Ever taught a piece you couldn't play yourself?

[da jake]

 

[abell88]

Depends on how you define "couldn't play yourself". I have never learned Fur Elise, as when I was young enough for it to appeal to me it was beyond me. Now I could play through it (by sight) reasonably well, but not at performance level. I taught a student to play it this year and she tied for first in a music festival.

[maryruth]

Ah, yes, I agree with abell88...define couldn't play yourself.....We probably shouldn't be teaching something we can't comprehend, but there's so much piano music out there.  I don't have any advanced students....But I'd feel comfortable teaching anything that I could sightread through reasonably well and make sense of, which for me would be anything through the late-intermediate/early advanced levels.  If my hands can reach it (I just reach an octave fully extended and not a hair farther) I can play it.  If I had a student wanting to work on something I hadn't learned to play, I'd make an effort to learn it reasonably well....

I teach all beginners and intermediate students....I don't teach advanced students.  I'd feel comfortable teaching a student up until they could play at the level 10 (USA), but then you're going to have find a teacher that specializes in the REALLY hard stuff...I'm just not up on that.  I can play the Pathetique, but would I feel comfortable teaching ALL the Beethoven Sonatas?  No, just the 5-6 easy ones....

[jeremyjchilds]

I don't think it matters, if I am an expert instructor, know the repertoire, know the technique, know the student, I would not have to be able to perform the song myself. So much of teaching is diagnostics and psychology anyways.

If I marketed myself as a performer\instructor, then of course I would be expected to...

Having said that, the only reason that I do always keep myself a number of steps ahead of my students, is because of the respect level. Students like to feel like they are the "prodigy" of a master...and if that makes them work harder, then I will push my playing to the limit, but only for the pragmatic reason of teaching, because I am a teacher....

[whynot]

This is a really interesting question, and jeremychilds makes excellent points.  I think this question speaks to the different roles that teachers play at various phases of learning-- roles that are probably taken by several different teachers along the way.  Bernhard has a fascinating post on this somewhere, about the kind of teacher needed for each level or type  of student, I don't know quite how to find it.  I believe it depends on how advanced a learner the student is-- not how advanced a pianist, exactly, but rather, how hands-on "do it like this" does the student need?  Is it someone who can be told or demonstrated broader points of style and artistry and be able to use those in the piece at hand?  I don't think advanced students need to be "taught" specific pieces, they are learning about style, problem-solving and art.  Definitely, younger students do respect (and get inspired by) teachers who can do things that they cannot.  I think the more advanced the student, the more respect there is for a teacher who understands how it all works on a higher level; whether or not the teacher can play a particular phrase becomes less important.  So it depends.     

[bernhard]

Bernhard has a fascinating post on this somewhere, about the kind of teacher needed for each level or type  of student, I don't know quite how to find it.  

Do you mean this thread?

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2450.msg21250.html#msg21250
(the four levels of teaching: Toddler, beginner, intermediate and advanced)

 

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[bernhard]

It is a very good idea to teach one does not play. Here are the advantages:

For the teacher:

1.   It is exciting. There is nothing more boring than teach something you are already know. The excitement of tackling a new piece will transmit to the student, generating in him/her enthusiasm and interest as well.

2.   It increases the teacher repertory. If you teach all day long the same stuff, when are you going to have time/energy to learn new repertory?

3.   When teaching stuff you already know, you loose touch with the student’s reality. You cannot understand why it is taking him so long to figure out a passage. You become impatient and unsympathetic to the student’s problems. It is even worse if you learned the piece so long ago that you cannot remember which steps you used to master it. However, by teaching stuff you yourself do not know, you get a chance to experience the difficulties a student would (you can bet that the passage you have trouble with the student will also have trouble with)

4.   It gives the teacher an opportunity to actually practise by doing it as a model for the student to follow.

Advantages for the student:

1.   It provides a unique opportunity to observe first hand how the teacher learns and practises a new piece. The ultimate aim of a piano course should not be learning pieces, but rather learning how to learn pieces.

2.   The teacher will be excited and not get impatient, and is likely to spend time carefully working through a passage, without skipping steps and cutting corners.

3.   It shows the student that the teacher may struggle with difficulties as well, and yet (because s/he knows how to learn and practise) s/he will master the piece, passage. This is very encouraging, for it shows the student that like him/her, the teacher struggles as well, but unlike him/her, the teacher somehow manages to master the passage. Arousing the curiosity of the student on how this is managed is the most important step towards the eventual independence of the student.

4.   Because the teacher is practising/learning with the student without skipping any steps or cutting any corners, the student has to do the same and by so doing (one hopes) s/he will realise the value of a consistent and thorough approach to learning/practising.

In fact, I can only see advantages and no disadvantages in teaching stuff one does not know.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[whynot]

Bernhard, yes! that's the thread.  It's brilliant. 

[pianoannie]

Do you mean this thread?

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2450.msg21250.html#msg21250
(the four levels of teaching: Toddler, beginner, intermediate and advanced)

 

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

I wanted to copy that post so I could refer to it in the future, but for some reason I cannot do a copy/paste on it.  I've never had that happen before.  Anyone have a suggestion?
annie

[jeremyjchilds]

In fact, I can only see advantages and no disadvantages in teaching stuff one does not know.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

A agree that the advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, but I will make one moderating comment for those who may take the proverbial ball and "run"

When teaching unfamiliar material, it becomes much easier for an inexperienced teacher who lacks foresight to overlook certain pitfalls that may occur in the learning process. A master teacher can usually see these right away.

Each song has a slightly unique approach that is best, and sometimes that approach is only obvious in retrospect. An inexperienced teacher may apply a disadvantageous sequence of learning.

Of course an experienced master teacher usually does not need the 20\20 of hindsight, because his foresight makes up for it...

BTW is this post about teaching songs the teacher does not know, or is it about teaching songs that the teacher cannot play??

[rafant]

I apologize for this intromission in a teachers matter, but I only wanted to illustrate some of the Bernhard's points: I introduced my russian-school teacher to Scarlatti's Sonatas and Field's Nocturnes. Of course, she can sighread easily what I take weeks to learn, but she said: "It has been a true discovery!".

[da jake]

The topic wasn't "have not", but "could not".

Is a teacher qualified to teach the 4th Ballade who is not able to play it, for whatever reason?

[bernhard]

S/he may or not be qualified to do it (do they give diplomas for it now?), but this is largely irrelevant.

The question is never one of qualification, and always one of "skill".

Is the teacher skilled enough to teach a piece s/he is not able to play? If s/he is, s/he is and the student will benefit from it.

Does the skill to teach a piece requires the ability to play it? Certainly not. Does the skill to teach a piece require the ability to know how to learn it? Most certainly.

And since I am at it.

Does the skill to be able to play a piece means that one will now have the skill to teach it? Most certainly not.

Have you ever heard of Sebastian Coe? He was an Olympic gold medallist in running events and in his time broke several records. His coach was not a qualified coach, was not a runner, was not anything special actually. He was his father.

Look at all olympic events. Do you think any of those overweight, unfit, middle aged coaches can do anything remotely closer to what their charges are doing (and getting gold medals for it)? And they do not need to. Their role is not to do the stuff, but to bring their charges to do it.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[da jake]

My teacher asks me to play a passage. It's bad, so he tells me what's wrong with it. He will demonstrate what I'm doing wrong, then will demonstrate how it's supposed to be. Then he'll help me play it the way its supposed to be played by making sure my hand goes through the proper motions.

How is someone who cannot play a difficult passage qualified to say more than "it doesn't sound right"?

[xvimbi]

My teacher asks me to play a passage. It's bad, so he tells me what's wrong with it. He will demonstrate what I'm doing wrong, then will demonstrate how it's supposed to be. Then he'll help me play it the way its supposed to be played by making sure my hand goes through the proper motions.

How is someone who cannot play a difficult passage qualified to say more than "it doesn't sound right"?

For advanced students, that is really all they need. Less advanced students need to see the correct motions and hear the correct tone. Among the musicians, probably the most extreme case is that of a conductor. Chances are s/he can't play any of the instruments well, but nevertheless has a thorough understanding of what they can do. Simply asking for a result is all a conductor really does.

And so do coaches of advanced pianists. I always shake my head at people who attempt advanced Beethoven sonatas, Rach3, Chopin Ballade No. 4, etc., when they ask about fingering, how to get the tremolos done without tiring, how to best learn the cadenza, etc. Anybody who attempts such pieces should already have the foundation for them and thus should already know how to answer all those questions and how to solve all technical problems.

What pianists at this stage need is not so much "teaching" but "coaching". They don't have to be taught how to execute certain motions, but they have to be coached to develop their capabilities to imagine sounds. They already know how to produce them once they have them in their heads.

This is very similar to the role of a critic. A critic also does not have to be able to play a certain piece in order to make valid remarks. In fact, for advanced pianists, the coach is much more a critic than a teacher.

[bernhard]

My teacher asks me to play a passage. It's bad, so he tells me what's wrong with it. He will demonstrate what I'm doing wrong, then will demonstrate how it's supposed to be. Then he'll help me play it the way its supposed to be played by making sure my hand goes through the proper motions.

How is someone who cannot play a difficult passage qualified to say more than "it doesn't sound right"?

It is not that simple. Check it out:

“He truly loved the Benediction. He had not played it himself. He wanted to show me something about it, so he sat down and tried to play it. The melody is in the left hand. But as you know, the right hand is so awkward and tricky, you can’t really sight-read it and make a lot of sense. So he said, “I don’t know the right hand. It’s not important. I tell you what, you play the right hand, I play the left hand and I’ll pedal it for you”. It was an unbelievable experience. The second time around, he screamed, “That was good! That was good! Let’s do it again.” This time, I was trying to follow him, to try to feel how he created his amazing pharasing with his magical pedalling. The way he pedalled, you heard different sounds, a different way of creating on the piano. All of a sudden, I heard the Benediction with me being a part of it”.

(Pianist Dan-wen Wei reminisces about a lessons with Horowitz on Liszt’s Benediction to God in the Solitude.In David Dubal’s “Evenings with Horowitz” – Amadeus Press).

Which, of course, is exactly what xvimbi is talking about.

I rest my case.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[lostinidlewonder]

I can get my hands around anything I teach, but I am not necessarily a master at playing each and every peice myself. I know how each and every piece should ideally sound though and what to avoid and what to encourage. A lot of the time I am explaining to students how to visualise the actual music. How to see the pattern, how to logically memorise the piece. This has nothing to do with actually playing the peice but the process of studying the piece. This is what a teacher targets a lot of the time not so much the final result.

[quasimodo]

I couldn't play ALL the pieces I taught to my unique student (who is... me because I'm self tecahing or more exactly self-learning). 

[alzado]

How about size of hands? 

A teacher can be gifted, but if she can't do a tenth, she is going to struggle with some of the repertoire.

Alexander Tcherpnin, for example, uses tenths the way some composers use octaves.

Would that qualify as a piece "the teacher can't play"  -- ?

[lostinidlewonder]

How about size of hands? 

A teacher can be gifted, but if she can't do a tenth, she is going to struggle with some of the repertoire.

Alexander Tcherpnin, for example, uses tenths the way some composers use octaves.

Would that qualify as a piece "the teacher can't play"  -- ?

If your hands are too small to play a 10th then you must detach the notes or find a resource so that perhaps the hands can share the notes so that you can actually play all of the notes together. If you must detach the notes I don't think you can be blamed for it.

Pianists with small hands have to be very resourceful. They must know which notes could perhaps be neglected to produce similar sounds of large chords.
When I tried to learn Holsts The Planets for piano solo I took out the duet sheet music and tried to guess how on earth I could play these impossible stretches for one hand. The idea comes from understanding what to neglect and how to decieve the listener. This is something people with small hands have to do all the time.

To me it is facinating, to hear something unplayable for the small hand being controlled and somewhat played. There is a huge amount of knowledge to learn from it. One part of piano development I believe is the control of large chords and arpeggios. The larger the arpreggio or chord is the more control you require and the more testing it is for the pianist. But not much music demands more than 10ths.

Teachers with small hands can also suggest to you how to extend your own reach and play in uncomfortable positions since they are usually constantly playing in uncomfortable grounds with their small hands. Hand size is by no means an advantage or disadvantage in my opinion.

So we have to learn how to deal with what we have, if you cant play an octave detach them, no one can blame you. Say to those who criticize you about it, Here take my hands and show me how you would do it.

Furthermore I think it is sad to say to a student, no sorry you can't play this piece because you cannot play this chord which demands a stretch more than you could ever hope to produce. We have to be resourceful and make the impossible possible in some form or another.

[jeremyjchilds]

If your hands are too small to play a 10th then you must detach the notes or find a resource so that perhaps the hands can share the notes so that you can actually play all of the notes together. If you must detach the notes I don't think you can be blamed for it.

Pianists with small hands have to be very resourceful. They must know which notes could perhaps be neglected to produce similar sounds of large chords.
When I tried to learn Holsts The Planets for piano solo I took out the duet sheet music and tried to guess how on earth I could play these impossible stretches for one hand. The idea comes from understanding what to neglect and how to decieve the listener. This is something people with small hands have to do all the time.

To me it is facinating, to hear something unplayable for the small hand being controlled and somewhat played. There is a huge amount of knowledge to learn from it. One part of piano development I believe is the control of large chords and arpeggios. The larger the arpreggio or chord is the more control you require and the more testing it is for the pianist. But not much music demands more than 10ths.

Teachers with small hands can also suggest to you how to extend your own reach and play in uncomfortable positions since they are usually constantly playing in uncomfortable grounds with their small hands. Hand size is by no means an advantage or disadvantage in my opinion.

So we have to learn how to deal with what we have, if you cant play an octave detach them, no one can blame you. Say to those who criticize you about it, Here take my hands and show me how you would do it.

Furthermore I think it is sad to say to a student, no sorry you can't play this piece because you cannot play this chord which demands a stretch more than you could ever hope to produce. We have to be resourceful and make the impossible possible in some form or another.

I think Alzado was asking that question on a more philosophical level than a practical level....

[dmk]

For advanced students, that is really all they need. Less advanced students need to see the correct motions and hear the correct tone. Among the musicians, probably the most extreme case is that of a conductor. Chances are s/he can't play any of the instruments well, but nevertheless has a thorough understanding of what they can do. Simply asking for a result is all a conductor really does.

And so do coaches of advanced pianists. I always shake my head at people who attempt advanced Beethoven sonatas, Rach3, Chopin Ballade No. 4, etc., when they ask about fingering, how to get the tremolos done without tiring, how to best learn the cadenza, etc. Anybody who attempts such pieces should already have the foundation for them and thus should already know how to answer all those questions and how to solve all technical problems.

What pianists at this stage need is not so much "teaching" but "coaching". They don't have to be taught how to execute certain motions, but they have to be coached to develop their capabilities to imagine sounds. They already know how to produce them once they have them in their heads.

This is very similar to the role of a critic. A critic also does not have to be able to play a certain piece in order to make valid remarks. In fact, for advanced pianists, the coach is much more a critic than a teacher.

Was going to respond to this initial post but I think this was said so well.  I couldn't agree more.

I see my job as getting my students to hear, once they can hear and imagine the sounds they are going to produce, the battle is virtually won.

[da jake]

I started literally from scratch in Sept. of 2004 after falling in love with the piano.

With the help of my teacher, I slogged my way through the difficulties of short beginner pieces (mainly Bach) to get the ropes. I then moved on to the 2nd Prelude of the English Suites, E minor Posth Waltz, Andante Spianato (not the Grande Polonaise, heh), and the Schube G flat major Impromptu. At first, I played them poorly, but persistence paid off, and I can play them all start to finish reasonably well. I could barely sightread at first, and relied mainly on memorization.

My technique and sight-reading are improving all the time.  I have little theory, but that hasn’t hindered hindered my playing (I intend to pick up theory as I progress). I don’t intend to pursue piano as a career, but I do intend to become a *** good pianist in the years to come. 

I'm currently working on Bach fugues as well as the G minor Ballade. There are countless things I see wrong with my playing, and countless goals that I hope to achieve in the future.  My progress isn’t as shocking to me as it undoubtedly will seem to some here (I even anticipate a degree of skepticism). I believe that my teacher, my drive, and natural talent have contributed to my rapid progress. None of this could have been possible without my teacher, though. Not only do I receive super instruction, we are also compatible and frequently talk music, and even exchange great recordings. When I tell people about what my teacher can do on the piano, they are astonished, and envious, which makes me feel very lucky but also depresses me because of the opportunities I am granted but they lack.

My initial question was not geared towards teachers of hypercritical master-classes, I was talking about teaching students a piece; students who are shoveling their way through technical difficulties and require help in order to overcome them. As most of the pianists here are working their way through the repertory, I can barely believe all the replies here that rationalize a teacher’s inability to actually play what they are teaching. (I still believe that teachers of master-classes should have mastered many repertoire standards). In a nutshell: no teacher should strictly teach a piece they cannot play.

A final word: For all the eloquent pedagogy generously provided on internet forums that is so gratefully received, I can't help but think that it is all merely rationalizations and excuses for the lack of TRULY qualified instruction. I find “difficulty ratings” (etc.) topics as a barometer for the poor quality of teaching students receive. A huge number of the topics at this forum can be effectively dispatched in a matter of seconds by a good teacher. Reading doesn’t make you a good pianist; experience does.

My progress is a natural byproduct of all the factors mentioned in this. Denigration of my teacher’s methods is pointless as my progress speaks for itself. This post is essentially my observations based on my own experience, geared to try and help other pianists achieve similar progress. I apologize in advance if I have come across sounding very harsh.

[dmk]

I started literally from scratch in Sept. of 2004 after falling in love with the piano.

With the help of my teacher, I slogged my way through the difficulties of short beginner pieces (mainly Bach) to get the ropes. I then moved on to the 2nd Prelude of the English Suites, E minor Posth Waltz, Andante Spianato (not the Grande Polonaise, heh), and the Schube G flat major Impromptu. At first, I played them poorly, but persistence paid off, and I can play them all start to finish reasonably well. I could barely sightread at first, and relied mainly on memorization.

My technique and sight-reading are improving all the time. I have little theory, but that hasn’t hindered hindered my playing (I intend to pick up theory as I progress). I don’t intend to pursue piano as a career, but I do intend to become a *** good pianist in the years to come.

I'm currently working on Bach fugues as well as the G minor Ballade. There are countless things I see wrong with my playing, and countless goals that I hope to achieve in the future. My progress isn’t as shocking to me as it undoubtedly will seem to some here (I even anticipate a degree of skepticism). I believe that my teacher, my drive, and natural talent have contributed to my rapid progress. None of this could have been possible without my teacher, though. When I tell people about what my teacher can do on the piano, they are astonished, and envious, which makes me feel very lucky but also depresses me because of the opportunities I am granted but they lack.

My initial question was not geared towards teachers of hypercritical master-classes, I was talking about teaching students a piece; students who are shoveling their way through technical difficulties and require help in order to overcome them. As most of the pianists here are working their way through the repertory, I can barely believe all the replies here that rationalize a teacher’s inability to actually play what they are teaching. (I still believe that teachers of master-classes should have mastered many repertoire standards). In a nutshell: no teacher should strictly teach a piece they cannot play.

A final word: For all the eloquent pedagogy generously provided on internet forums that is so gratefully received, I can't help but think that it is all merely rationalizations and excuses for the lack of TRULY qualified instruction. I find “difficulty ratings” (etc.) topics as a barometer for the poor quality of teaching students receive. A huge number of the topics at this forum can be effectively dispatched in a matter of seconds by a good teacher. Reading doesn’t make you a good pianist; experience does.

My progress is a natural byproduct of all the factors mentioned in this. Denigration of my teacher’s methods is pointless as my progress speaks for itself. This post is essentially my observations based on my own experience, geared to try and help other pianists achieve similar progress. I apologize in advance if I have come across sounding very harsh.

da jake a little story for you.

Last year one of my students was successful getting into the best conservatorium in NSW, possibly Australia.  This was his audition program.  I can play NONE of these pieces

BACH: Prelude and Fugue in C# min Bk II
BEETHOVEN: Sonata op 31 n1
SCHUMANN: Papillions op 2
BROADSTOCK: Giants of the Land

CHOPIN: Etude op 10 no 4

In fact, I would go so far as to say that I could not play the Chopin Etude as well as he can.  Clearly my teaching did not harm him, nor is it still harming him as 2 weeks ago he won the concerto competition amongst first year students.

He is not the first student I have had who has successfully auditioned for this conservatorium.  The last 3 years I have had students 'get' in.

Its nice to see that someone who has never taught can comment on teaching.  I consider myself a very fine teacher and a comparatively lousy pianist.  Please don't misunderstand me...I am not a bad pianist and have gotten into conservatorium's myself, but relative to excellent pianists I am very run of the mill.

The measure of a truly brilliant teacher to me is not one who can teach someone who is naturally talented (anyone can do this) but someone who can turn a run of the mill student into a highly competent pianist.

I am don't think you have come across sounding harsh, just inexperienced and ignorant as to pedagogical methods and the art of teaching.

[da jake]

Mea culpa.

I accept that you and others here are wonderful teachers, and that methods other than a teacher's sheer mastery of the instrument can be conducive to a student's success.

I was making a very broad observation based on my own experience and what I gathered from the posts in this forum.

Perhaps the only conclusion I can draw is that, given my experience, I would never have been able to achieve what I have without my specific teacher...and that, for me, experience and qualified instruction is always better than reading, contemplating, and rationalizing. I reacted very strongly to all the stories of students who are stuck in a rut while I'm progressing relatively smoothly.

[dmk]

that's very kind of you...but you don't have to accept that I am a wonderful teacher, I could be a raving nut bag for all you know.

Believe me, there is nothing more that disturbs me than a crank teacher and there are loads of them out there.  It genuninely upsets me when I get a student who has been learning from someone else and is a technical and musical mess, is unable to read a note of music.  Very disturbing.

The world is full of unqualified teachers, I just don't think having command of entire repertoire of the piano is one of the criteria for being qualified.

I don't like Chopin's G min Ballade in particular, but I have a very broad conception of how it should not be played (ie not how it should be played, there is no one right way, just many wrong ways) so I feel very confident in teaching it.

[da jake]

that's very kind of you...but you don't have to accept that I am a wonderful teacher, I could be a raving nut bag for all you know.

Yeah, but in order for meaningful discussion to occur I feel it pointless to doubt claims that we're making (unless that is the explicit goal of the discussion). I've accepted your claims in regards to your student as truthful, and it has caused me to rethink my opinion of piano teachers.

The world is full of unqualified teachers, I just don't think having command of entire repertoire of the piano is one of the criteria for being qualified.

I think that this was a difficult conclusion for me to accept given this which is going on:

Believe me, there is nothing more that disturbs me than a crank teacher and there are loads of them out there.  It genuninely upsets me when I get a student who has been learning from someone else and is a technical and musical mess, is unable to read a note of music.  Very disturbing.

[dmk]

I think that this was a difficult conclusion for me to accept given this which is going on:

Fair enough....I take your point and I know what you are getting at, but I have another story for you.

--------------------------------

A friend of mine is currently studying for his masters at a top flight British Conservatoire

Last summer he spent 1 month studying with a well respected violin teacher.  This teacher had a relatively limited command of the piano but a very knowledge of piano repertoire and history of western music. 

He thinks this was the best month he has ever spent, she was apparently brilliant.  His playing, outlook and musical instincts, in his opinion, are far better for it.

He is obviously very high level and a gifted bloke but its certainly food for thought.  It seems that in this case knowledge of stylistic and melodic considerations were far more important that technical command of the instrument.

------------------------------

For me, and definately feel free to disagree, a 'crank' is someone who teaches their student to be able to play the notes on the page and thats it.  For such a teacher, teaching music involves nothing more than these notes, there is no value adding, no musical intuition and development, no technical and aural considerations.  Such a student may be able to play the notes on the page but with an abhorent tone and touch, little variation etc.

You can teach anyone to play a bundle of notes on a page, value adding to this is where the 'teaching' comes in. 

I guess this comes from my style of teaching where I resist the temptation to teach students a piece where they have 'mastered the notes' (borrowing a phrase which is used so often on the forum) and then adding the rest of it later. 

I try to teach it all progressively so my student considers the musical outcome of the piece they would like to achieve before starting it.  I like to have discussions with students before we start the piece right from the beginning of their studies to more advanced students. Many younger 'children's' and beginners pieces have descriptive titles, these are always good fodder for our little chats.

This means imparting on students good knowledge of style, listening to a variety of recordings discussing which ones, and indeed which aspects of a certain recording, a student likes, which they don't and why. etc... Certainly, with more senior students we might disagree on something and thats ok, there is no one right way to do something, but many wrong ways.  If they are artistically mature enough, I see no reason why I should impose my musical sensibilties and tastes on them, unless their 'way' is patently wrong.

This does not mean it is 'perfect' once they have finished 'mastering the notes' (I really hate this phrase!!! argh!!:)). It means they can play the notes and the piece with a reasonable sense of style and we then spend quality time tweaking and refining their performance so it is indivualistic.  There is no reason why this approach to learning the notes should take any longer than a just 'mastering the notes' attitude, provided you have put good thought into the piece.
 
I constantly reevaluate the approach I have taken to pieces I perform, I hope that my students have the skills to do the same.

-------------------------

I suppose, back the original argument, as I think value adding to the notes on the page is the most important element of teaching, I don't think being able to 'play' the piece you teach is necessary, but having the musical intuition and depth to 'value add' is.

Would love to here your thoughts, and indeed the thoughts of others on this proposition???   nothing like a good discussion!!

dmk

[steinway43]

When I played the Liszt Sonata the teacher told me she had never played it but that didn't keep her from making excellent suggestions on phrasing, melody vs. accompaniment issues, pedaling in the hall, etc. She helped me shape my over all performance beautifully.  Having played something yourself would probably give you some insights you might not otherwise have, maybe an extra technique tip or two, but you don't have to have played a piece to understand it. Don't let it stop you. I say this not from a teacher's point of view but strictly as the student in such a situation.

[jeremyjchilds]

i agree that it is a great thing for a teacher to be able to play very well. It is an inspiration.

In the end though, Philosophically, it makes no difference in "teaching"

[urbanspice]

I don't think you have to know how to play a piece in order to teach it. This is where your listening abilities and your musical knowledge comes in. If you as a listener can get the sense, the emotion, the point of a piece then you can help your student get there. Sort of like poetry. If you are well-versed in poetry, you can figure out where you need to put accents or pauses or what the rhythm should be. And technique-wise, if an advanced student is paying you to teach them, then you most likely have the skills to teach them. Life is more fun when it's challenging...

[nanabush]

My teacher who taught me the Grieg sonata could not play the first movement.... but she still taught it excellently.  Knowing how to teach is different than knowing the piece you want to teach...

[pianowelsh]

Generally i agree a good teacher can teach anything especially if they listen widely and read widely. The one exception i have found in my expeience was when i studied a contemporary (really contemporary ie not prokofievetc) work with my teacher - they didnt know it or the composer well and were not used to working in dense non-mesure textures - they avoided the issue by not hearing it in my lessons until near the exam - this is not a place i would want to lead a student!