Teaching more than one instrument

[m1469]

I am seriously considering teaching voice, starting next September.  I will prepare for the next several months and start taking on students as an actual "voice teacher" when Sept. roles around.

For those of you who do teach more than one instrument, I have a few questions.

1.  Do you find that you consistently put more effort into one of them (and those students) than the other ?

2.  Is your teaching "style" and perhaps much of the material, the same between the two ?

3.  If not, how does it differ in principle ?


One of the things that is hard for me to grapple with, is the fact that most students who are completely new to an instrument, are also completely new to reading music.  I am not sure how to teach anybody to read music NOT using the piano (and I learned mostly with the piano, too, I believe).  hmmmmm... I will think for a while.


4.  Do you ever encourage these students of another instrument to also take piano lessons ?

5.  Overall, do you feel that teaching two different instruments enhances your performance as a teacher in both ? 


Thanks,
m1469

[maryruth]

Hi m1469,
I teach mostly piano, but I also have one flute student.  It's been interesting.  You're right--all music students struggle with the same "problems" regardless of instrument.  I think sense of beat and timing are the most important overall musical concept that must be instilled--at least that's my experience with the flute student.  She'd had one year of school band before starting lessons.  She knew all her notes already and had decent tone, but could she count?  Absolutely not.  Because by playing in a band she never had to learn to count on her own--she could just follow.  And of course, without accurate rhythm, a piece of music isn't what it should be. 

Of course, then there's all the aspects of phrasing and creating a melodic line.  The principles are the same for all instruments, but the technique is different.  I wouldn't even know how to begin teaching voice.  The ear is essential to wind instruments and voice.  Unlike the piano, these things can easily be out of tune!  To be able to sing different intervals and scales would be important. 

Just some of my thoughts...

[bernhard]

Yes.

I teach the recorder as well (all five of them, but mostly the treble and soprano).

I have talked a bit about it in this thread:


https://pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,3177.msg27895.html#msg27895
(How to learn/teach the recorder – basic books)

Now, to answer your questions:

1.  Do you find that you consistently put more effort into one of them (and those students) than the other ?

Yes, I put far more effort on the piano for the following reasons:

i.   The recorder is, in many ways, a far easier instrument to master than the piano. This means specially that you will be playing the advanced repertory after a few months, as opposed to a few years in the piano.

ii.   The repertory for the recorder is very limited, and with the exception of a few virtuoso baroque pieces and a lot of modern stuff (which I don΄t like anyway), very manageable even at the beginning level. This is even easier if we are talking about a recorder consort – rather than recorder solo music.

iii.   The recorder is a one line (like the voice) instrument, so the whole problem of playing several voices at the same time (as in the piano) never occurs.

iv.   One huge difference (that you will find in voice as well), is that pure intonation is possible (while on the piano because of equal temperament, every note is slightly out of tune and there is no intonation problem). This creates a whole set of difficulties – the student must have or develop a very good ear, since the note will be tuned by his breath – which are foreign to the piano, but which are also a source of great exhilaration: to interfere so directly in the sound using your own breath is one of the great rewards in playing non-tempered instruments. This exhilaration (as you well know) is even greater) and perhaps unsurpassed in the voice. But this means that a whole new ground must be  covered both in breath control exercises as in aural training.

[Let me open a bracket here and make a side comment that you may or may not be aware. Both with singing and the recorder, it is a very bad idea to use the piano to teach intonation, because the piano is out of tune. The student – in the beginning – must be taught how to find pure intonation by him/herself. After s/he manages that, then he will adjust to the piano easily and with no problems. But if s/he starts by adjusting to the piano, then she may never develop the skill]

2.  Is your teaching "style" and perhaps much of the material, the same between the two ?

Yes. All my ideas on practicing are applied to both instruments. Of course the repertory is different, and so is the actual technique. But otherwise than the obvious adjustments (no need to worry about hands separate/hands together, for instance), the teaching is pretty much the same for both instruments

3.  If not, how does it differ in principle ?

I more or less already answered it. But to delve into it further:

i.   The recorder is a solo instrument, and like the violin, cello, etc after a while becomes pretty unbearable on its own. It really comes to life with an accompaniment (be it a piano, a guitar, a small orchestra, or other recorders). So it is a much more “social” instrument than the piano, which can be pretty much self-sufficient. This is, in my opinion, a huge advantage for the recorder, since there is no better training in musicality then to play as part of an ensemble, to make music together. You are forced to listen and to adapt accordingly.

ii.   One huge disadvantage of the recorder is its limited repertory. There are some renaissance pieces (a bit dull if one is honest), some stupendous Baroque pieces, and then after 1750 nothing. The recorder was completely forgotten until around 1910, when Arnold Dolmetsch (one of the guys responsible for the recorder revival) started commissioning pieces form contemporary composers. Then there is a real renaissance for the recorder and there is ahuge amount of modern music for the recorder. The problem is, most of this music is of the experimental kind (e.g. Michael Verter has a piece that asks for the recorder to be burnt on stage – which is received gratefully by the audience once they hear the composition). Yet there are some real treasures, especially amongst British composers of the 1930s – 1950s (Edmud Rubra, Robin Milford  Herbert Murrill, Douglas Steele, Allan Bullard, etc). So one needs to keep digging onto obscure composers and repertory.

iii.   Because most of the repertory is Baroque, ornamentation and Baroque practices need to be understood from the very start. This has been really useful for the piano though. I never really grasped what free ornamentation was all about until I came across the recorder. I believe that the study of voice could have a similar impact in the understanding of Chopin, for instance.

iv.   The technique (the way one moves), is of course completely different. The co-ordinations are also very foreign to the piano – in the recorder the three main motions to be integrated are the covering of holes by the fingerings, the control of breath and tonguing (which gives the articulation). All this has nothing to do with piano technique, so no cross-over is possible here. But the principles remain the same: One needs to find the easiest way to do things, the magic number 7, etc. etc.

v.   I find the practice of scales on the recorder to be of far greater importance in the recorder (and on voice) than on the piano, since scales are the way to develop pure intonation (on the piano this is not necessary, so the reasons for practicing scales are different).

vi.   Technical exercises are likewise unnecessary on the recorder: All technique can be obtained by working on repertory. But since the repertory is limited, the main reason to avoid them on the piano (lack of time) is not so urgent on the recorder (by the way, there are very few technical exercises for the recorder – as compared to the deluge on the piano).

vii.   Reading music is both easier and more difficult. It is easier because there is only one staff to grapple with, and the recorder has a very limited range (only two octaves). It is far more difficult because you cannot make a direct relationship between the lines and spaces with the piano keys. For the recorder (and all instruments except the piano) the score is truly symbolical.

4.  Do you ever encourage these students of another instrument to also take piano lessons ?

Yes, but only if they can cope with both with the same degree of commitment and seriousness.

5.  Overall, do you feel that teaching two different instruments enhances your performance as a teacher in both ?

Most definitely.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Bob]

The technique is different.  The literature is different.  The type of ensemble they play in plays a part -- solo or an ensemble? 

Theory is pretty much the same, except piano is probably more complete since they do both clefs (and since they are taking private lessons to begin with).

I get better at whatever I'm teaching, and a lot of it can be transferred.  Some of it is just learning people.

I think a "complete" musician should know their instrument and be able to use the piano and voice as tools at least.  I encourage my kids to do this.  I doubt I've ever encouraged anyone to start taking piano or voice lessons, but I see a huge difference in the students that study piano and play an instrument.

So yes, go teach voice.  What have you got to lose?

[clariniano]

After learning how to blow on the mouthpiece and being able to sustain it for 7-10 seconds, and learning how to hold the clarinet, my clarinet students (and so do those of most teachers) start out by sounding the written E (concert D), and learning the first 5 notes of the written C major scale (concert Bb scale), what they look like, and playing some exercises and pieces using quarter, half, and whole notes. In the second lesson they learn the notes down to written G below the treble staff (concert F), and play a few more exercises and pieces. In the third lesson they are introduced to eighth notes, and one new note is introduced. More new notes and rhythmic concepts are introduced, with students learning cut time at about lesson 12 (though I like to save it until a bit later), and 16th notes are introduced in the middle of the book, just after the students start learning the second register of the clarinet. Bear in mind that most clarinet students are at least 9 when they begin learning (and most are at least 10, many begin at 11 or 12), and the book I use (Galper clarinet method) carries the student to a Grade 2 Royal Conservatory of Music level. (a few exercises from that book are on the Grade 1 and 2 clarinet exams)

So, with vocal students, you could find their natural pitch, and locate it on the staff. Mine happens to be A on the treble staff. And have read a few notes above and below, and have them sing songs and exercises with a small range at first.

Technical exercises are used in both clarinet and piano students--especially clarinet students. Some combinations just need to be practiced, for example to play wirtten first-line Eb on the treble staff from F first space, clarinetists need to put down 3 fingers. something that is hard at first, but is easy with some practice. Scales and arpeggios on the clarinet are, in some cases, involve choices of fingering, as many notes on the clarinet have more than one fingering. (and in the highest register, some notes have more than 8 fingerings)

With piano, I generally follow the Faber Piano Adventures, which starts with pre-reading exercises, and when it gets on the staff, with two treble guide notes (middle C and second-line G), introduces fourth-line F in the bass clef, and then shows CDE between the guide notes, and introduces different guide notes in the process of learning. Students don't get into eighth notes until Level 2A (third book), although I like to use the supplementary books and introduce them a lot sooner, even with the dotted quarter + eighth rhythm. Later in the primer they get the second-space C on the bass clef. Then new concepts, but no new notes until early in Level 1, which expands the student's range from 1st-line G in the bass clef to G on top of staff in the treble clef.

I'm not sure which instrument I'm more conscientious about teaching, but if I had to pick, I'd say the piano, because I am teaching it under my own teacher. But I would say I put more effort into my clarinet students, because of all the additional performance opportunities, getting them to work with a pianist, teaching them all the little secrets that about the instrument would not learn in school, multiple fingerings for the same note, ensuring they have a good instrument and good equipment, and it seems to be easier to get piano students to practice than clarinet students! (which is the opposite of what I expected?)

Meri

[Bob]

Ditto for band vs. piano students.  Band seems so much "simpler" in terms of the concepts than piano.  I'm not teaching my band kids nearly the same theory as piano.  I can't say much for the music available for the band instruments compared to piano either.  But that's how it is.

Pst... m1469...  Let us know what voice stuff (books and strategies) you use for teaching voice.  I've had several kids ask me to teach voice.  I know how piano kids start.  I know how band kids start.  I know what they sound like.  I can imagine similar results with voice.

[caperflutist]

Are you familiar with voice technique (frontal placement, breathing,throat,  etc,etc)? I think voice is the hardest to teach because students (and everyone else just assumes you just sing, you don't need to think about it. I focus half the time on exercises, and the rest on whatever songs they are working on. I start by seeing if the can match pitch with my voice, then piano (it's easier for the unexperienced ear to match with another voice than piano).

I teach piano, voice and flute