At what point do you not need a piano teacher?

[ccnokes]

Is there a certain point when a teacher is no longer necessary?   

Also, if you have to pursue the piano on your own, what is the best approach?  Can you progress as fast?

[pianistimo]

it depends on what you want to do.  if you want to be a concert artist - you have to learn the 'tricks of the trade' - so to speak.  some do this by a lot of experimentation - and others by taking lots of piano lessons from high quality teachers.  but, it can get expensive after awhile.    maybe a compromise is to take lessons for a while and then stop and then take again when it is affordable.  i've learned so much by taking lessons again and it gave me enough ideas to work on for several years.  i'd really like piano lessons now again - but the thing is that i have children, too, so it's difficult sometimes to get away on the same day each week and have the time needed to make the lessons worth it.  also, i don't stay up at night all the time anymore.  i used to practice til late at night - but now i need sleep.

somehow, i do not think it effective to try to learn new techniques simply from internet sites.  you have to visually see a teacher play a section to assimilate the technique efficiently.  you also can get a sense of what they are saying better when you are actually at the keyboard yourself.  to see the music, to discuss the passage in depth (and not from another student), and to attempt it and see what the teacher says.  the feedback is so important.   

[molto-marcato]

< Is there a certain point when a teacher is no longer necessary? >

Probably not. I know some students, who finished their diploma and still take lessons/attend masterclasses. There might however be a point where it could be advisable to switch to another teacher.
Even if you develop your musicality and technique to a very high level, a good teacher might still be beneficial.

< Also, if you have to pursue the piano on your own, what is the best approach?  Can you progress as fast? >

No, you can't. Get a teacher!

[thalbergmad]

I think the answer is never.

No matter how good you are, you can always learn more.

Thal

[opus10no2]

It depends how autodidactic and intuitive a person you are.

It also depends on you level of passion and obsession.

A person who is truly naturally intuitive when it comes to the piano, and very passionate, a teacher isn't necessary at all.

A pianist's relationship with the piano is personal, and while teachers provide consistent results, the risk involved in the lesser success rates of self-taught pianists pay off with those few individuals who do something new and unique, which would only be stifled with most teachers.

[jeremyjchilds]

YOU ALWAYS NEED A PIANO TEACHER


There is always something to learn. If piano is a priorirty, then the extra 300 a month will not be a big deal. If piano is not a priority, then you don't need a teacher. (you don't even need to play the piano)

If you love music, and want to make music today that is better than the music that you made yesterday, then find a teacher.

[zheer]

  Playing the piano is an art, at some point once an artist has learned his craft, he/she will need time to mature  and learn to think independantly.

   if you have to pursue the piano on your own, what is the best approach?  Can you progress as fast?

   Perform from time to time, if you dont get stuck ,then carry on.

[ccnokes]

Thanks for the responses. Let me clarify my situation a bit. 

I will be going off to college this summer and while I am there I would like to pursue piano but I know for sure that for my first or two semester I won't.  And depending on how life goes and what my major is,  I may never have another piano teacher again, or at least I would be looking a couple of years out.  So not wanting my skillz to get rusty, I was wondering if there was a way to keep them polished and maybe hopefully to still progress.  There will always be a piano available for me to play while I'm at school, so that's not an issue. 

I don't have any aspirations to become a concert pianist.  Although, my mind may change as I did start playing never thinking that I'd get as far as I have already.  I would like to get to a point where I could improvise fairly well, play Rach pieces like some of his preludes (particularly op32 no5.) and Debussy's Suite Bergamasque and ballade, so in other words fairly advanced pieces but not killer.

So I guess I was hoping that there was a way that I could still practice regularly without a formal teacher and still progress and make great music. 

Any more thoughts on the matter?  Thanks

[krittyot]

When I knew I was highly gifted and that happened when I was just 3 yrs old.

[invictious]

When you can play Fur Elise, you can fire your piano teacher.






Well let's say top masters, like Horowitz, Cziffra, or Yundi, how do THEIR teacher's teach them? They can't guide them much in musically because it's their own individual musicality that makes them famous and special.
Technically speaking..I'd say they are better than the teacher..

[pianowelsh]

Interesting question.  Depends on humility level of student/artist. I know many pianists who still take lessons. I also know amateurs who think they have got their bit of paper now and thats it theres nothing more to learn.  I fundamentally believe that if a teacher has done their job properly that ultimately a student should become autonimous and able to be their own best teacher.  However this dosent mean that once you have a diploma you dont need lessons. BUT the kind of teaching DOES need to change. The student dosent need spoon-feeding. Really what they need at this point is a knowledgeable and experienced mentor - who will give honest opinions about their playing and development and point them in new directions.  More a sort of co-pilot.  I myself still have sounding sessions with a few of my old teachers and pianist friends to keep myself sharp and bounce ideas off them.  I think we find it mutually beneficial.

[avguste]

I would say you always need a teacher or at least an independent ear to listen to your playing and make comments.
It is always good to have someone else's opinion

[opus10no2]

An independant ear is absolutely unnecessary, art is personal, and any other person effecting your interpretation will be an impurification.

[pianowelsh]

well when you've figured out a way of getting your ears at the back of a large concert hall when you are playing and have conquered the majority of the piano repertoire op10/2 I would agree with you.  looking forward to the day.

[opus10no2]

Well I can always record myself and hear how things sound from the back of halls, just to please you.

[teresa_b]

There is no definite answer to this.  It depends on your goals, your degree of accomplishment, etc.   If your goal is to play "fun" stuff for yourself and friends, you don't need to continue to pay a teacher.

If you are a serious piano student, you need to keep studying with teachers--not necessarily with the same one, but best to study with several superb ones over the years.

If you have accomplished basically what you want, but still want to play seriously, keep a teacher you respect, but more as a "coach." I.E., don't take weekly lessons, but whenever you run into difficulties with some piece, or plan a performance, go have your coach listen to you and make suggestions.  This works for me, and I end up getting maybe 3 or 4 "lessons" a year.

Teresa

[rc]

I don't agree that we need to be paying a teacher forever until the day we die...

I figure at some point we can stop letting anothers experience teach us and begin to learn directly from our own experience - letting music itself be your final teacher.  This would be a natural progression for one who begins to perform regularly, doing and learning becomes the same thing.  What used to be formal teaching would become colleagues sharing ideas...

Ccnoke:  Of course you can continue to progress while your situation excludes a teacher!  It sounds like your not a beginner, you could work out problems yourself.  Maintain the discipline to practice everyday, and challenge yourself.  There's no reason to just stagnate without someone else pushing you along.

[pianowelsh]

doing it to please me would entirely defeat the point...it is for your benefit that it is helpfull to have a second opinion in the hall..not mine. As I am not your teacher there would be little point in trying to please me.

[pianowelsh]

I agree with the principle of self teaching and being autonimous - I also agree that sometimes periods without a teacher can still be fruitfull. BUT often our most efficient work and progress is under the expert ear of another teacher. As its been said at the advanced level its much more of an extra set of ears than a 'teacher' per say. Some demand payment others dont. A doctor would often continue to seek a second opinion if they were even remotely unconvinced of something...why shouldnt the pianist. We learn best from shared experience. We can only ever glean so much on our own.

[zheer]

    Food for thought ( educational)

[pianowelsh]

I wish we had more programmes like this Zheer...they dont get the budgets to make enough of these.

[zheer]

I wish we had more programmes like this Zheer...they dont get the budgets to make enough of these.

   

   Here is another good one.


     
   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AyRyNMgjb8
   



  About tecknique

     https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0B2UTNE6rck


     even more.

[tds]

if needing a piano teacher here means having a weekly lesson with him/her, then i know there can be a point where you don't need a piano teacher. and it is when you are technically sufficient; when you have thorough training; and if you possess an independent mind, on top of clear artistic abilities, and receptive mind for understanding the different styles.

i play better now that i've "graduated" from the time when i did my weekly lessons with one appointed teacher at one time or another. yes, there is a stage where pianists no longer need those regular lessons as there are also reasons why it is GOOD to be faithfully on their own feet. afterall, it is what artist is all about: independent, dare to deliver all the virtues and mistakes of their own and NOT others.

having said the above, this is not to imply that having a few lessons with some great pianists/teachers, from now and then, is not important. it is, and can be necessary when it is felt that you need to widen your horizon, and deepen your understanding of different aspects of pianism, and stylistic idioms.

btw, speaking from my experience, there are a couple of things to share:

1. a transition, i.e. a period from the time you are having a teacher to a time when you are on your own, is a difficult period. often you feel lost, not knowing "which is better?", "why is this bad if it is?", "would it work if i do this?", "can i get thru it all on my own?", etc. the length of transition period differs from a person to another. it took me about two years. but the good news is that after going thru this period, you dont only feel good but you are better than ever before. you are a free man. a time to congratulate yourself? i did me.

2. i find a video camera/audio recording utility is necessary to help scrutinize my work, and work progress. video cam acts as another pair of ears and eyes. still, you are your own teacher.


my 3 cents,

tds

[clavicembalisticum]

At what point do you not need a piano teacher?

Who teaches the teacher? See the chicken - egg analogue? Just some food for thought because the "teacher" and "pupil" issue is present everywhere. I could also quote somebody who said: "Nobody can surpass their teacher(s)". I do believe that a better phrased question would be?

"At what point should(/must) you understand, provided it is possible to certify the validity of the allegation, that you have surpassed your teacher(s)?"

[pianowelsh]

Interesting??! Im not sure at the very advanced level whether its possible to say the student has surpassed the teacher in ability...one could say its more a case of specialisation at that point...the teacher may be a a Bach expert..the student may venture into Rautavaara as an area of specialism..you couldnt say the ability level is different but their interests take them in different directions..therefore the student may look for a mentor who has 'experience' in Rautavaara. I think this is really it in that a student will rarely if ever have the level of 'experience' that their teacher has...its not to say they wont be able to get through the notes as well or produce the tones colours as well as their teachers - even better perhaps BUT the teacher has a wealth of knowledge and experince that only a lot of years 'doing it!' can furnish you with..the student rarely has this luxury.  eg Vlado perlemutter...at the end of his life his playing though GOOD was not what it was in his prime...many of his students had better control and accuracy levels BUT I dont know any who would dare to say they had surpassed their teacher! They knew his vast experience and knowledge was far deeper than playing the right notes in the right time.

It should be a truely sad thing if you surpass your teacher in terms of knowledge and experience...it means the teacher has commited intellectual suicide and has ceased to learn. The teacher needs to remain actively learning ALWAYS! so that they can keep feeding the student and develop their own abilities...unfortunately many dont...this makes for a boring narrow minded teacher.

[clavicembalisticum]

It should be a truely sad thing if you surpass your teacher in terms of knowledge and experience...it means the teacher has commited intellectual suicide and has ceased to learn. The teacher needs to remain actively learning ALWAYS! so that they can keep feeding the student and develop their own abilities...unfortunately many dont...this makes for a boring narrow minded teacher.

I agree especially with the last comment. Age and experience also cultivate egos. And prejudice. There were experienced teachers that told Liszt that he could not ever play the piano in a proper way when he was young. We barely recall their names anyway.

Piano playing is performing art and it does improve with insightful criticism. Performances vary as people vary. A truly unsurpassable performance is "nearly" impossible to be cloned. For it also includes the element of personal access to what is the "truth" of what you perform. That level of "truth" is so mystical in its essence that cannot be simply passed on to another, no matter how well - intending, thorough and experienced the teacher is. To cut it short, in that level there cannot be by - comparison - learning because the standard becomes axiomatically undefinable.

In that specific case, teachers tend to be of no use. Some things have to be experienced by the self alone, in order to reach the solitude of approaching the absolute truth. It is through the variety of  these experiences of approaching that truth that there is actual progress for there is adequate learning. Real Mastery is achieved through that. And it is real mastery that creates formidable (not irreplaceable) teachers.

Formidable teachers are the ones who show you a way, not the ones who define it. And that is something that can be an initial criterion upon which decide when a teacher has an increasing amount of non - teachable things to teach. When through "your" way, the teacher's way is expanded.

[ccnokes]

If nobody ever surpassed their teacher, we would all be stuck in this never ending spiral of pianists getting worse as the generations go on. 

I agree with a lot of what has been said and I'm glad that I've gotten some great, insightful, and even philosophical input. 

I would think that to truly be an individual artist you need to pursue piano on your own at some point.  I think even subconciously we seek the approval of our teachers and we only accomplish that by complying to what they think is good playing, ie their tastes. 

I think the real question is how to go about really developing your abilities on your own.  Maybe its something only the individual can decide. 

[tds]

if needing a piano teacher here means having a weekly lesson with him/her, then i know there can be a point where you don't need a piano teacher. and it is when you are technically sufficient; when you have thorough training; and if you possess an independent mind, on top of clear artistic abilities, and receptive mind for understanding the different styles.

i play better now that i've "graduated" from the time when i did my weekly lessons with one appointed teacher at one time or another. yes, there is a stage where pianists no longer need that regular lesson as there are also reasons why it is GOOD to be faithfully on their own feet. afterall, it is what artist is all about: independent, dare to deliver all the virtues and mistakes of their own and NOT others.

having said the above, this is not to imply that having a few lessons with some great pianists/teachers, from now and then, is not important. it is, and can be necessary when it is felt that you need to widen your horizon, and deepen your understanding of different aspects of pianism, and stylistic idioms.

btw, speaking from my experience, there are a couple of things i wanna share:

1. a transition, i.e. a period from the time you are having a teacher to a time when you are on your own, is a difficult period. often you feel lost, not knowing "which is better?", "why is this bad if it is?", "would it work if i do this?", "can i get thru it all on my own?", etc. the length of transition period differs from a person to another. it took me about two years. but the good news is that after going thru this period, you dont only feel good but you are better than ever before. you are a free man. a time to congratulate yourself? i did me.

2. i find a video camera/audio recording utility is necessary to help scrutinize my work, and work progress. video cam acts as a pair of ears and eyes. still, you are your own teacher.


my 3 cents,

tds

on a larger picture,...

3. spend enough time to listen to genres other than solo piano music, i.e. symphonies, chamber music, operas, and songs.

4. try to always be receptive of art, poetry, literature and NATURE. we learn a great deal from them. personally, they have helped me understand a few important things: the synthesis, the inevitable, and the expected vs the unexpected. no one piano teacher in this world, regardless how great he might be, can replace art, poetry, literature and nature. this point can't be emphasized enough.

5. finally, piano issues alone are never enough to make a good musician. i agree with one marvelous pianist/teacher who once places a good human being factor before a good musician one . those who do not subscribe to basic humanity quality, such as generousity, honesty, big-heartedness, and other altruistic ideals must not consider themselves a musician.

no, i dont usually type very much, those who know me can testify this (except in random things which were not too serious in nature ). but this time i really wanna pull out and unfold several old, neglected pages, which i think is important. isn't there really quite a bit to venture outside those little studio rooms? for pianists, this overall quest and be-familiaring/be-becoming are as important as perhaps beginners needing their first year lessons.


hope this helps,

tds

[cmg]

Thank you, tds.  Very thoughtful and wise observations . . . I'm in full agreement with you.

I've studied with teachers ever since I've been four years old.  Finally, some years ago, I said, well, time to go solo.  Apply what you've learned.  See how all this formal education has all been processed and synthesized through your own personality.

What I discovered was just how much I had learned and how much it was an integral part of me now.  I don't really know where my best teachers begin and I leave off, which, I think, is such a great compliment to them. 

But, I still take an occasional lesson with a master pianist.  Studying a piece with a real pro who has taken the same composition before audiences time and again is invaluable.  Every truly challenging piece has its twists and turns that a seasoned performer can point out to you and help you overcome quickly.  It saves lots of practice time.  Could I solve the issues on my own?  Well, perhaps, in time.  But I like the challenge of the occasional lesson and the contact with a brilliant musical personality.

[pianowelsh]

Inspiration and genius cant be taught..only inspired. Thats how each generation reaches forward into the next because in every generation there is amazing potential.

[m]

Is there a certain point when a teacher is no longer necessary?   

Also, if you have to pursue the piano on your own, what is the best approach?  Can you progress as fast?

It is very individual. For example there was no single piece Richter would play in the concert without bringing it to Neuhaus first, untill Neuhaus' last days.
On the other hand, Gilels did not have such need and in fact, believed his only teacher was B. Reingbald (he left her when he moved to Moscow at the age 16).

Personally, every now and then I still play for some great artists whom I trust. Not that they'd teach me how to play piano, but just to have a couple more ears from the side, have another angle of looking at things, or just talk about music with clever people.
I find it more refreshing than to fight here about "tech & mech" .

[tds]

"tech & mech"

sounds like half food, half science.

give me a tech and mech with no chicken. ohh, could you put extra tomato sauce please?

does it sound totally wierd, or it has some "flow" to it?

tds

[clavicembalisticum]

sounds like half food, half science.

Yep.

[phil39]

simple: when you are technically proficient, which can be measured by 'can you play a Chopin Etude (one of the fast opus 10 or 25 ones) in full control with no tensions and you feel relaxed and free to do what you want interpetively?'.  if you're honest with yourself you know when you are at the point when you are handling all the notes without any hint of a stuggle, and at full speed. hey presto- then you're at virtuoso standard! - and there ought to be nothing you can't do in piano performance on your own, with hard work and consciencousness.  BUT, this doesn't mean you ever stop learning, picking things up from other musicians, hearing performances, auditioning, receiving feedback, expanding your repertoire and musicianship until the day you die.  However - a teacher, for me is someone who sorts you out technically and sees you on a regular basis, and you don't need that if you can handle a Chopin etude properly. Musicianship, you pick up as you go along through experience and listening, and comes with age.

[ramseytheii]

simple: when you are technically proficient, which can be measured by 'can you play a Chopin Etude (one of the fast opus 10 or 25 ones) in full control with no tensions and you feel relaxed and free to do what you want interpetively?'.  if you're honest with yourself you know when you are at the point when you are handling all the notes without any hint of a stuggle, and at full speed. hey presto- then you're at virtuoso standard! - and there ought to be nothing you can't do in piano performance on your own, with hard work and consciencousness.  BUT, this doesn't mean you ever stop learning, picking things up from other musicians, hearing performances, auditioning, receiving feedback, expanding your repertoire and musicianship until the day you die.  However - a teacher, for me is someone who sorts you out technically and sees you on a regular basis, and you don't need that if you can handle a Chopin etude properly. Musicianship, you pick up as you go along through experience and listening, and comes with age.

Do we really need another one of these?  This place is going down the tubes fast.  Whatever happened to xvimbi and Bernhard?  Those were the days!

Walter Ramsey

[phil39]

Do we really need another one of these?  This place is going down the tubes fast.  Whatever happened to xvimbi and Bernhard?  Those were the days!

Walter Ramsey

That makes no sense to me whatsoever, probably just as well.

[danny elfboy]

It is very relative.
I was just to point out that it's perfectly possible to be self-taught and become a professional.
My conservatory itself accept self-taught students who live in the mountains and can't go often to the school. They study on their own and just attend the school for the exams.

But we must also understand what allows self-taught student to learn without a teacher: observation and emulation. This is very similar to painting.
There are a lot of famous painters who had a teacher or mentors and painters who learned everything on their own. They managed to become proficient without a teacher because they would spend their days observing other painters, their work, emulating their tricks, asking advices ... always staring behind the shoulder of an artist drawing the steeple of a church in a square of the city.

It's what I call "unconscious teachers".
A teacher does practically the same (and IMO the best thing a teacher can do is providing a good foundation by showing how to move, how to hit a key, how to position the hands; after all the most active learning path in our brain is the practical-visual-emulative one) but it's consciously doing it.

Being self-taught is a kind of flawed term because no one is really self-taught.
Even when we don't have a teacher we learn through the observation and imitation of what others do or have done.

Teachers (as for the etymology of the word teaching/education itself) is facilitator not a compulsive necessity. Dewey used to say that the only real education is self-education, the rest is just pretense of education.

At what point one doesn't need a teacher anymore?
Whatever point, one "may" never need a teacher.

At what point one doesn't need to observe, make experience, living in the active context of his art and can just shut himself in his ivory tower away from anyone?
NEVER!

That's the point. Whatever we do we are actively learning.
The only true non-education is shutting yourself in your room away from the world and from the art your pursuing. This would indeed destroy any kind of improvement.

We're social animals and as such there's nothing in our nature that progress without a social setting. Without other humans and observing them we're less than humans; it's our nature.

Language is the best example. According to Terrance Deacon there's nothing harder to learn in our life than language. No kind of Ph.D training is even comparable to the complexity and hardness of learning a language. And yet we do it on our own.
We self-teach language to us: through observation, emulation, experimentation, trials, errors, analysis. Language is such the quintessential of self-education that it has been theorized by many that too much "help" or interference from parents, teachers and what not trying to teach language to a child that doesn't speak yet; would actually destroy the child ability to learn the language properly.

Language is the best example of what I'm talking about because although we self-teach language to us this "self-teaching" depend on the "unconscious teachers" in others words the people we observe and emulate, the people whose sounds trigger in us analytical though and the will to try. So self-education is not "learning from ourselves" but "learning by ourselves ... but from others"

So I don't believe we always need a teacher (or at least it's very individual) but I do believe that we will always need for our whole life "unconscious teachers" or "passive teachers".

[ramseytheii]

This is actually the best response to this topic I have yet seen.  So often people who want to show off their pride proclaim, "One doesn't need a teacher past the point of playing a Chopin etude," or "Teachers can only go so far" without saying, how far is that?  But here is finally a reasonable answer.

I especially like this:

At what point one doesn't need to observe, make experience, living in the active context of his art and can just shut himself in his ivory tower away from anyone?
NEVER!

Excellently put, and without pretension!

I must though disagree here:

IMO the best thing a teacher can do is providing a good foundation by showing how to move, how to hit a key, how to position the hands; after all the most active learning path in our brain is the practical-visual-emulative one)

Since we were talking about Neuhaus in the other thread, it bears mentioning that he considered the most important role of the teacher to expose the student to those things which he will be able to use for inspiration (note: not to inspire the student as such).  The roles of a teacher to teach the playing of the instrument, and to also teach the means for expanding one's artistic acumen, are equally important.  Read especially the chaper in Neuhaus on "Artistic Image."

Otherwise well said!

Walter Ramsey

It is very relative.
I was just to point out that it's perfectly possible to be self-taught and become a professional.
My conservatory itself accept self-taught students who live in the mountains and can't go often to the school. They study on their own and just attend the school for the exams.

But we must also understand what allows self-taught student to learn without a teacher: observation and emulation. This is very similar to painting.
There are a lot of famous painters who had a teacher or mentors and painters who learned everything on their own. They managed to become proficient without a teacher because they would spend their days observing other painters, their work, emulating their tricks, asking advices ... always staring behind the shoulder of an artist drawing the steeple of a church in a square of the city.

It's what I call "unconscious teachers".
A teacher does practically the same (and IMO the best thing a teacher can do is providing a good foundation by showing how to move, how to hit a key, how to position the hands; after all the most active learning path in our brain is the practical-visual-emulative one) but it's consciously doing it.

Being self-taught is a kind of flawed term because no one is really self-taught.
Even when we don't have a teacher we learn through the observation and imitation of what others do or have done.

Teachers (as for the etymology of the word teaching/education itself) is facilitator not a compulsive necessity. Dewey used to say that the only real education is self-education, the rest is just pretense of education.

At what point one doesn't need a teacher anymore?
Whatever point, one "may" never need a teacher.

At what point one doesn't need to observe, make experience, living in the active context of his art and can just shut himself in his ivory tower away from anyone?
NEVER!

That's the point. Whatever we do we are actively learning.
The only true non-education is shutting yourself in your room away from the world and from the art your pursuing. This would indeed destroy any kind of improvement.

We're social animals and as such there's nothing in our nature that progress without a social setting. Without other humans and observing them we're less than humans; it's our nature.

Language is the best example. According to Terrance Deacon there's nothing harder to learn in our life than language. No kind of Ph.D training is even comparable to the complexity and hardness of learning a language. And yet we do it on our own.
We self-teach language to us: through observation, emulation, experimentation, trials, errors, analysis. Language is such the quintessential of self-education that it has been theorized by many that too much "help" or interference from parents, teachers and what not trying to teach language to a child that doesn't speak yet; would actually destroy the child ability to learn the language properly.

Language is the best example of what I'm talking about because although we self-teach language to us this "self-teaching" depend on the "unconscious teachers" in others words the people we observe and emulate, the people whose sounds trigger in us analytical though and the will to try. So self-education is not "learning from ourselves" but "learning by ourselves ... but from others"

So I don't believe we always need a teacher (or at least it's very individual) but I do believe that we will always need for our whole life "unconscious teachers" or "passive teachers".

[phil39]

i'll say it again at the risk of annoying some people: if you can play a Chopin Etude (one of the fast ones) with comfort and accuracy at full speed then you are 'there' technically, and you don't need a teacher. of course you still need to have musicianship to a profesisonal level, but if you care deeply about the music and you want it badly enough you will develop it. if you need help to get the musicianship side of things then you probably don't have the potential and the necessary self confidence in your own artisitic maturity.

[rc]

if you need help to get the musicianship side of things then you probably don't have the potential and the necessary self confidence in your own artisitic maturity.

I would argue that self confidence can sometimes take time to develop (this depends on an individuals nature, some very inhibited people would have to take some time rising above that limitation), but is the kind of mindset that could create its own potential.  A teacher could help in this regard as well.

[ramseytheii]

i'll say it again at the risk of annoying some people: if you can play a Chopin Etude (one of the fast ones) with comfort and accuracy at full speed then you are 'there' technically, and you don't need a teacher. of course you still need to have musicianship to a profesisonal level, but if you care deeply about the music and you want it badly enough you will develop it. if you need help to get the musicianship side of things then you probably don't have the potential and the necessary self confidence in your own artisitic maturity.

If you think you don't need a teacher to improve your musicianship, then your "self confidence" will be a ground without a foundation; you will play "as you feel," but chances are great it will have nothing to do with the music you are playing.

This idea for me represents the anti-intellectual view of music; that the subconscious feelings will somehow take charge, and magically explain everything that is logical or to be musically understood in any given piece, no matter how complex the logic, no matter how intricate the dynamic markings.  In this view, nobody's musicianship can be "improved" by another because it doesn't relate to developing and sharpening your mind. 

I put "improved" in quotes because the real consequence of this view is that potential positive influence is rejected.  We see this time and time again in students: they come to play a passage a certain way, the way they "feel," not realizing that by bastardizing the passage, they remove all its meaning in context of the rest of the music.  These students are so convinced of what they feel, that they reject the influence of a teacher more experienced and informed than they, and later probably will declare that no teacher can improve musicianship. 

But this is not solid ground, as I said before.  Watch for instance the Barenboim masterclass with the young pianist Kadouch.  Here is an excerpt from one of my favorite blogs, describing this lesson:
-----
"One of the participants, the twenty-year-old Frenchman, David Kadouch, began playing a movement from one of the sonatas, and played forte a measure or two that apparently was marked piano in the score. Barenboim stopped him instantly. Why was he playing forte when the score called for piano, Barenboim asked. "Because," replied Kadouch, barely controlled defiance in his voice, "I like it that way."

For an instant, I misbelieved my ears. No participant in a master class in my time, not even the bravest or most gifted — or the most reckless — would have dared offer such a justification for disregarding so clear a notation in a Beethoven score. Not to a master of Barenboim's stature, at any rate.

In an interval of less than a split second, a dozen witheringly savage responses to that imbecile justification and Kadouch's unmitigated chutzpah flashed through my mind.

I held my breath.

Barenboim didn't miss a beat. "Not good enough," he shot back with equanimity, sounding more bemused than annoyed or angered. "Had you said because there's a diminished ninth that needs to be heard at that point, I would have thought you wrong and told you so, but at least your reason would have had some real thought behind it. Now, let's see what happens when you play it as Beethoven wrote it, and let's examine it from there.""

(www.soundsandfury.com)
----

Here we see the student who makes decisions not based on musical logic, of which Barenboim is a master, but on how he "feels."  Now imagine having the opportunity to play for a Barenboim, or a Rubenstein, Schnabel, whomever, and insisting that the way you feel it is the way it should be (Godowsky promptly dismissed students who felt this way); you are the one losing out, if you think that no teacher can improve how you hear, feel, and understand music.

Walter Ramsey

[jakev2.0]

All pianists - no matter how advanced - benefit from having proper guidance.

Also: I think that for fairly advanced students no teacher is better than bad teacher.

[phil39]

If you think you don't need a teacher to improve your musicianship, then your "self confidence" will be a ground without a foundation; you will play "as you feel," but chances are great it will have nothing to do with the music you are playing.

This idea for me represents the anti-intellectual view of music; that the subconscious feelings will somehow take charge, and magically explain everything that is logical or to be musically understood in any given piece, no matter how complex the logic, no matter how intricate the dynamic markings.  In this view, nobody's musicianship can be "improved" by another because it doesn't relate to developing and sharpening your mind. 

I put "improved" in quotes because the real consequence of this view is that potential positive influence is rejected.  We see this time and time again in students: they come to play a passage a certain way, the way they "feel," not realizing that by bastardizing the passage, they remove all its meaning in context of the rest of the music.  These students are so convinced of what they feel, that they reject the influence of a teacher more experienced and informed than they, and later probably will declare that no teacher can improve musicianship. 

Walter Ramsey

i'm not saying you don't need a teacher 'ever' to improve your musicianship, but by the time you are at the level when you can really bring off a Chopin etude, you ought to be past the point of needing one. any who has reached that standard has presumedly already had the basic grounding in musical analysis, harmony, history, the various styles etc. up until this point i would say it's your formative years, during which you DO need teaching on musicality as well as technique, but by then (when you can play chopin etude-level music) you should have had all the necessary basic education to enable you to make informed opinions on the music you are playing.
i don't think it's a case of being like the student in the Barenboim masterclass you quoted .. that kid really was displaying the worse kind of ignorance. i agree wholeheartedly that going by personal feeling not based any any intellectual judgement is not good enough.
my point is that any pianist advanced enough to have the technical know-how to play Chopin Etudes comfortably,  surely in their life up until then they have aqcuired all the essential education to make proper judgements on music. in effect, 'it's time to stand on their own two feet' and  say 'here i am, i'm a professional now'.  sooner or later you have to if you want to be concert professional.
one consideration i did omit was age... i think my reasoning only applies to adults.. if some kid is talented enough to be able to play the etudes technically well,  they are nevertheless still young and immature, and in that case they still need a teacher to develop their musiciality. i would say 20-25 years old is the time of life when you can stop being considered 'immature' in a music sense.
of course that's the age when music conservatoire education is traditionally finished, so the idea is by then you are obviously supposed to have been fully educated musically and ready to go your own way as an artist.  if their are any gaps in your knowledge by this point you ought to be mature enough to read, listen, widen your experiences, basically fill them in for yourself.