. They are perhaps lazy (as was I) They do not like to play what others already wrote (as did I) They do not enjoy classical music (like myself)

3. People will be destroyed and never recover nor find a teacher to fix their broken hands and minds.

4. You have to have had years of training and classical critique in order to teach. Bah...

All my "students" want to do is learn some theory and play what THEY HEAR. If I teach them chord construction and scales all they have to figure out is the melody by ear if they want to play another's work.

Thats what I do. I can do it all in 6 months. I hear motivated kids playing the guitar all day long. Playing well! Playing leads of the greats (many of whom never took formal guitar lessons) note for note. The enjoy the process of ear training. As did I.

Playing the piano is not a science. There are no absolutes although traditionalists keep searching for them. The day ART becomes an abosolute is the day Art ceases to exist. Music is an Art. There is no right or wrong there is just different.

Jazz breaks traditional rules. As does Rock. Rules set by who? Mozart? Chopin? What about Lennon, Tori Amos? The are the bar for many. Not 18th century musicians.

I will not encourage those who come to me for help to seek out what they are coming from or worse do not want. I will tell them its a great way to get well rounded instruction. They don't want it. Those who do ask me for a teachers list. I do not solicit "business"


It is my guess you cannot face the reality that some people given the choice choose to play by ear and do not want to become virtuoso pianists.

Sir only an elitist snob would understand what "riff raff" really is. There are no such people in the world to me. Everyone is equally relevant. I charge because that's what my time is worth, In fact my time is worth far more. People will learn to do what they want to do in far less time then if they were to pay a traditional teacher for a year, at then end of which they may be able to play Fur Elise "correctly". Some People find disciplined study in the Arts like opposing forces.

Who did the 'greats" take lessons from?

Pianitis: You sure know how to get a thread going! I have taught nontraditional lessons for the last 25 years. If you are doing such a terrible job at helping people enjoy music and not give them anything of value, I would suggest that you would be out of business in a short time.

Since they keep coming back, you must be giving them something more than your rugged good looks and a charming personality.

At a recent piano convention put on by the local teachers association the highlight speaker was workshopping a book on playing by chord patterns. He sold 170 copies of his book in an hour. He was considered a new revolutionary approach by many in the crowd. It sounds sort of like your method.

I have seen too many students who are on the verge of quitting because their teacher did not know how to step out of the traditional teaching method. For me, it is a privledge to bring back the joy in learning about music to them.

Although you keep calling other people these names, Pianitis, your last post sound far more "snobbish" to me than any of the ones written by Betty Patnude, or Minaku. Especially when you start talking about classical music. Maybe that's something you should think about...

I assume your "grand assumptions" generalizations are based off someone else's post and not mine...

All of these kind of threads just go in the same direction, towards this fabricated division between classical music and non-classical music. In this world, all classical musicians are snobby, angry, mean, harsh, and forceful.

Somewhere along the line it turns into meaning that any musician who is mean or harsh is automatically classically trained.

And then it becomes the idea that any educated or knowledgeable musician are elitist classical snobs.

Well, it would make a good movie, that's for sure. When people try to feed this misconception, well, there's the problem. Now that I've finished taking high school Physics, maybe I should charge the same as a university professor to teach people formulas. I could tell them that physics professors are all boring and monotonous, they will certainly ask me for lessons then.

“So if I wanted t go to Ray Charles or Erroll Garner or Blake, Wonder...and the rest of accomplished successful keyboard player for "lessons" to play like they do I would have to consider them unqualified and myself "damaged"? They can't see if my body is rigid and my wrists "fluid".........Yikes.”

Who said that any such pianists would take students? I am quite sure that they would not pretend that after a few lessons you could play ‘like they do’.

“Chris I am sorry but you are the embodiment "classic" elitist. One way the right way.”

On what do you base this assumption?

“Is Erroll Garner MORE professional then Mr Brooks or Chris because he has sold a ton of his work to the "unsuspecting" public who do not realize he cannot read a note?”

Now you compare yourself to the likes of Erroll Garner. Earlier you admitted that you were not very good. Make your mind up. None of this has anything to do with whether or not you play from notation or by ear. It’s about you charging money to teach something which you cannot do.

“All my "students" want to do is learn some theory and play what THEY HEAR. If I teach them chord construction and scales all they have to figure out is the melody by ear if they want to play another's work.”

You make it sound so simple. It’s a wonder that anyone needs any form of tuition.

“It is my guess you cannot face the reality that some people given the choice choose to play by ear and do not want to become virtuoso pianists.”

Not true. I offer them the choice and can help them either way. Can you?

“Sir only an elitist snob would understand what "riff raff" really is. There are no such people in the world to me. Everyone is equally relevant. I charge because that's what my time is worth, In fact my time is worth far more. People will learn to do what they want to do in far less time then if they were to pay a traditional teacher for a year, at then end of which they may be able to play Fur Elise "correctly".”

You mentioned ‘riff-raff’, not me. If your time is worth far more then why not charge it? I am sure there is a ‘market’. I dispute that your students learn in less time than they would with any good teacher. You clearly have no idea what constitutes a ‘good’ teacher. Would you care to define the ‘traditional’ teacher? Still, nobody has come up with a satisfactory, unbiased description.

“Who did the 'greats" take lessons from?”

I would say that they took inspiration from ‘the greats’ before them. Wouldn’t it be nice for piano students to have access to ‘the greats’ from all styles? That is what should be on offer.

I'd like to speak to the "damage" issue - my impression is that there are those who worry that if one plays piano "wrong" there can be physical damage - carpal tunnel or tendinitis or something. Possible, I'm sure, as is damage from computer keyboarding or whatever.

But you know, life happens. My niece played competitive level soccer and believe me she learned how to play it right, how to do the right warm-up exercises and stretches and everything else, so there wouldn't be the kind of inadvertent damage some folks here worry about (altho damage just happens playing soccer).

I, on the other hand, played one season of soccer in my mid-forties on the faculty-staff intramural team at a college against students half my age, some of whom were varsity basketball players. I barely top 5 feet. Did I sustain some damage? Yup, as if you couldn't guess. Strained the same ligament I strained ski racing in a recreational league with a bunch of folks who had never had "professional" ski racing instruction, just occasional workshops. Put a cut over an eye in a run-in with one of those basketball players going for a contested ball (I won ). Went to national finals in the recreational ski racing program. Wiped out at least once there, causing some damage. I raced on the same course as some pros, but decidedly not in the same league. *It wasn't the point.* Being *better* than I was doing it the way I was doing it *wasn't the point.* I was having a great time recreational ski racing and recreational soccer playing. And my niece's coaches weren't running around saying "adults shouldn't be playing soccer without professional coaching because they'll never be as good as they could be and they'll have bad habits they can't erase and besides they might hurt themselves, and they shouldn't be paying anyone who gives them coaching who isn't a pro, and even if they do they shouldn't pay them as much as they'd pay me!." (Oh, and by the way, I was the Ladie's Day ski racing pace setter and would set up courses and run folks thru racing exercises - all with only racing recreationally and taking a few workshops as a background.)

Pianitis is teaching adults recreational piano. I played recreational soccer, which has at least as many physical risks as piano playing. Adults make their own choices. I see absolutely no reason adults shouldn't (and many many do) learn and play recreational piano any way that suits them. And pay anything they choose to pay. I didn't mislead the ski racers on Ladie's Day - I was just a better racer than them. Pianitis isn't misleading the folks who learn from him - but he knows things they want to know.

I have also taught math to returning adults who for the most part are starting at something around the level of sixth grade. Believe me, many of them learned more math from each other than from me. They had to take a formal course because the college required it, but many of them did *not* learn math in that kind of an environment, and, bless them, they figured out how to learn some other way so they could *pass the tests* that were required. I have a math degree, and at no point did I think they needed to learn only from me or others with a math degree. Do I think that having a math degree helped *me* to teach better? Yup. Did I know some things that perhaps someone without a math degree, and in particular my students, didn't know they needed? Yup. Did I then say, oh, you can't teach each other because I know those things that you don't know? Nope. Did I think that taking a college remedial course was the only way to learn what they were missing? Nope. I also taught a Continuing Ed course which was, as Pianitis is doing, essentially student driven. I happen to think that basic math is a life skill that is every bit as necessary as making music. But you can often learn what you need from your Grandmother.

Adults (and children, too) learn things from each other in informal ways *all the time.* I have taught basic accounting to I don't even know how many of my colleagues thru the years. Sometimes it takes longer than it would if they'd just go take a course, because they only learn a little bit, out of context sometimes, or they don't use it every day. I happen to think basic accounting is extremely useful knowledge to any one in business or in a non-profit. Not knowing basic accounting can lead to problems with the IRS. But I don't require them to learn it in a formal environment, or to learn more than they happen to want or have time to learn at a given moment. They're adults. It's their choice.

I liked Pianitis' comparison to learning to play recreational guitar. Some friends of mine just "performed" in their church's coffee house. Probably didn't play much more than 3 chords in the key of G. Sang Puff the Magic Dragon. Loved every minute of it and have for years. I don't see piano as different.

However, I *do* think there's more folks on the ABF who learn without formal lessons than Pianitis seems to have found. It's always seemed to me it's about 1/2 and 1/2 there. And we all encourage each other no matter what way we learn or what style of music we play

Cathy

I have no problem with Pianitist's approach. As long as he gives his customers a full disclosure of his credentials (i.e. he is not a real piano teacher). It's free market - what you're doing is worth as much as people are willing to pay for it.

I understand, his customers see him play something, and enjoy it to the point where they'd like to play like that themselves. If he tells them he can teach them how to do it in 4 lessons, and delivers on that promise - then what's the problem?
A question to the teachers - how much would your typical student be able to play after 4 lessons?

I guess the people in question, are simply tired of talking lessons for months, and not being able to play anything (other than scale exercises), when their friends ask them to. As Pianitist said - some people just want to make music. I don't blame those people, and I don't see anything wrong with Pianitist providing a service that fills that need.

It's analogous to learning a foreign language. You can either start with grammar (tenses, memorizing irregular verbs), or you just learn some basic words and common phrases, and start talking right away. In the long run - you're better off with knowing the grammar. But if all you want to do is go on a 2 week vacation abroad, you'll be fine with the basics.

Just to be clear - I personally prefer the traditional method of teaching. Although I am self-teaching, I spend most of my time learning how to sight-read. But at the same time, I recognize that there is a need for what Pianitist is providing, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Well, to answer your question, my students are able to play a song after the first lesson. Your analogy about traditional piano being akin to teaching grammer first, is erroneous. I do not teach my beginner students scales until after a few months of lessons. I teach them reading using pre-notation method books so that they can play songs without having to be able to read much at all. This is where I think Chris was having difficulty too.

No one has yet defined what 'traditional piano lessons' encompass, and so assumptions are made that it's all boring drills and scales. This is simply not the case. Piano pedagogy has come a long way in the past 20 years or so, so those that perhaps had bad experiences as children, or knew someone who did should see what is being done in many piano studios these days. I know this is kind of off topic, but I felt it necessary to say. And I'm not unlike the other teachers in my organization. Most piano teachers I know are eager to learn new ways of teaching and keeping their students and parents satisfied.

Or, - daring third alternative - , you can do both. I've done a bit of language study in my time, and the most effective teaching is not either/or. This is back to the "boring scales and metronome" argument. It's the simplistic characterising of methods of teaching which is generating the heat in this thread.
I see the point you are trying to make, but I think it's more clear than accurate.

I've learned English using the "grammar" approach. If you asked me to speak to a native English speaker after my first year of study, I don't know if I could put a sentence together (that being despite the fact that I knew my tenses, irregular verbs, and sentence structures by heart). In the long run - that approach paid off, because I was able to catch up with my "casual" conversation skills, while I already had a sound background in grammar.

I'll say it again - I don't see a problem with people not wanting to go through the rigorous study. If all they want, is to play a few tunes here and there, why look down at someone, who's willing to teach them?

I have no problem with pianitus approach, but his price a little. but thats his choice to make.

For one thing I think most people who are against pianitus is, maybe, it is possible, that he will teach them bad piano habits and technique. But I don't think anyone that wants to become a concert pianist is going to come to Pianitus for lessons.

I think most people who want to possibly become concert pianists one day already know Pianitus can't teach them the technique for that, and I'm sure they would go to good teacher like John and Chris and others.

I think most of Pianitus clients only want to play piano for enjoyment and nothing else. So what, if those people aren't going to have impeccable technique or have a higher chance of hurting themselves. I don't think they'll really have the skill to play anything where you really risk hurting yourself. They're only playing for enjoyment.


I'm sure that the pieces they will be able to play aren't of enough technique to injure anyone anyways. I'm sure Pianitus isn't teaching anyone to play a Chopin Etude or Mephitzo Waltz.

2. Your posts and attitude reflects my observation. Especially as focus seems to be on the financial aspect.
3. Ray Charles (gasp) was not a great pianist. I can play anything Ray played. Errol Garner has a chunky style not particularly complicated. Yes I can play those people. If I can play it Its not really good to me. I cannot play Kieth Emerson. Thats Good to me. I don't consider myself a good pianist because I can play Ray Charles' music.LOL
I'm more then sure you don't believe Ray or Erroll are particularly good players either...Oh yeah its about the money really? Thats what Im getting from you. Its about the money. 4.It can be simple. You make it hard. To play the classics its hard. To play pop is not so much. I was a very lazy student. I needed simple and got it, I have been playing for 35 years, BTW Not the same tune over and over again, I can play enough. 5. Yes I do offer them a choice. They can learn the way I teach them or they can seek out the likes of you. I have a list of traditional teachers I will give them.


6. A good teacher is one that can be learned from. Period. The traditional teacher uses traditional methods and books. Alfred's,Bastien,Faber and Faber,Clark,Thompson,Suzuki,Hal Leonard. We have em all. They speak in terms of books. They talk more then the student plays in many cases. (at least this is what I hear from some of their students)They teach using tried and tested methods.
I don't charge more because I found out what the going rate is and used that figure. The rest is enjoyment. For three hours twice a week I get to help people make music. Without judgment on what music is. Without history lessons, without critique of minutiae. Just playing and and having fun. Piano lessons should never be a chore to the teacher or student. IF they don't want to practice it's ok. We will review.


You don't like it but people want EASY. I can make it easy. I can teach a guitar player three simple chords in ten minutes and he or she will be able to play hundreds of popular songs and sing along. I guess thats bad.

Welcome to today.

I'm not sure why Pianitis posted this thread if he's going to ignore half the people who respond to it. But oh well....

I'm mystified as to why people are praising his posts, more and more he speaks in the same condescending manner which he chided the other teachers for. Perhaps I would be more sympathetic if this were not the case....

Is this really something no one else could provide?

If I were to meet that same player I would tell him he could learn the same three chords by quickly searching up on the internet, or buying a $5.00 beginner's guitar tutorial video. He need not spend that much money...Alternatively, I could tell him to spend his money instead (the same amount you charge for) on one of the many non-classical-focused-but-fully-trained instructors (who are plentiful, not rare like this thread would indicate) out there and not only learn the same thing, but also instead have a teacher who has broader experience and knowledge on teaching and learning the instrument, but charge the same or less.

I don't know why all this discussion is here, centered on the premise that there is only one, boring, repetitive method of teaching out there. I thought the Piano Teacher's would know better than to carry on an argument based on an incorrect premise...

About guitar I will say this as I've played for about 9 years. I am self-taught at guitar, which it did take me about 6 months to get good enough to play something I enjoyed hearing. One day I would love to get lessons for classical guitar style, after playing guitar for 9 years, I can understand all the ways it could only help me inprove my technique.

But guitar is a much much much easier instrument to learn to teach yourself on. Any analogy of guitar to piano isn't very good.

I have been teaching myself piano for about a year now,I dont have the money for lessons, and piano is much harder.

I agree with Theown about the price issue, but I guess if he has people that keep coming back for his instruction, they must enjoy what they are learning. So it's his choice in the end.