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

I'm not.

I feel sorry for the students who come to me from other so-called teachers and have to relearn the piano. They come to me with so many poor habits and basically have to start all over again. I see the look on their parent's faces when I give them the bad news. Sometimes it takes them awhile to realize what a terrible mistake they've made for their children. Would anyone willingly place their children in a public school or a college with a bad reputation and bad teachers? Come on, let's get real here.

kbk, you may not be everybody, but you are definitely different!

It's from the Life of Brian.

Me neither, but unfortunately, many people would and many already do, and think that their $25 per 1/2 hr is worth every penny.

Hmmm...maybe there is a demand for that in the UK. Please let us know if your toast cooking lesson sells as good as Pianitis's piano lessons.

You maybe right. But just for fun, why don't we all try to convince Pianitis students that they don't know any better? Do you think those Piano Magic students in this forum don't know any better and being exploited, too? It is probably easier to convince them than to convince Pianitis students. Please, save them, maybe most of them already got injured. Many of them have been taking PM lessons for years, not only 6 months.

Look, whether you like it or not, there is a demand for this type of lessons. If I was a classical teacher (which I am not), I would see this phenomenon as an eye opener. I wouldn't see Pianitis as my competitor. But if I thought he was, I would try to treat my (just want to play for fun) students just like Pianitis treat his. I would offer those students the same thing as (or better and more interesting than) Pianitis does, at least in the first six months, to get them interested in piano lessons. Then, after that, maybe they would be interested to do more, and I could offer much more that Pianitis couldn't.

That way you don't have to be afraid you'll loose "customers" to a "charlatan". But of course, in the end, it is back to the customer. They can choose which teacher they like the best, who can actually teach them.

A sage once said that a teacher is the one who actually taught you something, not someone who (or something that) will teach you. If you tripped over a rock and that experience taught you to look where you are going, then the rock is your teacher.

In this case, if it was a book or a video that taught you to play, then it is your teacher. If it was an online lessons or a real person, then be it. It is only our arrogance who focus on a persona rather than the actual knowledge we have learnt. Even if we study under the greatest master of all, if we can't learn, there is no teacher. And each of us learn according to his/her own capacity.

Whew! What a large body of work this thread is! I just wanted to comment on something that was said a couple of pages ago:


Originally posted by Musictuary:

Quote

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.)

Here's a good question ... If lessons were so painful for you with this teacher WHY DID YOU STAY WITH HER? I think that it is horrible for a teacher to treat her students in the way that you describe, but I'd have to say that part of the blame for such an unpleasant experience lies with the student and student's parents for staying with her. I would hope that if lessons with me were causing a student to "suffer", that the student would find another teacher! (and I'd like to think that I could tell if a student thought their lessons were absolute torture, and recommend that they try another teacher or another instrument before any permanent damage was done). Why would a teacher keep a student that was obviously miserable, and why would a student/student's parents stay with such a teacher?

Kritta, I don't think you quite understand the nature of the relationship between abused/abuser. There's nothing simple about it.

Originally posted by Pianitis:

Quote

To a schooled and skilled Classical pianist... Most players they hear cannot play.

I take great offense at this assumption that you have made (and at all of the other assumptions that you have made in past posts about "Classical" pianists)!

How could you possibly know "us" well enough to make such a generalization?


Who's being a "snob" now?

You must know some pretty jerky "classical" pianists.

Keyboardklutz:

Quote

Kritta, I don't think you quite understand the nature of the relationship between abused/abuser. There's nothing simple about it.

That's a good point, keyboardklutz, and could be one explanation as to why this relationship was not terminated.

Not at all. I believe that statement was made in reference to what is considered an "Accomplished" pianist.

The more training one has the more accomplished they feel and the less others appear to be. I have understood this thread to be one giant slam at someone who does not consider themselves "accomplished" yet feels has enough knowledge to impart to others for a fee. The longest diatribes are by those very classically trained people who feel I am not good enough (by my own admission).

It also is evident that it is the classically trained pianists who appear to be the most vocal and "offended" by my teaching others, as if there is only one way to learn an instrument and one way to enjoy an instrument fully.

No I'm not the snob. However I call em like I sees em.

I left a link to some of my original work earlier in this thread. It's funny how vocal people are against what I do and do not even give a listen to what I have done. When people hear that and realize I did all of it myself, The arrangements the playing, etc. they get excited know they may do the same thing with a half a year of lessons.

Anyone who wants to can satisfy themselves at the piano without years of method training.

One more post and I'm done... I swear!

I thought that this little anecdote would be appropriate in light of our discussion on different "markets" of students:

The parent of one of my students said to me a few months ago that she had met another parent at a soccer game in which their children were playing. This parent said that their kid takes piano lessons from a teacher in (my neighborhood). My student's parent asked if it was me, and the other parent replied "Oh no, we go to (name of a teacher who has a reputation for not offering a thorough program -- to say it nicely). (My name here) makes her students play in recitals, take tests, do auditions, etc. I just wanted to be able to drop my kid off for them to play the piano for half and hour a week."

I took this as one of the greatest compliments that I have ever received as a teacher! I am certainly glad that this student (after reading the material that I sent them showing what I have to offer), decided not to study with me.

Its a shame that this student will not develop to their fullest potential as a musician, but if what they really want is to be a mediocre musician and to get a partial education, that's their choice.

I just hope that is a decision that they can live with for the rest of their lives, and that they never change their mind.

Pianitis,

You were the one who said " To a schooled and skilled Classical pianist... Most players they hear cannot play".


I didn't insert the word "Classical" as opposed to "accomplished" -- you did!

If that's not what you meant, then please try harder to say what you mean next time.


About "judging" you without listening to your work... I listened to it a few minutes ago. It was fine - not my cup of tea, but that's alright. I think that the "classical" musicians on this forum aren't trying to say that all music that isn't "classical" is bad -- they aren't saying that playing music that isn't "classical" is playing the piano the "wrong" way.

When others have spoken about playing correctly or incorrectly, they are speaking about HOW one uses one's body and actually does the playing -- not about WHAT they are playing.

As for my opinion, to echo that of others, I think that it is fine that you are offering lessons (with full disclosure) to those that want them. I see that there is a market for these lessons. I realize that the rate you charge is based upon what the market will bear, and that this is just capitalizm at work.............................

but I think that it really sucks that someone who is only partially qualified is charging as much (or in many cases, more) that those who are exceedingly qualified (IN ANY FIELD).

I think this is a great post and gets at the main issue: which is that Pianitis is meeting a real desire among adult beginners for a more casual introduction to piano.

I've read a lot of threads here talking about studio policies etc. As Kritta notes above, many of the teachers here have a fairly rigid, and demanding, set of policies, e.g., students must commit to a year's worth of lessons, or at least a semester; students must participate in recitals; students must prepare and sit for exams; etc. While I see the benefits of this kind of system for teachers, and while these kinds of policies may work for many students, there are a lot of adult beginners who are not prepared to make that kind of time and financial investment. That is the population Pianitis is serving. Offering a shorter course of instruction geared to capture the beginner's interest in piano would seem to be a very good idea.

Pianitis,

Is not the medical suffix - "itis" - the word used to describe "inflammation"? Pianitis = inflammation like arthr-itis, bronch-itis, tendon-itis?

I'm also thinking that you don't have to invest any money into your "business" - no light bills to pay, no toilets to clean, no advertising to buy, you've got a good situation going there for yourself. The IRS is going to want to hear about your "part time work at $25 an hour with no expenses to pay." Smiling all the way to the bank, I'm sure.

Do you get paid in cash only?

I can't wait to read the testimonials from your customers. You come highly rated when you speak of yourself.

I studied piano under professionals who are "accomplished pianists" (though not classical).

However, I don't see the problem of pianitis teaching chords and melody on keyboards which is a whole different thing anyway. This style of playing is not too different from those playing those home style furniture organs in the 80's that had unweighted keys.

It's a different kind of playing and people buying these instruments should know that. That's how I learned to play guitar anyway and that kept me entertained for a long time. Pretty minimal technique would be required for organ sounds with pads (non-percussive). As far as I can see Pianitis is selling to a different instrument market than piano teachers. Complaining about him is like complaining about half the guitar teachers out there who charge that same amount and teach basically the same stuff on a "non-piano" instrument.

Now if Pianitis wishes to teach the same concepts on the piano, then I think we can all agree he has to add more to the equation. I think he made it clear what instrument he teaches on. In fact, as he clearly states, he is quite an expert on manipulating electronic keyboards and probably better than most piano teachers that posted here.

Gosh, that's a lot of hostility there, Betty, not at all like your usual upbeat posts.

I also think it's rather unfair to imply that Pianitis is cheating on his/her taxes... nothing at all has been said to suggest that in the least.

Because thats the distinct impression I received after reading the posts of those vehemently opposed to the thought I should be paid to impart my knowledge. What is an accomplished pianist?

It totally depends on ones OWN training and opinion. IS Ray Charles accomplished. I would say far beyond many here because he actually found a market for his accomplishments and students of his style. Like Mozart perhaps in his day. He can't read a note, never took formal lessons, used the piano as a tool of expression.
Of course it won't be. But a beginner hears that and gives me credit for a lot more training them I have. I tell them I don't have formal training and learned how to do that using alternative methods.
They want to learn those methods. They want to create. They do not want to be concert pianists or play recitals. I have parents asking me to train their children. I have no interest in training younger than teens. Let them try formal lessons first. If they don't like them I will then have a peek.

Many on the forum placing a lot of emphasis on reading and "proper" technique,rote exercises,and imply those are required to be an "accomplished" player. I say they are required IF you want to play difficult classical pieces. Most jazz players do not copy another's improvisation. I can teach them to improvise. In fact improvisation in my opinion is more important then reading another's work (unless one wants a job playing a show)

Improv is creating. Reading is imitating. You want to play other's work exclusively as written I'm not the guy.

That's fine. Every baseball player has his own batting stance, Every golfer his own, In any physical activity there are variables. Long fingers vs short stubby fingers. I let the student decide whats comfortable for them and suggest alternatives ONLY if they are having difficulty playing something that can be helped. I take the bushes away. There is NO wrong way if they achieve what they want to achieve. I do not judge their playing I ask them what THEY think is right or wrong.

Thats because in my opinion those who have made music training their lives see it as a science more then art. They truly believe it is a skill that requires a long apprentice period before one can claim to be professional (ie take money for their art). They are frustrated with those who attain success with much less training. They do not feel anyone could possibly enjoy playing music without all the tools and skills they have. They forgot somewhere along the way.

Music is fun, There is no right or wrong, Good or bad is in solely in the ears of the beholder.
There is a place for properly trained players and plenty who want and will pay for that disciplined training. However it is not the end all.

There is no universally recognized or required teaching "certification" for musicians only award and reward. My music is my certification. IF they don't like it, they move on.

Monica,

You're right, I'm being rude.

Nothing has been said about unpaid taxes before in this topic, let me be the first to bring that to attention. It IS a requirement of our government.

It came to mind because Pianitis is cutting corners so much in his teaching approach,he isn't doing lesson plans, he is providing a "packaged approach" with certain content, and has minimal responsibilites in the keeping of his business. It made me wonder if the IRS is going to get the short stick, too.

There has been a lot of disrespect and criticism about piano teachers especially if they seem "traditional" or "classical". That, too, when it appears seems quite rude to me.

The ex-student complaining about piano lesson experiences and placing the onus on the teacher forgets that they were part of the equation, too. Interaction between the student and the teacher produced less than perfect results. Sometimes that is because they choose a teacher who could not deliver, and sometimes that is because the student did not put effort into the lessons. I believe good teachers know how to effect good outcomes especially if there is a good developing relationship between the principle players - the teacher - the student - parent (if they are in the picture)

Monica said: "Betty, not at all like your usual upbeat posts."

Monica, I am a very encouraging person and generous with information to others. I remain so. I'm getting to be as old as Methuselah and I've taught for a long time wanting to enable others to reach their fullest capacity musically, and to achieve their goals and dreams. I have courage, conviction, commitment, and character. I don't teach in chaos and confusion.

I'm provoked that others can give much less than that and pop culture and current social norms can not make the distinction between services that empower and those that provide entertainment - leisure value.

As far as I'm concerned this is 6 pages of provocation to established piano teachers - an affront to what we stand for.

I am not the least bit envious of his earning possibilities, or the fact that he is attracting customers. He's thinking business enterprize. I'm quoting Plato in my signature.

It is about receiving disrespect over and over for those of us who do our job really well, with seriousness of purpose, commitment to the outcome, investment in other people in building musical relationships, and with good intentions all around for a successful outcome.

Sputter, sputter! That's where I am at this moment over this situation.

What would really be great is for someone to sincerely tell us how appreciated we are and how greatly we affect them. I know it's there, but not frequently enough.

Betty

Sorry. Can't take this lying down. Betty if you think that my lessons do not empower because I teach pop, you ought to talk to my students parents who have been through the "traditional" approach and sit in on my lessons and learn a whole lot about how music works and how to get the piano to sound good.
It doesnt matter if it is pop or classical, harmony functions the same way. It still is largely derived from the major scale, which is the first thing pianitis says he teaches his students.

Disrespect is rude; criticism--phrased politely-- is not.

This is the point that has baffled me the most throughout this thread. Pianitis, and most of us non-teachers who have responded to the thread, can and do make this distinction. There is nobody here arguing that Pianitis's lessons do anything but provide people with the ability to entertain themselves and which gives them great leisure value. But what is so wrong with that???

I think the 6 pages of this thread are due to a false dichotomy: Some people see it as a choice between "traditional" lessons (however we define that) vs. Pianitis, where I see it as in actuality a choice between Pianitis's lessons or nothing. I get the impression that some of the people on this thread would rather people do nothing musically related than have them take Pianitis's lessons. That just plain boggles my mind.