Selecting A new piece for a student... HELP!!!

[bach_ko]

i have two questions regarding this topic... there are:

1) what are the most likely errors a teacher may be guilty of in the selection of pieces for a student?

2) what points would you take into consideration in selecting a new piece for a student?

[dan101]

I often pick something challenging and something a bit easier; in other words, two pieces. This tactic allows a student to fall back on the easier piece if the challenging one is too difficult.

If you feel that two pieces are too much, then use your best judgement and see how the student reacts to your selection in the next lesson.

I wouldn't worry too much about the pieces that you choose, provided you're prepared to adjust the difficulty level of your selected pieces as you get to know your student better.

Good luck.

[Petter]

Why not work something out togheter? Make your student suggest a piece and suggest one yourself and if it´s way off, meet him/her halfways and pick something togheter

[hyrst]

I find my errors are usually choosing somehting i think they will like and then they screw up their noses.  Also, choosing something I think should be quite easy or achievable only to find a student is not quite ready for the technique (of course choosing an easy piece is fine, it just gets learnt quickly - but it can lack challenge and satisfaction).

I have a rapid turnover of pieces for most of my students, so choosing the wrong piece means we can lok at it and leave it prematurely - it all adds to experience. 

When I choose pieces, I try to match the individual student with music by availability, key, level of expected difficulty, style, contrasting tempos and styles, techniques learnt and to be developed, purpose for learning the piece (fun, recital, exam etc).

I think this is all pretty normal / common.

[hunkyhong]

assign them one piece at a time if they are at a young age. children have a short attention span and see how they progress over that one piece. The dangerous thing that i have seen many teachers do is "pass" a student on a piece. to pass someone means that that piece is ready to be performed in public at a high level of caliber. but choose something technical, musical, as well as varying in styles. but don't just stick to one composer or style. Make sure that you expose them to everything. not everyone who started the piano loved practicing bach, so make sure that they are well rounded. hope this helps!

[pianochick93]

The dangerous thing that i have seen many teachers do is "pass" a student on a piece. to pass someone means that that piece is ready to be performed in public at a high level of caliber.

I don't understand. What is wrong with a teacher telling a student that a piece is ready to be performed well in public?

[a-sharp]

I'm guessing that what hunky- meant was that he thinks teachers tend to "pass" students on a piece before it's truly performance ready. ?

Frankly, IMO, I don't see a need to get every piece to a performance-ready point, but that is just me...

[dan101]

I wouldn't worry about picking the perfect piece for a student. If you select a work thats too easy or hard, rearrange the piece or pick an alternative in the next lesson. Getting to know a student's strengths and weaknesses takes time and sensitivity (also trial and error). Good luck.

[bernhard]

1)   what are the most likely errors a teacher may be guilty of in the selection of pieces for a student?

The most likely error a teacher may be guilty of is selecting a piece for the student. This is none of your business. Let the student select the piece; your business is to teach it so that s/he can play it.

2) what points would you take into consideration in selecting a new piece for a student?

None whatsoever. Selecting a piece is not my business. It is the student´s business. My considerations would be in how to teach what s/he has selected. But this would be a different question (and possibly a different topic).

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[hyrst]

That all sounds good, Bernhard, but one of the reasons for having a teacher is that they have a better knowledge of music literature and the challenges in pieces.  I only have 2 students old enough and mature enough to choose pieces for themselves.  As often as possible, I give students choice of a few pieces I think good for them, but I also think it is important to choose some that the student would not normally choose so that they have broader experience.  The majority of my students are less than 10 years old, and half are 5 to 7 years old.  They are playing across all grades, between them, but even the advanced ones are not yet resourced to choose their own pieces.  Even for myself, I value the recommendations of my teacher regarding what is good for my development.

However, I am certainly delighted when a student asks to learn a particular piece because they will be more motivated to learn and overcome challenges.  Often they also choose pieces that are harder than I would ask of them, so they have possibility to grow a little faster if they can handle it.

Do you really never choose a piece for a student?  What about the standards you apply when you agree to teach a piece they have chosen, if you think it is hard for them? 

[bernhard]

That all sounds good, Bernhard, but one of the reasons for having a teacher is that they have a better knowledge of music literature and the challenges in pieces.

I wholeheartedly agree with you. Indeed a good teacher should have a deep and extensive knowledge of the piano repertory (not an easy task considering the size of the piano repertory) and the relative degree of difficulty in pieces. This knowledge however should not be used to choose pieces for a student, but rather to evaluate their own choices, and to suggest a wide variety of options in case they are unable to come up with their own choices (more about this in a moment).

I only have 2 students old enough and mature enough to choose pieces for themselves.  As often as possible, I give students choice of a few pieces I think good for them, but I also think it is important to choose some that the student would not normally choose so that they have broader experience.  The majority of my students are less than 10 years old, and half are 5 to 7 years old.  They are playing across all grades, between them, but even the advanced ones are not yet resourced to choose their own pieces.

Here I disagree slightly. You see, I am all for exposing students to as many choices and styles of music, but not for them to have broader experiences, or for their “good”. I would rephrase what you wrote in the following way:

As often as possible, I give students choice of a few pieces I think they might love to play, but I also think it is important to expose the student to repertory they would not normally listen to or have access to so that they have a wider range of pieces from which to pick up what they like.

This would be (and indeed is) my approach, and i believe that the difference is crucial (even though subtly so)

Even for myself, I value the recommendations of my teacher regarding what is good for my development.

Now here, we very much disagree. In order to talk about student´s development, and what is good for them, we have to decide development to what end? And good for whom/for what.

But perhaps this is because my teaching is not oriented towards professional pianists. Let me give an analogy. I believe everyone has a right to learn to swim. Indeed, I believe that everyone should learn how to swim because it is a life saving skill. I also believe that everyone that is learning how to swim should enjoy this activity. However, I do not believe that everyone that has a right to swim has the right to become the next Michael Phelps. For that one needs far more than the desire to swim and the availability of a swimming pool and the enjoyment of swimming. One needs the right genetics, the right contacts, and above all a gruesome training scheme that would be completely inappropriate for someone who just wants to learn how to swim and enjoy oneself in the swimming pool.

So, my teaching is not geared towards professional, competitive piano playing. None of my students is, or wishes to be a professional pianist. All they want is to play the pieces they love. Ultimately they do not have the time to waste on repertory they abhor simply because “it will be good for them”.

I may even give my own example. There is simply no way I will bother with Bartok´s Mikrokosmos (which I find unbearably dull) or dodecaphonic / serial music, no matter “how good” it may be for my “development”. For to do that, I would have to spend time away from Bach, Scarlatti, Schumann (did you hear that, Thal?) and others which I truly would love to play. This of course, implies no demeaning of these composers or the people who love them. Just like I dislike them and have no time for them, it is perfectly OK for others to love them and have no time for Scarlatti, Bach or Schumann. In the context of professional competitive piano playing I might not have that choice.

Have a look here for an expansion on these ideas

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,15879.msg170579.html#msg170579
(play what you like)

https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php/topic,3015.msg26413.html#msg26413
(dealing with pieces you hate)

However, I am certainly delighted when a student asks to learn a particular piece because they will be more motivated to learn and overcome challenges.  Often they also choose pieces that are harder than I would ask of them, so they have possibility to grow a little faster if they can handle it.

Yes, teaching what they want to learn is also good for the teacher, who then does not have to engage in a stressful tug of war with the student.

Do you really never choose a piece for a student?  What about the standards you apply when you agree to teach a piece they have chosen, if you think it is hard for them?

Never. In fact, this is one of the things that encourages them to come up with their own choices: I threaten them with my choices – “If by next lesson you do not come up with at least three pieces you would love to play, I am going to give you three pieces I love to play”. It never fails.

Now of course, every now and then one comes across a student (the stuff of our nightmares) that when asked which piece they would like to play, stare blankly at you and mumble “I don´t know”. In my experience these are children who are coming to have piano lessons because their parents want them to. They would rather be playing football or watching TV.

If I decide to take on such a student (which I very reluctantly would), then s/he is not yet ready for piano lessons. S/he needs music lessons, that is, listening to a lot of music, participating in music groups activities (singing, drumming, clapping), the kind of stuff that you see in schools. For unless a child likes music, the whole enterprise will be a waste of time (and a torture session) for both teacher and student. The student, in short, must want to play the instrument. And it follows that s/he must want to play something specific. If you have that, then piano lesson may start straight away. In the words of an instructor of mine: “I am good shoemaker, and I can make very good shoes, but you must bring me good leather”.

What if the student does want to play the piano, but does not quite know what s/he likes? Or likes some abomination (“I want to play the last single of Britney Spears”)? Then I will provide a CD with over 70 pieces of different styles, periods, composers, all of superior repertory (not teaching pieces, mind you) and all manageable by any beginner. S/he is then given the assignment of choosing at least 5 pieces (or as many as s/he wants) from that list, and to arrange them in order of liking. Once I have the list I will have an idea of his/her musical tastes, and can suggest more pieces.

Part of piano practice is listening / watching (e.g.on Youtube) piano pieces with an exploratory aim. That is, the student is expected to listen /watch to as many pieces s/he can manage with the simple aim of finding out pieces s/he likes. Wanting to play the piece is the only criterion. In fact, this is also part of the piano lesson. Many times I may spend a whole lesson listening / watching  anumber of pieces that may interest the student (Again, my primary concern is not to find pieces that are good for the student, or that will develop his playing, but rather find which pieces s/he likes)

I do not consider it to be of any importance if a piece is “good” for the student, or if it will further the development of this, that or the other thing. simply because any piece that is tackled deeply enough will be good and develop the student. All that matters is if the student loves the piece and would love to play it. The ultimate reason is simple: no one will play something they dislike. This is the broccoli school of piano playing: I don´t like it, but it´s good for me. Eventually you will never eat broccoli again.

But I must say that even my five-years old – if given a chance – will tell me in no uncertain terms what they would like to play (Pink Panther, Mission Impossible, Happy birthday to You, Twinkle Twinkle Little Star, The Simpsons´s theme are perennial favourites).

Of course, as you point out, a piece may be too hard for them (what this usually means is that it would take an inordinate long time for them to learn it). So, in this case there are two options:

i. Outline the piece and learn the outline first. And here is an example of what I mean by it:

https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,9285.msg94312.html#msg94312
(outlining: example – with score – Chopin etude op. 25 no. 1)

ii. Find a piece of similar character (and so they would like it as well), but easier that will prepare for the difficult piece the student wants to learn. Given the size of the piano repertory that is not difficult. Notice however that I am not suggesting a preparatory exercise, but a real piece that no one would be embarrassed to add to one´s repertory. In the case of Chopin´s Etude, one possible progression (from easy to difficult) could be:

Ludovico Einaudi – Julia
Stephan Heller – etude op. 45 no. 9 (in spite of its name, it is a most beautiful piece)
Carlos Gomes – Mormorio
Mendelssohn – Song Without Words op. 30 no. 1

Finally, we do not have to worry that the student will be limited in any way by choosing only what s/he wants to play, because as his/her studies progress, their tastes will change (mine certainly have, and probably yours too) without any interference from the teacher´s end.


Best wishes,
Bernhard

[hyrst]

Hi Bernhard,
Thank you for taking time to respond to my questions / comments.
I believe I understand you perspective, however your points seem rather idealistic.  Your presentation is most convincing - I wonder if you are a lawyer    I will continue the discussion because it concerns me the pressure such an idealistic position places on a busy teacher.  (There seems to be a "Bernhard cult" around here, and things seem to be taken to be right "because Bernhard said so"  I think you must be careful what principles you thus present.)

I think your analogies are not as strong as they appear.  I was a national swimmer as a teenager.  Although I blamed my parents for 'making me' endure those torturous hours of training, I still valued my sport.  I could see a huge difference between those who 'knew' how to swim, like me, and those who simply playedi n the water.  Sure, there  are plenty of people who splash around for fun - and it's important for everyone who is near water to know how to stay safe in water.  (I don't think the piano presents such danger, in most cases  )  Not everyone wants to be a competitive swimmer - some poeple are happy to bang a few notes around that would make others block their ears (except for the few proud parents who think the 2 year old's banging is budding musicianship.)  Anyone who takes swimming lessons will go through a course of learning to breathe, kick, so on, through learning all the strokes, even butterfly - it depends how long you take lessons for.  It is just expected.  Most people struggle with butterfly, but they would expect to try if they are learning long enough.  Few people who actually train a number of years would be champions, but most people would seek to improve.  As a young swimmer, I saw lots of people who thought they were good,  and compared to some standards they were - they could swim 50 metres.  Yet, these people were without style or efficiency.  There was no grace, strength, control or beauty to that 50 metre swim.  They lacked the training and discipline.

Now, if you go back to piano, there are so many who can splash out pieces like Fur Elise - enough people do so that musicians dread to hear this beautiful piece.  I think I am doing my students a disservice if I tell them their aspirations to do this are appropriate, or all that they ever need aim for.  Sure, I take lots of my beginners through this piece - it is a great source of identifying patterns and moving  across the keyboard, and they think it is awesome to play.  As a teacher, I would rather help them refine their style.  I know I am a self-driven perfectionist, and I expect a lot from my  students (they cope with me), but I want my students to be musicians.  I know not every one will be, but I want them to want to be - at least to want to be good for who they are the level they are playing at.  I want students who want to be good enough at what they are doing to want to practice, to be self-motivated, to care about the sounds they make. 

The broccoli analogy also presents problems.  While I would not torment myself or my students with Mikrokosmos, that does not mean I should avoid an understanding such music.  Besides, it is only one possibility of an enormous range of music.  However, I do believe that some understanding of style and technique is needed, with breadth.  The depth and detail changes with the level of student study, but I strongly value breadth at all levels - it opens options among other things.  If one refuses broccoli, there is always peas, beans, cabbage, lettuce, spinach, etc.  However, if one never eats any green vegetables, a serious case of mal-nutirition will result. 

I am wondering how many students you have, and particularly how many 5  to 7 year olds you have. 

I have found that my young students are happy to play nearly everything that is written, although they have favourites and their preferences become stronger as time goes on and experience accumulates.  My youngest students, and nearly all the beginners, are happy to play anything because to them it is  all music, all 'playing the piano'.  Like a beginner swimmer, they don't care that they aren't swimming 50 metres - although they are keen for when they can - but they are in the water 'swimming' and that's what matters to them.  They are happy to do anything suggested, so long as it doesn't seem too hard. 

I actually find it far more work when a student chooses a particular piece because I then must locate it or write it for them.  I would spend hours every week doing this for 30 students if this was the priamry way things worked.  I find that not even the parents of my students know how to access music scores, where to look for them, what presentation and difficulty is appropriate.  When they request something, it takes time to locate and produce for them.  I could not do this for so many students unless they were working on the same thing for months at a time - and my little ones, even the teenagers, are rarely able to do this without becomming totally fed up and bored. 

I think it is significant that you commented you don't have any students who are wanting to become professional pianists.  (I think this should be considered when people take on advice such as your rejection of exercises.)  Perhaps if you are only teaching students who want to play for themselves alone, and only to play some things, it is fine to work without such disciplines.  It makes sense.

In my case it is different.  Although my students are mostly young, a lot of them have the idea of growing up to be musicians.  It is partly the role of model that I play to them - I guess they like me, and so imitate me (a thrill and a responsiblility when working with children).  Quite a few want to be music teachers, some want to be performers.  I have four students with definite potential to be performers.  For all of them, I believe it is my job to educate musically in technqiue and  style and to expose students to new things and deeper things. 

However, if I gave a young student a CD of pieces most of them would be unable to make a choice, they would hear most peices as very simiilar.  Most would be unable to sit through a CD so they could work out which number it was that they liked best.  Any professionally recorded piece would be out of the reach of most of my students.  Even by giving them a CD of potential repertoire, I am defining choices for them at the same time as broadening their options.  I really see practical problems with what you are advocating.  It seems more realistic to find the pieces I have that are at an approopriate level, find the ones I think the student will like, encourage them to try.  Compared to reading books, this is like reading many different genres and authors - giving them a chance to experience and be enriched by these things.  It would be limiting to keep a child only to fairy stories when there are adventures, realism, sad endings, picture books, etc.  Some books a child will read over and over again until every word is known, others they will not care for - but at least they will know it exists.

[quasimodo]

So, my teaching is not geared towards professional, competitive piano playing. None of my students is, or wishes to be a professional pianist. All they want is to play the pieces they love. Ultimately they do not have the time to waste on repertory they abhor simply because “it will be good for them”.

That is a very important remark, Bernhard, nothing new actually, you have mentioned or implied it before, but it makes me wonder... If the case happened that a young student came to you and stated their intention to give a shoot at becoming a professional concertist, would you take that student in the first place? And, if yes, what would you modify or add to your teaching approach in order to help the student approach that goal?

Obviously, we all know that such a student will eventually have to go through the system-approved curriculum, conservatories et al.  But I suppose most if not all professionals started with private lessons...

[bernhard]

That is a very important remark, Bernhard, nothing new actually, you have mentioned or implied it before, but it makes me wonder... If the case happened that a young student came to you and stated their intention to give a shoot at becoming a professional concertist, would you take that student in the first place? And, if yes, what would you modify or add to your teaching approach in order to help the student approach that goal?

Obviously, we all know that such a student will eventually have to go through the system-approved curriculum, conservatories et al.  But I suppose most if not all professionals started with private lessons...

Thank you for asking this question. It is an important one.

No, I would not change anything in the way I teach. And yes, I would accept such a student.

However, having said that, the student with such a goal would be better off - although perhaps not in the first couple of years - with a different teacher.

A student who wants to turn professional (a very difficult thing indeed in the piano world - much easier with other instruments) besides exceptional musical skills would need support in a lot of other non-musical areas, like for instance contacts in the professional musical word, agents, knowledge of the politics involved, competition experience (knowing the judges and how to please them, etc.) all of which I would be hopelessly lost in. There is also the knowledge of acoustics in different halls and how to adapt your playing to make the best of the situation - an area that only a teacher who is also a professional concert pianist (which I am not) would be able to provide.

So, yes, in the very beginning, I would probably do the job, mostly by preparing the groundwork, but very soon I would have to transfer the student to a more apropriate teacher who could provide such information and transmit such skills.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[bernhard]

Thank you for taking time to respond to my questions / comments.
I believe I understand you perspective, however your points seem rather idealistic.

Quite the opposite. It is very realistic to let students select pieces they like. Far more idealistic is to impose on them pieces they do not care for and believe they will stick to it.

Your presentation is most convincing - I wonder if you are a lawyer  

Er... No, I am a piano teacher.

I will continue the discussion because it concerns me the pressure such an idealistic position places on a busy teacher.  (There seems to be a "Bernhard cult" around here, and things seem to be taken to be right "because Bernhard said so"   I think you must be careful what principles you thus present.)

Far from me to expect people to follow the ideas I present here. Fortunately private piano teaching is a non-regulated activity – and I hope it stays that way – so each piano teacher is at liberty to follow whatever principles they believe are best for them. Indeed the less people follow my ideas, the more money I make (less competition).

I am not quite sure how letting a student choose pieces would place pressure on a busy teacher. It seems to me that choosing pieces for the student would be far worse, since now the teacher has to fight the student unwillingness to work on a piece s/he is not interested in.

I think your analogies are not as strong as they appear.

Actually, I feel quite affectionate towards them. But never mind, I can change analogies. Martial arts, ice-skating, skipping rope, cooking, running, I have used all of those before, so feel free to pick and choose. Swimming though was a first!

I was a national swimmer as a teenager.  Although I blamed my parents for 'making me' endure those torturous hours of training, I still valued my sport.  I could see a huge difference between those who 'knew' how to swim, like me, and those who simply playedi n the water.  Sure, there  are plenty of people who splash around for fun - and it's important for everyone who is near water to know how to stay safe in water.  (I don't think the piano presents such danger, in most cases   )  Not everyone wants to be a competitive swimmer - some poeple are happy to bang a few notes around that would make others block their ears (except for the few proud parents who think the 2 year old's banging is budding musicianship.)  Anyone who takes swimming lessons will go through a course of learning to breathe, kick, so on, through learning all the strokes, even butterfly - it depends how long you take lessons for.  It is just expected.  Most people struggle with butterfly, but they would expect to try if they are learning long enough.  Few people who actually train a number of years would be champions, but most people would seek to improve.  As a young swimmer, I saw lots of people who thought they were good,  and compared to some standards they were - they could swim 50 metres.  Yet, these people were without style or efficiency.  There was no grace, strength, control or beauty to that 50 metre swim.  They lacked the training and discipline.

Now here you have somewhat distorted my analogy.

First, when I mentioned swimming (as opposed to competitive swimming), I was not referring to “playing in the water”, or “splashing around for fun”. I was talking about proper swimming. In my club, I see older people (over their 50s) swimming with great grace and technique – some have lessons to improve their technique – some just go there everyday for an hour or so. They will never swim as fast as an Olympic gold medallist, but their swimming is impeccable. They are not interested in competing against anyone. Or in breaking any records. This level of swimming (which is very high indeed) is open to anyone who is interested enough (if you hate swimming you will not do it, you must like it). Apart from speed, and physical prowess, I can see little difference between these swimmers and Olympic ones. They are swimming not 50 meters, but 2000 meters daily. They have style, efficiency, grace, strength, control and beauty. They truly glide through water. But they do not have the particular body proportions of Michael Phelps, or his age. So, of course they are not in the same league. But then again, they do not want to.

Now, if you go back to piano, there are so many who can splash out pieces like Fur Elise - enough people do so that musicians dread to hear this beautiful piece.  I think I am doing my students a disservice if I tell them their aspirations to do this are appropriate, or all that they ever need aim for.  Sure, I take lots of my beginners through this piece - it is a great source of identifying patterns and moving  across the keyboard, and they think it is awesome to play.  As a teacher, I would rather help them refine their style.  I know I am a self-driven perfectionist, and I expect a lot from my  students (they cope with me), but I want my students to be musicians. I know not every one will be, but I want them to want to be - at least to want to be good for who they are the level they are playing at.  I want students who want to be good enough at what they are doing to want to practice, to be self-motivated, to care about the sounds they make.

I have no doubts about that. But why do you conclude that my approach aims to anything less than that? Quite the opposite, in a way, you might not be going far enough. I know it is  a huge task, but if you read some of my posts where this is dealt with, you would see that I believe music is for anyone, whatever their age. Anyone can be a musician. However, not everyone can be a professional musician, because to be a professional musician (as to be an Olympic swimmer) you need to be a good musician, yes, but you also need a lot more that has precious little to do with music (contacts, marketing, politics, good agents etc.). This is not something I care for, so I do not teach towards this goal. You seem to have misinterpreted my words to the effect that I aimed at inferior musical goals. Which of course could not be farther from the truth. Indeed, our disagreement as I perceive it, is not in what you said in the quote above, but rather in the means you and I may use to achieve it. But then again, if I present my means, it is not in order that people change what they are already doing unless they decide what I am saying may represent an improvement. And how are they going to decide that? Again, in my posts I have said this over and over again. Not because I am saying it. Not because professor so and so said it. Not because Liszt said it. Authority is useless. One must check it out. In fact this is how I arrive at most of my ideas. As a teacher you will have a great way to test any theory (yours, mine, Liszt´s, professor so and so, whoever). Divide your students (either randomly, if you wish to apply statistics later on, or by similar “talent”). Then – in this case we are discussing – impose on group A the pieces that you believe will do them good, and make sure they dislike such pieces. Then group B you assign them only pieces of their choice that they would love to be able to play. Video their performances at the start of the experiment, and then monthly for one year. At the end of one year compare results. Were both groups performances similar? Was group A far superior than group B? Or the other way round? By all means post the results.

Not everything works the same for everyone. One must test it and find out what works best for oneself.

The broccoli analogy also presents problems.  While I would not torment myself or my students with Mikrokosmos, that does not mean I should avoid an understanding such music.  Besides, it is only one possibility of an enormous range of music.  However, I do believe that some understanding of style and technique is needed, with breadth.  The depth and detail changes with the level of student study, but I strongly value breadth at all levels - it opens options among other things.  If one refuses broccoli, there is always peas, beans, cabbage, lettuce, spinach, etc.  However, if one never eats any green vegetables, a serious case of mal-nutirition will result.

My point exactly. One does not need to eat broccoli, no matter how good it may be, because there are plenty of vegetables out there. Personally I like broccoli, but after I tried it once I never again touched cauliflower (or rhubarb for that matter – what possessed the English to create such a monstrosity as rhubarb pie?). So my broccoli analogy doe not present problems, you understood it perfectly!

I am wondering how many students you have, and particularly how many 5  to 7 year olds you have.

The most I ever had was 25 and that was far far too much. I aim to teach 10 - 15 students. I have taught from age 3 to 85, but due to my teaching strategy (lessons everyday), I cannot do – like some of my colleagues – and have 60 – 80 students. Nor do I want to. The numbers and proportions change because I do not believe in students for life (e.g. Eugen Kissin), and I try to have my students independent of me in 3 – 4 years time. Usually most of my students are either 6 – 10 years old or adults (over 20) I have very few teenagers simply because school and social commitments do not leave enough time for the intensive kind of piano learning I precognise. If you want to know more, have a look here:

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2260.msg19270.html#msg19270
(Dear Bernhard thread – Pieces leading up to the revolutionary)
  

I actually find it far more work when a student chooses a particular piece because I then must locate it or write it for them.  I would spend hours every week doing this for 30 students if this was the priamry way things worked.  I find that not even the parents of my students know how to access music scores, where to look for them, what presentation and difficulty is appropriate.  When they request something, it takes time to locate and produce for them.  I could not do this for so many students unless they were working on the same thing for months at a time - and my little ones, even the teenagers, are rarely able to do this without becomming totally fed up and bored.

Yes, I agree in part with you, because when I started teaching I had the same problem. But I started early on to organise myself, so for me, this is not a problem at all.
 

I think it is significant that you commented you don't have any students who are wanting to become professional pianists.  (I think this should be considered when people take on advice such as your rejection of exercises.)  Perhaps if you are only teaching students who want to play for themselves alone, and only to play some things, it is fine to work without such disciplines.  It makes sense.

This is the same misinterpretation you made on the swimming analogy. Just because a swimmer has no interest in competing, this does not mean that all s/he can do is splash on the water without technique, grace or beauty. It is perfectly possible to have great grace and beauty when swimming and yet not breaking any record or winning any gold medal. And again, who said anything about lack of discipline? Quite the opposite, if anything, learning to play the piano in the way I suggest requires more discipline than any other approach. As for exercices, I have already said enough about them, so I will not repeat myself here, except to say that I reject exercises equally for students who just want to learn to play the piano for personal reasons (and they will learn it to the same exacting high standards as a professional pianist) and for competitive professional pianists.
 
[to be continued...]

[bernhard]

[...continued from previous post]

In my case it is different.  Although my students are mostly young, a lot of them have the idea of growing up to be musicians.  It is partly the role of model that I play to them - I guess they like me, and so imitate me  (a thrill and a responsiblility when working with children).  Quite a few want to be music teachers, some want to be performers.  I have four students with definite potential to be performers.  For all of them, I believe it is my job to educate musically in technqiue and  style and to expose students to new things and deeper things. 

I don´t think your case is different at all. However, if the students you mention are 5 – 8 years old, brace yourself for when they are teenagers, and social and school pressure starts to mount. Most parents are not that keen on a music profession (a silly prejudice, I know). 15 – 18 is the great migration. All those promising students that you invested so much time on, and saw flowering, will stop lessons. But don´t worry, they usually come back in their 60s after retirement.
 

However, if I gave a young student a CD of pieces most of them would be unable to make a choice, they would hear most peices as very simiilar. 

My experience then is very different from yours. My students (even the very young ones) are surprisingly definite about their likes and their dislikes.

Most would be unable to sit through a CD so they could work out which number it was that they liked best.  Any professionally recorded piece would be out of the reach of most of my students.  Even by giving them a CD of potential repertoire, I am defining choices for them at the same time as broadening their options.  I really see practical problems with what you are advocating.

Of course, they are not required to hear the whole CD in one sitting. They do it in homeopathic dosages, a few pieces a day. There is no hurry or pressure. I am not sure why a professionally recorded piece would be out of the reach of most students. The CD I give them is a compilation of available CDs (and therefore professionally recorded)

It seems more realistic to find the pieces I have that are at an approopriate level, find the ones I think the student will like, encourage them to try.  Compared to reading books, this is like reading many different genres and authors - giving them a chance to experience and be enriched by these things.  It would be limiting to keep a child only to fairy stories when there are adventures, realism, sad endings, picture books, etc.  Some books a child will read over and over again until every word is known, others they will not care for - but at least they will know it exists.

I am not sure how this is different from what I advocate, except that I have taken the trouble to record a CD (very simple with a computer with a recordable CD drive). This of course is far more realistic since it saves me lot of time – instead of using lesson time to play a variety of repertory for the student, I give him/her a CD with a variety of repertory to listen at home.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[hyrst]

Ok, I hear your point of view.  I still disagree that students are able to choose every piece they play and to have the knowledge to resource this.  I also disagree that choosing a piece for a student will result in dislike and disinterest.  I agree that it is a good thing when students do choose their own pieces, and I encourage that - I just don't find it a pracitcal idea unless students only learnt one or two pieces every few months.

[goldentone]

The broccoli analogy also presents problems.  While I would not torment myself or my students with Mikrokosmos, that does not mean I should avoid an understanding such music.  Besides, it is only one possibility of an enormous range of music.  However, I do believe that some understanding of style and technique is needed, with breadth.  The depth and detail changes with the level of student study, but I strongly value breadth at all levels - it opens options among other things.  If one refuses broccoli, there is always peas, beans, cabbage, lettuce, spinach, etc.  However, if one never eats any green vegetables, a serious case of mal-nutirition will result. 

I wanted to zero in on this.  The assumption here is that if students are allowed
to choose their own pieces, then they will suffer in their exposure to the repertoire because of their tastes--limited tastes being the assumption--and would tend towards depth (I love Beethoven) with no breadth. I wonder, Bernhard, what you have seen in regard to this and your thoughts about it.

[m]

The most likely error a teacher may be guilty of is selecting a piece for the student. This is none of your business. Let the student select the piece; your business is to teach it so that s/he can play it.


None whatsoever. Selecting a piece is not my business. It is the student´s business. My considerations would be in how to teach what s/he has selected. But this would be a different question (and possibly a different topic).

I strongly disagree with such a categorical statement. I am the one for individual approach and personally, most of the time I combine and alternate both approaches, which adresses both--achieving my goals of methodical leading of the student from the very beginning to the most advanced pianism, as well as gives the student enough freedom.

But perhaps this is because my teaching is not oriented towards professional pianists...

...So, my teaching is not geared towards professional, competitive piano playing. None of my students is, or wishes to be a professional pianist. All they want is to play the pieces they love. Ultimately they do not have the time to waste on repertory they abhor simply because “it will be good for them”.

In fact, finally I understand the source of my main disagreement with you. And while indeed, it is not my intention to prepare professional pianists either, my goal is somewhat different, which is to culturally educate my students and give them tools to express themselves, rather than teach some pieces. Having those tools they can tackle any piece of entire piano literature on themselves--at some point they just don't need me anymore--by age of 15-17 they are professionals by definition.

Best, M

[hyrst]

I wanted to zero in on this.  The assumption here is that if students are allowed
to choose their own pieces, then they will suffer in their exposure to the repertoire because of their tastes--limited tastes being the assumption--and would tend towards depth (I love Beethoven) with no breadth.

My position is not quite that black and white.  Like Marik, I believe a large part of my responsibility is to develop students' experience with music and culturally educate them.  Honestly, left completely to their own devices, most students do not have enough knowledge to choose diversity - they don't know what is available - and they might not have the courage to try something quite different.  I don't think I even have enough knowledge for learning at my level - I feel I need some guidance and suggestions.  It's not so much a matter of limited tastes, just comfort with the familiar and not knowing the possibilities.

Some students are more able to find their own direction in learning, but many would become paralysed if they had to choose everything for themselves.  Again, my experience is that some students will sometimes choose pieces for themselves - but many are very happy to play anything, although they have their favourite pieces, because they are just happy to be involved with music.  The older the student the longer they must work on a piece, or the more advanced their repertoire, the more likely they are to want and need to choose pieces.  I definitely think it is a mistake to either choose every piece a student plays, no matter what they think of it, or to only ever have students find their own way - most things require flexibility, balance, leadership, wisdom, and responsibility.

[bernhard]

I wanted to zero in on this.  The assumption here is that if students are allowed
to choose their own pieces, then they will suffer in their exposure to the repertoire because of their tastes--limited tastes being the assumption--and would tend towards depth (I love Beethoven) with no breadth. I wonder, Bernhard, what you have seen in regard to this and your thoughts about it.

Er... what I have to say is that everyone seems to be missing the point (someone points to the moon, and everyone looks at the finger).

Ultimately it is irrelevant who chooses the piece. The point is that the student must like the piece. No student will work seriously on a piece they don´t like. It is as simple as that. Does the teacher want to choose the piece? Wonderful (some teachers are control freaks who demand complete power and authority). Just make sure that the student loves it to bits. Since the student knows its own tastes better than any other person, then let him/her choose it. It saves time.

What is the alternative? Giving them a piece they hate? What benefit can come from that? “It is good for character building” is a possibility, but then one should consider getting into the army, instead of piano teaching.

Surely as piano teachers of the highest calibre (as I am sure you all are) and given the size of the piano repertory (which I am sure you all know back to front) it should be a cinch to find a piece that both the student likes and that will make up for any deficiencies that the teacher has spotted.

Also do not underestimate students breadth of taste. This is a problem that I never encountered with any student. And again taste changes with age. If a student has limited taste at the present time, the best way to limit it even further is to force them to play something they don´t like (yet). Another way, of course is not to let them choose their pieces. Then complain that their taste is limited (one wonders why).


There are several methodologies to open up student´s tastes, but forcing repertory is not one of them. And as lessons progress, You may be amazed to see that the student´s taste progress (and becomes more comprehensive) too.

Also depth is related to breath. If you only play Beethoven, I assure you that your playing will be shallow, not deep because learning new and different repertory will inform and change the way one plays Beethoven. Although most concert pianists seem to specialise to a certain extent (Gould with Bach, Brendel with Beethoven, Schubert and Liszt, Rachmaninoff with Rachmaninoff) this is only as far as their public playing is concerned. In private most of them have an extensive and varied repertory.

Best wishes,
Bernhard

[pianisten1989]

Ultimately it is irrelevant who chooses the piece. The point is that the student must like the piece. No student will work seriously on a piece they don´t like. It is as simple as that. Does the teacher want to choose the piece? Wonderful (some teachers are control freaks who demand complete power and authority). Just make sure that the student loves it to bits. Since the student knows its own tastes better than any other person, then let him/her choose it. It saves time.

Also do not underestimate students breadth of taste. This is a problem that I never encountered with any student. And again taste changes with age. If a student has limited taste at the present time, the best way to limit it even further is to force them to play something they don´t like (yet). Another way, of course is not to let them choose their pieces. Then complain that their taste is limited (one wonders why).

Let me see if I get you right..
You say, that the student should pick a piece, All by it self?

If that's your opinion, I don't agree with you.

When I started playing the piano, at the age of 12, I oftenly didn't want to play the pieces my teacher choose for me. Like, what 12 year old want to play pieces like twinkle twinkle, and those kinds of childrens songs. And what 12 year old, who knows a lot of easy Back preludes or Czerny's etudes, which they are able to play?

When I started I wanted to play the second hungarian rhapsody, and that's that. If my teacher would say "well. okey.. You haven't had a single lesson yet, but lets give it a try" I would break all my fingers. And I wasn't that kind of kid who flashed around with playing classical piano, so I didn't buy classical piano cds, so my taste didn't get broader at all.

I would say, if its not one of those kids who buy all cds and already know a huge amount of pieces, that the teacher would have kind of a limit, or grade,  with some pieces which are in right level (difficult) for the student, and then the student pick his favourite. In that way, there's a very small chanse that the student will pick a piece that's too hard, or too easy, And the student get's to listen to many diffenrent pieces, and he/she wont get a Limited taste.

[hyrst]

Pianisten, That's exactly how I work - and pretty much every teacher I know.  It balances choice with responsilbiity and practicality. 

With some students, though, they are capable of learning a piece at their current level within the week - and quite a few of my students do that.  For them, I don't think there is harm in them playing a piece I have chosen just to give them a taste of something in a different style to their favourite.  However, I would not do that to a student who takes 2 months to properly learn each piece. 

Bernhard, you still imply that choosing pieces (which I think really means recommending pieces in most cases) means that the student is going to hate that piece.  I think that is a fundamental flaw in your position.  I find that a student will tell me straight up if they don't like a piece (I play them for them first).  We then talk about if it is worth learning something from it, or if it isn't worth the effort.  I find this objection to probably one in 200 pieces I ever recommend (at most, probably less often than this).  I think both sides are seeking the same aim - to have a student actively involved in discovering music repertoire and styles, one gives the student experience with the music hands-on and the other focuses on the listening rather than the playing.  I don't think anyone is doing harm, if that works for them and the students' expectations - providing nobody is forced to endure a request unreasonably.  I also think a short period of disciplined work is essential for students wanting to be versatile and outstanding musicians.   

And, just because a teacher recommends music doesn't limit a student's tastes and preferences and independence.  I understand your philosophy, Bernhard, but you are awfully blanket statement and assuming about the contrary position. 

[lostinidlewonder]

1) what are the most likely errors a teacher may be guilty of in the selection of pieces for a student?
2) what points would you take into consideration in selecting a new piece for a student?

New students are very difficult to choose new pieces for because we as teachers are still trying to find out what their hands are like. However we can make inroads into understanding their hands by listening to everything that they can play (if they are early beginners it is more complicated to find this out). We can pick out problems in their ability and we should solve these problems with the pieces that they can already play. We improve the way in which they play the pieces they already know. Once we have done this we can move on to new pieces.

Some students have no interest in improving the pieces they already play, that is fair enough, we can try to find similar situations in new pieces. However if the new pieces we teach does not have a far reaching effect, that is making improvements in all the other pieces that reflect a similar idea, then we must reassess whether or not the student actually understands the application of knowledge, or are simply parrot learning and reproducing what is required in single instances.

So the greatest mistake a teacher can do is choose repertoire which does not have a far reaching effect on their entire playing. Some teachers get caught up improving the leaves of a tree instead of focusing on the entire structure of the tree. That is the only way I can describe it without throwing random examples in the air. If you improve a single leaf, the student finds it difficult to see its application overall, we must not get them caught up over small detail, rather the detail which causes greatest, far reaching change in their ability. To know this however requires that you spend a few lessons with the student to really get to know how well they focus mentally, what their hands are like, how well their can manage their time to study piano, everything through and through.

I also find that a teacher should never subject a student to somethig which is too difficult for them, something where their learning curve is too slow. We should gradually increase the load on their backs, not crush them flat. To advanced students who live to study their instrument this is fine, but for most students it is not very nice to throw them into the deep end and watch them flounder about . On the other hand it is also wrong to give them multiple examples of the same idea, we shouldn't pound the same concept over and over again.

Students must play pieces that they enjoy, this means that they are ALWAYS selecting their pieces. They might not have the complete freedom to choose the piece totally themselves, the teacher should offer a list of pieces that would be appropriate, but if none on that list interests the student, we should not insist they learn it. When students do examinations often the list they can choose from is limited, but still we must present the entire syllabus to them for them to choose the ones that they personally enjoy the most. I think this is extremely important.