Purpose/benefit of piano lessons

[timothy42b]

This is a spin-off of the "she doesn't practise" thread.  It actually seems like a m1469 type question to me, but who knows? 

It's two questions, really. 

Is the purpose of sending a child to piano lessons merely to develop skill at playing an instrument, as some have suggested here, or are there broader benefits in the context of music as a fundamental part of a well rounded education, as I suspect most parents probably think? 

And secondly, should the purpose affect how you approach teaching - choice of repertoire, amount of practice, time spent on theory or history, etc.? 

Oh, and does piano differ in any meaningful way from any other instrument one might study, in this regard? 

[ingagroznaya]

Oh, that's very m1469, indeed.

Can I simplify the answer? The general purpose of course is to get a well rounded education. There are only so much time in a lesson. If child does not practice much at home, there are no time left for choices in repertoire ( choices will be very limited) , theory, history and such. All focus goes into developing the basic skill which after all will not be developed, if child does not practice at home. Broader benefits in context of not practicing child? Phlease... You might as well send him to a play ground. He'll benefit just as much by interacting with other kids.

Don't take me wrong. You've asked a good question without specifying what is developed skill at playing an instrument, well rounded educations and fundamental parts means to you. Piano does not differ in any meaningful way from any other instrument in regard to your question. Taking your child to a concerts, listening to music at home, home performances and self study brings broader education. Sending a kid to a 30 minutes piano lessons once per week will not get you far, assuming child is practicing.

If you as a parent think there is only so much time in the day. I, as a teacher, think that there is only so much time in my lesson. In half an hour most children barely have time to play through a piece on the lesson ( ask your child to play a piece for you and time her ). I have to find the time to teach them something. There are as many philosophies out there as there are people it seems, but one seems to be constant - parents have little time, while teacher has enough, to give a child well rounded education in 10 on so minutes left after a child played his piece.

Private piano instructor is only a guide to your child's music education. I used to refuse 30 minutes lessons not that long ago, but at some point I figured - eh, it's your money after all.

[ingagroznaya]

The only reason I dislike m1469's post ( I hope I still can say it without being discharged for "rudeness" ) is most of them seems to be non specific rants into a thin air.And so is your post. It's very general.
We do not teach in groups. We deal individually. Ask me a specific question and talk about your child, don't speak for all parents or all kids. It simply does not work.

Your question reminds me of something that is very popular with american piano teachers - "mission statement".  Everyone here needs to have a mission statement to teach. I say " What?"  We learn piano in Russia without any mission statements and all came out fine. Everyone here seems to be so overly concerned with words - " broader benefits,  context of music, fundamental parts".

If you can't force your kid to practice maybe you fell for your piano teacher "Mission Statement". Perhaps it was created to fit your own mission of "Broader Benefits"?

Ask your kid if she/he enjoys playing. If not - find another teacher. I would not think your kids are at a big risk of ending up at Carnegie Hall, so look around. Try someone else. Try something else. Right teacher should inspire.

[ptmidwest]

Back to your original post, timothy 42B...I am interested in how other experienced piano teachers here would answer your first two questions.

I agree with ingagroznaya that the choice of musical instrument is not as crucially as important as we may like to think, (it's the paths we take in learning to play an instrument that make such a difference), but the piano makes more benefits more readily accessible to a larger number of students--crosses most age, intelligence, coordination, and cultural boundaries.

Excellent questions for teachers!  During the course of a teaching career, it is important, helpful, and revitalizing to develop our teaching philosophies continuously.  I think a mature teacher recognizes that all of our differences and arguments here are simply expressions of the many facets that make up a comprehensive study of piano playing.  There are many truths!  And some don't seem to be compatible with eachother, yet they are.

[ingagroznaya]

I feel there is only one answer here - both questions bounce back to a student.  It would be silly to generalize what teacher's mission statement or philosophy would be IF.

[timothy42b]

I think ingagroznya's position is clear.  Lessons are short, all you have time to do is teach the mechanics, a broader enrichment might be desirable but piano lessons aren't the way to get it.

That is certainly logical, but parents have been sold on the idea that piano lessons are "good for kids" in some more general way.  Myth, or reality?  That's why I asked the question.  Like m1469, I enjoy some of these more philosophical problems. 

Piano is normally more solitary than most instruments, so it is possible that it is less effective at general education. 

[penguinlover]

I think that parents are after the "end product" -  the child playing the piano to his/her satisfaction.   However, I believe that piano lessons go far beyond just the printed music.  Music reaches into the brain in ways I will never be able to understand, nor do I want to.  The music student develops habits of discipline that he will use all through his life, whether or not he becomes a professional musician.  A musician is usually a better student, and I believe a more well-rounded individual.  Also, when a child is practicing his instrument, he isn't getting into trouble.  Need I elaborate the benefits of learning music?  I doubt it, we are all musicians.

As to comparing piano to any other instrument, I am partial to the piano.  The benefits of music would be there no matter what instrument you played.   However, I am a firm believer that any musician should begin with piano.  A person who learns the keyboard learns music theory while he is learning it.  I found in college that the piano players were way ahead of the others.  I think that was because so much music theory is involved in piano playing.  We just "knew" the theory, and the others had to learn by rote.  I know I am rambling, so I will quit.
 

[pianowolfi]

It's two questions, really. 

Is the purpose of sending a child to piano lessons merely to develop skill at playing an instrument, as some have suggested here, or are there broader benefits in the context of music as a fundamental part of a well rounded education, as I suspect most parents probably think?

 

I think you can't have a full music education only with a piano teacher. We're only one part of it. A full music education ideally consists of singing in school choir, basic music theory, aural training, music history, ensemble playing and instrumental lessons. We as instrumental teachers have to teach mainly our instruments. What we are able to give to the child stands and falls with the quality and quantity of the other musical subjects and teachers. And, not to forget, with the familiary musical background of the child. It further depends on the quality of the educational background in general. If there is something wrong with one or more of these points, we have to partially substitute it as far as we can. But, as I mentioned in the "just-doesn't-practise"-thread, our means and time are limited.

And secondly, should the purpose affect how you approach teaching - choice of repertoire, amount of practice, time spent on theory or history, etc.?

whatever purpose you have, it will naturally have an effect on your lessons

Oh, and does piano differ in any meaningful way from any other instrument one might study, in this regard?

Yes, the piano is an allround instrument. You can not only play one single voice, but many voices. It gives you the possibilities to study harmony, to play orchestral excerpts, to play a zillion of different styles. A lot of the other instruments are more specialized. Flute and string players are always desperately looking for someone to play with them, because of their limited solo repertoire.

[pianistimo]

agreed with most everyone here!  even if a child only takes a year of piano lessons - it's a good foundation for other things.  and, pianowolfi is right, too, about not relying on your piano teacher for a full rounded music education - unless, unless - you've got an unusual teacher.  one whom you can ask a zillion questions to and always get a complete and thorough answer - and one which provokes more questions.  but, even those kinds of teachers are apt to have some kind of small hole somewhere.  mentors are nice wherever you find them.  they might not even BE a piano teacher.  they might just be someone that you like sharing and talking about things with and - running it by.  someone that you use like 'cash cab' host - and knows a lot of stuff about a lot of things.

back to life - or music - or both.  i think i have learned from both the spoken and unspoken words of my piano teachers.  to be so comfortable that silence is ok.  or, for them to just let you practice something for 10 minutes without having to talk and explain or stop you every second.  playing during the lesson is becoming more crucial to my way of thinking.  i used to think 'wow, this student is being a little rude here at the start by playing right through talking...and sometimes i'll stop them and then try to get a point across.'  but, i've been thinking - really the point is to get the child or adult to play AS much as possible during the lesson and really 'get into' piano - and then add comments after a section is played.  so, make your points quick and brief and encourage a lot of playing.  that's my purpose statement.  the older chldren/adults probably benefit from an hour lesson (adding more discussion) - but the younger ones - 15 minutes to half hour - always seemed good to start the first few months.  it's like working out - to me.  you start on the easier weights and move to more practice. 

in uni - it seems that you can be stopped freqently after small excerpts - but you are used to the idea by then and not put off by it.  stopping for every mistake of a child probably makes them feel like they will never succeed.  so, minimizing the observation of mistakes and going for the 'overall' grand theme (one or two items) seems a good idea for those under 12.  those are my ideas anyways.

also, i think it's a really great thing to offer a few theory classes (maybe even the second half hour of lesson?) and/or performance opportunities.  as well as generally being available.  one teacher i used to have said to call him (any time!) if i had theory questions or any question about the piano lesson itself.  i rarely did, being younger ...but i've recently thought about his words and wondered - now with computers - if offerring email address - and saying the same thing would be helpful.  a few students might take teachers up on the extra help.  and, it shows parents that you're not just 'in it for the money.'   

[pianowolfi]

agreed with most everyone here!  even if a child only takes a year of piano lessons - it's a good foundation for other things.  and, pianowolfi is right, too, about not relying on your piano teacher for a full rounded music education - unless, unless - you've got an unusual teacher.  one whom you can ask a zillion questions to and always get a complete and thorough answer - and one which provokes more questions. 

Yes I like very much to work like that. But in my case the students who are requesting for such a teacher are rare. I love to have such a teacher. You do as well.  But you also need a student who asks all these questions.

[tiasjoy]

Is the purpose of sending a child to piano lessons merely to develop skill at playing an instrument, as some have suggested here, or are there broader benefits in the context of music as a fundamental part of a well rounded education, as I suspect most parents probably think? 

I ask the parents AND the students to answer that one.  Most in my studio have said that they just want to learn how to play the piano.  Some want to learn classical music, others more contempory or jazz, I've had ones who want to learn how to accompany themselves singing - most just think it would be a 'fun' idea - a hobby for themselves, or something to impress their friends (yep, have had that said to me).  I've had (and have) students who want to be piano teachers themselves or they want to teach music in highschool. 

As of yet, I haven't had any parent tell me "because it will be good for them" - most have agreed to pay for lessons because their child thought it would be 'fun.' 
There are plenty of studies around claiming the benefits of any musical education - I have a booklet in my studio that I encourage the parents to read - but as of yet (and I've been teaching 10 years) I've never had anyone SAY this is the reason they want to have lessons.

should the purpose affect how you approach teaching

Completely!  Each of my students are learning different things, depending on what they eventually want to do with their music.   They even have different standard to aim for.  I'm not going to expect the adult student who wants to play around with folk tunes to put in the same requirements as an older teenager getting ready to teach the piano herself.

does piano differ in any meaningful way from any other instrument one might study

I agree with what others have already said about this.  Piano is unique.  In one of the studies I've read, it likened learning to play the piano was as disciplined as earning a black belt in karate.

[chocolatedog]

I think ingagroznya's position is clear.  Lessons are short, all you have time to do is teach the mechanics, a broader enrichment might be desirable but piano lessons aren't the way to get it.

That is certainly logical, but parents have been sold on the idea that piano lessons are "good for kids" in some more general way.  Myth, or reality?  That's why I asked the question.  Like m1469, I enjoy some of these more philosophical problems. 

Piano is normally more solitary than most instruments, so it is possible that it is less effective at general education. 

That's not quite what ingagroznya said - the important words are (which you seem to have ignored) "if the child does not practise at home" which is entirely true. IF the child does not practise at home, the lesson has to become in a sense a supervised practice session in itself, which is very frustrating for a teacher, as we want to be able to do other activities etc in the lesson to try to develop a fully rounded musician, but can't if all the time is spent doing what the child should have done at home.........

[m1469]

Regardless of guidence and environmental factors, the purpose and benefit of anything a person does will be defined solely by the life of the individual doing it.   

Exactly what is gleaned from any given opportunity may (will) differ from person to person and growth in general is ultimately dependent on the individual's decision --either conscious or unconscious-- to seize an opportunity to learn and grow.

Ultimately, I believe the benefit and purpose of piano lessons lay simply within the provision of opportunity in which the individual is being invited to grow. 

Factors such as repertoire choice, amount of practice, time spent on particular subjects, as well as the instrument being studied upon, will directly effect the quality of growth-opportunity that the student is being provided. 

There are certain aspects of piano study that provide a greater opportunity for growth than do most other instruments.

(for example, the possibility for polyphony, its range-capabilites (which an organ and harpsichord also have) and touch-sensitive dynamic-capabilites (which an organ and harpsichord do not have).  However, it lacks an inherent requirement that the student breathe with the music -- which I feel is an irreplaceable component of musical thinking and can inherently be found only in playing wind-instruments and in singing).



m1469

[tiasjoy]

However, it lacks an inherent requirement that the student breathe with the music -- which I feel is an irreplaceable component of musical thinking and can inherently be found only in playing wind-instruments and in singing).

m1469 I so agree with you on this point.  That's why I have my students sing the melody line (hum) - especially for phrasing purposes WHILE they play... and they're all so used to me 'singing' (humming, or dah dahing etc) along with them to help accentuate legato, stacatto, attack, dynamics - the human voice is a huge teaching tool in my studio.

[cora]

If I could, I'd only take students who sing during the lesson. It is the key to musical phrasing.

As for mission statements, it's good to know what you want to achieve with your students. Already, I'd be a completely different teacher than the one who thought you should only speak after hearing the student play for a long time. My philosophy is to encourage a love for detail, and a refined approach to music and everything else. I correct every mistake every student makes with humor, with repetition, and with joy. They must learn that it's in the details that you become a success.

They never balk. They want to improve and strive for perfection. Sometimes, I stress more general points, but only after they have mastered a piece.

Would you want a doctor that only got 65% on his exams? I'm trying to teach kids to love detail.