30 minute lessons??

[cjp_piano]

Does anyone else find that 30-minute lessons aren't long enough?!?!

I've heard many teachers say that 30 minutes is fine for beginners and students in the first few years of study, but I find that even for a 7-year-old who's been playing less than a year, we need MORE time!  As soon as we get started, it's time to wrap up!

45-minute lessons are great because it seems like we do the same amount of stuff but I don't feel so rushed.

What do you think??  Do any of you refuse to teach 30-minute lessons?  Only teach 45 or an hour?

[sarahlein]

I do.
I simply do not offer 30 minutes.

And if parents ask for it I politly explain that 30-minute lessons are simply a waist of their money!

[leahcim]

Does anyone else find that 30-minute lessons aren't long enough?!?!

Yeah I did, although they were short-lived anyway.

Far worse imo was the frequency. I thought once a week was either too often or not often enough, depending how you looked at it.

A week wasn't long enough for me to feel I'd made progress by myself, so I went to most lessons thinking "There's not much point, I know what's still wrong and I can't play the piece yet" So it was 30 minutes of being told what I can read here and / or hear for myself.

Worse, in the short time I often played far worse than I could, and they'd drag something else out of the cupboard, perhaps a wrong note that I'd played 100+ times at home without ever making a mistake. So they'd say "practise this, this week" and I'd be thinking "but I haven't finished what you told me to practise last week yet and that mistake was your different piano, you being sat there, me trying to focus on what you just said 5 minutes ago about relaxing" In other words, 30 minutes wasn't long enough for me to learn to play for the teacher.

OTOH it was too long to more or less practise the piece with them lesson by lesson until the penny dropped. They didn't think about teaching in those terms anyway. It was clear they were trying to "cover stuff for a week" focussing on how much time there was until the next lesson rather than how long the lesson was.

If I had lessons again it'd be either an informal hour or three, every few months, so I could go and play, knowing at least it's pieces I feel I can play as well as I can possibly get them without someone's input. They can then demolish them and tell me where I'm going wrong. Rather than me playing something I know I can improve by myself and them picking a random fault and deciding that's this week's thing.

Or daily, so it's focussed bar by bar on a piece.
I think you'd probably get away with 30 minutes or less on the latter.

I guess I'm saying that for 30-45 minute lessons, aimed at a beginner, in my experience, forget the length of time in between in the "I've got to give them stuff for a week" sense, and "they have everything to learn, this and this and this" and work as though they are coming in every day. You'll probably be less rushed to cover stuff. It'll be slow progress, but probably better than what you note is the standard "a tenner for 30 minute weekly lessons" teaching approach.

It might be true that for a longer lesson you can do them weekly, I've no experience. Perhaps, had I played for an hour some of the difference between how I could play the piece at home and how I played sat next to someone in a 30 minute lesson might have been eroded, so it would have given her a better indication of how well I could play the piece and what I really needed to practise to get it better rather than whatever random mistake I made.

[pianistimo]

i usually charge for a thirty minute lesson, but later give fourty to an hour sometimes for free.  after a year or two, then suggest longer lessons to the parents.  progress is more pay than money.

[cjp_piano]

I guess I'm saying that for 30-45 minute lessons, aimed at a beginner, in my experience, forget the length of time in between in the "I've got to give them stuff for a week" sense, and "they have everything to learn, this and this and this" and work as though they are coming in every day. You'll probably be less rushed to cover stuff. It'll be slow progress, but probably better than what you note is the standard "a tenner for 30 minute weekly lessons" teaching approach. 

Thank you for your input.  I don't actually go about lessons thinking "I've got to give them stuff for a week."   I look at lessons as the teacher helping the student figure out how to practice at home (more so for beginners).  But even with more advanced, I know that they know when they miss notes and they probably played it much better at home, but I want to make sure they know how to practice so their playing is more consistent and confident. 

Is this the wrong way of going about it?

I would love to see my students 30 minutes every day, but that just isn't very possible =(

I guess I don't really feel rushed to cover STUFF, it's just that I know their potential, so I want them to be as good as they can!!  And with just a few more minutes in 45-minute lessons, I feel that it's more time for them to have it all sink in, and I find it to be true  =)

[whynot]

I agree that a thirty-minute lesson isn't long enough, even for young students, unless they're so young and bouncy that they just can't sit that long.  But after a few lessons, I can usually get then to work that long, too.  The longer lesson feels more relaxed and lets us spend time on concepts, not just slam through their pieces.  I like a minimum of 45 minutes, and longer for more experienced students.   

[Bob]

Thirty is short.  Sometimes I go over time without much thought.  Usually theory gets hit first, but then I focus more on theory in other lessons.

[jamie_liszt]

A child or an adult beginner who is playing for fun only and not sitting any exams i say 30 minutes is fine, if they are total beginners, eg: learning 2 pieces of music from a beginners book.  its enough time for the teacher to listen and help the student with the small pieces. But for a student who is working on more then just pieces, like thoery, exercises, scales, exam pieces, should have 1 hour to look over then, i have 1 hour a week and i still dont get enough time.

But i agree 30 minutes isnt that much time for anyone. But 1 hour is to long for a small child with only 1 or 2 pieces, the child might get bored or will run out of pieces to play.

[gruffalo]

it depends what age they are at. if, like my brother who is 7, at that stage it should only be half an hour until they get used to it. otherwise he would get really bored.

for me, from the age of 8/9 upwards and until now, 1 hour is the optimum time but i get 2 hour lessons when coming up to concerts or competitions.

[bernhard]

Have a look here for an alternative way:

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

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2192.msg21823.html#msg21823
(How to teach very young students – the historical method, the pragmatical  x logical method and total exposure as the best way for under-5s)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[keyofc]

I mainly do 45 minutes and one hour lessons.  If they are real young and hyper energetic, I start them out on 30 and see how they do.

I think looking at the lesson from the perspective how you can help them practice at home is great!  I wish when I first got started someone had helped me with that - it took years later.   Many times a teacher just harps on practicing without explaining how to practice.

They will get a lot more out of it. - Once I learned how to practice - it was so exciting to me.  Because it gave me control over the intimidating piece of paper and helped me to be artistic......
key of c

[wenat]

30 minute lessons are fine for the very young beginners ie. 3-5 year olds as their attention span is very limited, but as a general rule I find a 45 minute lesson more appropriate.  Once past G3 ABRSM level I normally suggest the student takes 2 45min lessons a week in order to cover all material, although in reality each lesson lasts more like an hour!

[lagin]

Have a look here for an alternative way:

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

https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,2192.msg21823.html#msg21823
(How to teach very young students – the historical method, the pragmatical  x logical method and total exposure as the best way for under-5s)

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

WELCOME BACK!  You've been sorely missed!

[debussy symbolism]

Greetings.

Yes it depends on the student, and the teacher's time.

[alzado]

As a student who has been taking lessons for a lifetime, off and on, let me make a comment.  I have a 30-minute lesson each week.

With such a lesson, there is really no time to waste.  The teacher and I really share few pleasantries and little chit-chat.   She and I both know what I have prepared, and I begin immediately.  Usually I can play two pieces of some size in that time, such as -- for examples --  (1) a sonata movement plus (2) a studio piece by MacDowell, or someone.  About 15 minutes each-- figuring about 7 minutes to play it, and the rest of the time re-playing parts that the teacher feels need improvement.   For something longer, I do not try to play the entire piece at that lesson.

With a businesslike, "no nonsense" half-hour lesson, I believe I am playing about all that I can find time to prepare during a typical week.

I agree with some of the other posters here.  This is no scales, no exercises, and minimal theory.  I say minimal theory because sometimes I will ask a specific question and the teacher will take a brief time to answer it.  For a "full" lesson with all of the aforementioned elements, then 30 minutes would not be enough.

Let's make final mention of piano teachers who waste time, or do not make good use of the lesson time.  Some piano teachers -- based on what's been appearing on this forum -- like to play for the student.  So if "teacher x" assigns one of the Bach Inventions and insists on playing it, then the student has lost about 10-12 minutes passively listening.

As you can see, I believe that teachers who spend a good part of the lesson playing pieces for the student may not be making efficient use of the time.  By this I do not mean, the teacher just playing a few measures to make a point about rhythm or something, but a teacher actually playing for ten minutes or more for the student.  I do know from reading this forum that some students really like their teacher to do this.  So everyone may not see things the same way.   

[Bob]

Most of my lessons are 30 minutes.  There have been a few more serious students who took longer lessons.

I think there are certain "rules" regarding lessons.  Certain expectations.  Meeting weekly is good -- It keep the student going from week to week.  The student and the parents are expecting some kind of progress -- in terms of performance.  They may understand the importance of theory, ear training, history, etc., but if they don't keep improving in their performance they might quit.  There's only so much time during the lesson, so explanations are going to be short.  The teacher can't really go into elaborate full depth to answer a question.  Part the the weekly 30 minute lesson is the business side.  All noble reasons for teaching aside -- At some point the teacher is going to wonder, Why am I doing this?  How much money do I make doing this?  Is it worth the time and effort?  For some of my lessons, I have put in much more time than the lesson and it's not really worth it financially.  For other lessons, I just give the student that same speech about certain music concepts that I give everyone else -- They get an explanation that has worked for many other students.  They make progress.  They are happy.

Not all these kids are going on.  It doesn't have to be perfect.  For some, the lessons are their "taste" of music.  If they don't learn all the concepts and theory, it really doesn't matter for them.  So at the beginning, if they're doing ok, then later they can do more things in depth and get "more pefect" lessons.

I think there are many things that go into the creation of this format, not just learning or music issues.  I think there are many reasons why things survive in time.  I see lots of things influencing that 30 minute weekly lesson format and there must be reasons it continues to exist, even though it's not perfect.

I think there are reasons why this format exists.  I want better, but when I've changed things a little I see problems forming -- students losing interest, not really understanding... which can ultimately lead to them quitting.

[mike_lang]

.