Am I too young or inexperienced to start teaching?

[chicoscalco]

But he did teach. A lot.  And "pupil of Liszt" was a badge people wore with pride (whatever their actual entitlement).

Oh, and anyone trying to teach you anything has my very greatest sympathy.

Liszt said that merely about the mechanical issues of playing, stiffness of fingers, etc... He was a "very" good teacher, very inspirational. Take a look at his pupils...

[faulty_damper]

Liszt said that merely about the mechanical issues of playing, stiffness of fingers, etc... He was a "very" good teacher, very inspirational. Take a look at his pupils...

In other words, he wasn't a piano teacher - he was a music teacher.  Any musician can tell you if you aren't phrasing right.

Also, if you have enough monkeys locked in a room, given enough time, even they'd be able to write Shakespeare.  Correlation does not mean causation.

[dima_76557]

if you have enough monkeys locked in a room, given enough time, even they'd be able to write Shakespeare.  

It seems to me that too many parameters within that hypothesis are beyond what could actually ever be measured in human terms. Therefore, and on behalf of William Shakespeare: "do you have any... uhm... evidence?" (c)

[j_menz]

It seems to me that too many parameters within that hypothesis are beyond what could actually ever be measured in human terms.

The conventional assertion equips them with typewriters. Faulty has not, it appears, endowed them with anything. The result, given that monkeys cannot write, is that they would never achieve it.

I always wondered if, in the original, they got to the end of the last play and put an exclamation mark instead of a full stop, would that count or would the one making the mistake be taken out and quietly shot.

[faulty_damper]

It's possible that they write Shakespeare with just their sh*t.  And afterward, they pack it in 90 tin cans to be sold at the highest auction price.

[outin]

However, the greatest performers alive today (for the most part) sit on faculties at big music schools.

Isn't it a bit naive to think that this means they are also the greatest teachers? Faculties all over are packed with successful people in high positions who are not especially good at teaching. Why would music be any different? People don't often want or can't perform at the same pace when they get older. They need another more stable career and teaching is the logical step. In fact they may not have that many other options.

[outin]

Liszt said that merely about the mechanical issues of playing, stiffness of fingers, etc... He was a "very" good teacher, very inspirational. Take a look at his pupils...

I find it odd that Liszt is always taken as an example in these discussion. He's long dead, none of us has heard him play or see him teach... times have changed as well as the requirements for teaching.

The fact that some of his pupils become great pianists or teachers may or may not be the results of his abilities as a teacher. There's really no way to tell.

[awesom_o]

I find it odd that Liszt is always taken as an example in these discussion.

Not even! Liszt was THE man!

[outin]

Not even! Liszt was THE man!

I'll take your word for it

But there really isn't anyone who hasn't been dead for over 100 years?

[pianoman53]

Faulty:

Get out of that little fantasy world of yours. There is something beyond the music school! It's very clear you didn't have a good teacher, but that doesn't mean that all teachers who have achieved technical and musical mastery are useless. My teacher was prize winner in Tchaikowsky. You can't really get a prize in tchaikowsky if you are sh*t. This is probably the best teacher I've ever met.
Bashkirov won the Geneva, and have recordings that are so beautiful! He is considered the greatest teacher alive.
Schnabel was, Cortot was, Edwin Fischer was...
There are so many exceptions to your little rule that it's not a rule anymore.

Why would technical mastery take away the feeling to teach? Your arguments doesn't make sense, and when someone asks you, you simply repeat what you just said.

[faulty_damper]

Uh huh.  Sure.  If you say so. Since you dropped all those names, I'm guessing you knew them all  personally and took lessons from each and every one of them for extended periods of time.  Sure you did.  And I'm guessing that these pianists were all technically gifted and were able to transfer their gifts to you so that now you are absolutely masterful at technique that you no longer need to take lessons from any of them.  Yeah.  Sure.

[arungargstl]

Uh huh.  Sure.  If you say so. Since you dropped all those names, I'm guessing you knew them all  personally and took lessons from each and every one of them for extended periods of time.  Sure you did.  And I'm guessing that these pianists were all technically gifted and were able to transfer their gifts to you so that now you are absolutely masterful at technique that you no longer need to take lessons from any of them.  Yeah.  Sure.

So you must have done the same to be so quick to dismiss their musical qualities. Surely you knew them beyond what little recordings they left behind. You must have known their daily abilities to teach and play in order to tell all of us how wrong we are.

I hate to be an ass, but I have been lucky enough to study extensively with a Schnabel student (Fleisher) and I can say without a doubt there is something special about these pedagogical lineages. If you consider that most pianists worth anything today can somehow trace (pedagogically speaking) their roots to Schnabel and then back to Liszt and all they way back to Beethoven himself, it is very naive of you to assume that these masters's aren't worth anything as performers and teachers.

I assume you're trolling, because that's how ridiculous you sound.

[faulty_damper]

Please don't call me a troll.  By that very same standard, you could have easily attacked the poster whom I responded to. 

Again, correlation does not mean causation.  A lot of pianists tend to get filtered through a few select teachers simply because these few select teachers teach at a few select schools so the chance of having high achieving students having them as teachers are incredibly high.

So let me ask you, you have no technical difficulties whatsoever and can play anything you want without need for instruction.

[pianoman53]

Yes, I played for both cortot, schnabel and Bashkirov. You see, I'm 140 years old.

Ofc I haven't played for the last ones I mentioned! Though, we know that schnabel had great students. Edwin fischer was considered one of the finest teacher of his time, and Bashkirov is a living legend. 

And you didn't really respond to anything I wrote. You just assumed I was lying, and treated my reply after that.

So fine, you can keep living in your bubble that music isn't art, and that great pianists make Sucky teachers, and only bad pianists can make good teachers.

Troll, go back to your stone.

[arungargstl]

Faulty-Damper

Absolutely not, and I never made such a claim. I actively study with Fleisher for musical advice. Few would argue that he isn't one of the best MUSICIANS alive. For technical issues that persist, I see a Taubman (a method which I don't fully support or negate) teacher: Ilya Itin. Under these two, I have played much of the standard repertoire with relative ease.

But of course, there are always more challenges ahead. Leon and Ilya both say, however, that they themselves are always learning everyday, even after all these years. So why would you assume that I think so highly of myself, when my own two mentors are so humble about their music. I don't want to copy my teachers exactly, but I do feel that I will always be a student: AS WILL EVERY HUMAN.

And there is a reason why they teach high achieving students at high level conservatories. Students who work hard to improve upon natural talent deserve this knowledge. It isn't for everyone, as not everyone can handle it. Not everyone can handle such standards without breaking emotionally. Being a student, let alone a teacher at a top conservatory is a privilege. So obviously, the best musicians often come out of these powerhouses.

Do I sense you have some long lasting bitterness for a bad teaching experience?

[faulty_damper]

These pianists weren't hired at these schools because of their teaching skills.  They were hired because of their reputation as pianists.  The two are mutually exclusive.

You admit that Fleisher isn't the best teacher for technique but you do get musical instruction from him.  Does he still have issues with his hand?   Doesn't this provide evidence for my point?

[pianoman53]

And they happened to be great teachers. YOUR THEORY IS STUPID DO JUST LEAVE IT!!!!!

[mjames]

"Those who can, do.  Those who can't, teach.

^It's sad, but true.

brb calling chopin, liszt, mozart, nehaus, rubinstein, vladimir sofrotnisky etc

[arungargstl]

These pianists weren't hired at these schools because of their teaching skills.  They were hired because of their reputation as pianists.  The two are mutually exclusive.

You admit that Fleisher isn't the best teacher for technique but you do get musical instruction from him.  Does he still have issues with his hand?   Doesn't this provide evidence for my point?

Hahaha ok you are clearly trolling. Fleisher isn't the best teacher for technique because he doesn't wish to teach technique. His ear is too keen and his mind too great to waste on anything but musical development. Which, like I stated, is why he only excepts students that can play much of the standard repertoire (physically) without any 'tension' problems. His injury doesn't prove anything. And teaching skills and reputation as a pianist are not mutually exclusive. Give five examples, TROLL

[chicoscalco]

Faulty, this isn't the first time we get in this kind of problem. I don't want to sound blunt, but why in every thread you keep your mind so closed to other arguments? Consider for once that what you think is not right. We feel that no matter what we say to you, you're always gonna dismiss it.

[faulty_damper]

Faulty, this isn't the first time we get in this kind of problem. I don't want to sound blunt, but why in every thread you keep your mind so closed to other arguments? Consider for once that what you think is not right. We feel that no matter what we say to you, you're always gonna dismiss it.

If you read over the arguments, you'll see for yourself that none of the responses to my point used any valid evidence.  Calling up long-dead pianists is not evidence.  Making assumptions about their teaching skills is not evidence.  Repeatedly making correlation-causation fallacies is erroneous.  Each time I counter these responses, these posters just make personal attacks.  Why? Because they don't have any valid reason to believe what they believe since they've never given it any thought until now.  They are operating on assumptions which are being challenged.

Here's some erroneous assumptions:
Liszt had some famous pupils so he must have been a great teacher.
Many pianists have had famous teachers so these teachers must be really good.
Teachers who sit at faculty positions at top name brand schools must be really good.

If you do not see the errors of these kinds of arguments, then you probably support them because it aligns with your own views.  Hence the reason why you made your post, not to discuss the ideas in the thread, but to discuss me.

[chicoscalco]

If you read over the arguments, you'll see for yourself that none of the responses to my point used any valid evidence.  Calling up long-dead pianists is not evidence.  Making assumptions about their teaching skills is not evidence.  Repeatedly making correlation-causation fallacies is erroneous.  Each time I counter these responses, these posters just make personal attacks.  Why? Because they don't have any valid reason to believe what they believe since they've never given it any thought until now.  They are operating on assumptions which are being challenged.

Here's some erroneous assumptions:
Liszt had some famous pupils so he must have been a great teacher.
Many pianists have had famous teachers so these teachers must be really good.
Teachers who sit at faculty positions at top name brand schools must be really good.

If you do not see the errors of these kinds of arguments, then you probably support them because it aligns with your own views.  Hence the reason why you made your post, not to discuss the ideas in the thread, but to discuss me.

Ok, I can agree to some extent that we cannot prove the teaching abilities of these  professionals. But then again, as someone here has said before, neither disprove. You too are based on an assumption, that their teaching and performance abilities cannot coexist. How can you say that Neuhaus wasn't a good teacher and performer, for example? Richter said he was his greatest teacher, and we have recordings of him on youtube, that confirm his great performance skills. What argument do you have against this? That Richter didn't know better? I don't know why, but I'll go with him instead of you this time... 

[cometear]

These pianists weren't hired at these schools because of their teaching skills.  They were hired because of their reputation as pianists.  The two are mutually exclusive.

Ilya Itin has a monster technique and his students also reflect in this way.

[cometear]

Ok, I can agree to some extent that we cannot prove the teaching abilities of these  professionals. But then again, as someone here has said before, neither disprove. You too are based on an assumption, that their teaching and performance abilities cannot coexist. How can you say that Neuhaus wasn't a good teacher and performer, for example? Richter said he was his greatest teacher, and we have recordings of him on youtube, that confirm his great performance skills. What argument do you have against this? That Richter didn't know better? I don't know why, but I'll go with him instead of you this time... 

Amazing point!

[faulty_damper]

There are reasons that I find their supposed teaching skills incredibly dubious.  As I mentioned before about craft, craft gets consistent and reliable results.  I see none of these kinds of results in these pupils.  They all play very differently, technically.  And since we do have video, I can see the kinds of techniques they use.  They aren't using the best ones.

And about Richter, as I mentioned before about one of my teachers, many of the students at my school who had him all gushed over him, including another piano faculty. Of course they would think such things. He was famous in his day!  Do you really think they'd say anything against someone with such a reputation?  Their opinions were clearly biased and when I mentioned that the technique he teaches didn't work, they dismissed it, even when they were having the same issues as I had when he was my teacher.

The problem with opinion is that it doesn't require external validity.  We are gods in our own minds, aren't we?  That's why we need objective facts to confirm or deny such opinions.  The facts strongly suggest that we deny such opinions.

[pianoman53]

Okay, so let's not count Schnabel, Fischer or Cortot.
Let's count Bashkirov, Fleicher, Graffman, Kraniev (Yes, he passed away, but only very few years ago). There are also a tons more, but I don't remember the names, and I wont spend it on some stubborn American, who only like pop and boobs.

[chicoscalco]

You write as if these teachers we named teached their "techniques" only. A very good teacher, for these highly skilled pianists, doesn't force something onto them. The teacher helps the student further develop his own technique and musical ideas, providing insights that the pianist alone wouldn't have, among other thing.
And sorry, I think (hope, actually) I misunderstood what you wrote. You're saying Richter wasn't an amazing pianist?

[cometear]

I wont spend it on some stubborn American, who only like pop and boobs.

Excuse you! I would make it clearer on who you're talking to! I agree with some of your past points but really?

[pianoman53]

NOt you. In other threads, Mr Faulty says that female pianists should enter beauty contests, and have big... lungs...

[cometear]

If anyone cares, I started teaching in April

[j_menz]

If anyone cares, I started teaching in April

Your bank manager, probably. The Tax man, very much so.   

Congrats! How are you finding it?

[cometear]

Your bank manager, probably. The Tax man, very much so.   

Congrats! How are you finding it?

Oh well it's been a journey, I've had tons of questions for my teacher as well! So far I've enjoyed it. I feel like I've done it correctly and have them moving along at a comfortable speed for both of us. I have 5 students so far and they're all good people and have good families. They also all have an innate sense of music/rhythm and such. I'm loving it

[pianoman1349]

THat's really great news that you are enjoying teaching.  I started teaching when I was 13 as well, through a pedagogy course offered by my teacher, where I had to complete 16 hours of supervised teaching (really just practice supervision) with some of her group class students. 

I think that you will find that teaching becomes much more effective as you gain experience.  It will also help you consolidate your knowledge on the piano and help you progress as a performer as well.  An example from my own experiences would be learning new ways of tone production to best suit the abilities and strengths of each individual student, as well as some basic generalisation of the different technical schools of piano playing.

Have you ever thought of taking an exam which would leading to a diploma in pedagogy??  It would help you expand and refine your pedagogical knowledge and competency in a structured and logical manner.

best of luck!