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