Teaching.... for mastery?

[Bob]

How well do you expect your students to know something or play a piece before you move on?


I was just thinking, for my students or for myself even, I always want thing down better.  Realistically though, there's only so much time.  It's not like a kid just introduced to something is going to really master it that well.  A good introduction is about all you can hope for. 

So just kind of plough through stuff.  That's basically what I'm coming up with.  And then return later and review again and up the level.  Theory-wise, I don't know how many times I've reviewed things, and there's still more I could do with it. 

I'm just wondering whether my expectations are off.

[hyrst]

I often wonder the same thing.  I don't know the best thing to do.

My students, beginner and intermediate levels, mostly learn a new piece every week.  Now, at this rate, there is no time for them to develop perfection with these pieces.  Therefore, I separate out pieces that they will work on more and develop to a presentable (not perfect, of course) performance level.  For each of my  students, their development of a piece is unique.  By learning a lot of pieces, they experience far more reading, style, techniques, etc.  Most students, if they sit an exam, will have played through virtually the entire syllabus for that level - enough to experience that music. 

Each piece they work on, I determine if the focus for that student and that piece is understanding harmonic theory, learning a technique, developing dynamics and phrasing, etc.  In nearly every case, the students learn not only the focus but also have the piece at a passable level within a week or 2.  They get used to this expectation.  Sometimes we revisit the piece for an extra week, looking at another concept (or occassionally to actually achieve the first goal if they haven't practiced properly or have found it more difficult than expected), sometimes we come back to the piece after a few weeks to develop it at another level. 

Sometimes I wonder if I expect too much, give too much work - but most seem to keep up and I try to respond to where the student is at.  I try to push them a little further every week from where they were the week prior, but do this by giving them opportunity to learn something entirely new.  The goal and the standard is different for each student.  Sometimes I wonder if I am not giving them the expectation or opportunity to develop pieces or to face new learning with already familiar material - e.g. learning a technique where they can focus on the movement rather than the extra demands of the notation.  But, without the benefit of an outside assessment or comparison, I do think my students generally handle this well.  The one area that commonly seems to be overlooked is dynamic variation - but they are able to correct this when going through the piece again during the lesson.

I don't know if I am doing the right thing - I know each piece could be learnt more, but my students are mostly excellent readers (those who are not have a very sound theory knowledge, because I teach them how to understand / learn / memorise the music based on its structure - this is where the non-readers have an advantage over the fluent readers in my teaching approach; but the readers get more technical instruction).  I think it is important to experience a lot of music - for musical development rather than the learning of a handful of pieces.  Still, I hope I am not denying them something important - and I am keen to be told if I am.

Sorry this is so long - it's just a question I have on my mind nearly every day.

[Essyne]

This is interesting. It's my 3rd week w/ a "real" teacher, and I was thinking about this subject a couple of days ago. At the last lesson, he asked me if I was "tiring" of these pieces - I wasn't sure what he meant. Yes, I know that I've had the same pieces for a couple of weeks, but I am such a perfectionist w/ everything that I do that I could drill one measure for days on end and never "tire" of it. (He gave me a couple more anyways  ).

Essentially, I think it just depends on the student/how motivated they are/whether or not they will hold themselves accountable for things/how patient they are/and the list goes on and on. . . . Time, as mentioned, is a huge factor as well. Personally, I think my teacher and I are a really good match because I'm so anal about everything and he just tacks on more pieces, knowing that I'll go home and work them out - every. little. detail. Regardless of whether/not we have "finished" a piece in the lessons, I think he knows that I will still go home and pull it out every now and again to truly "master"/KNOW it. If the student is not as motivated as this, then the teacher may have to stress more mastery and heighten their expectations.

[pianodan]

I often wonder the same thing.  I don't know the best thing to do.

My students, beginner and intermediate levels, mostly learn a new piece every week.  Now, at this rate, there is no time for them to develop perfection with these pieces.  Therefore, I separate out pieces that they will work on more and develop to a presentable (not perfect, of course) performance level.  For each of my  students, their development of a piece is unique.  By learning a lot of pieces, they experience far more reading, style, techniques, etc.  Most students, if they sit an exam, will have played through virtually the entire syllabus for that level - enough to experience that music. 

Each piece they work on, I determine if the focus for that student and that piece is understanding harmonic theory, learning a technique, developing dynamics and phrasing, etc.  In nearly every case, the students learn not only the focus but also have the piece at a passable level within a week or 2.  They get used to this expectation.  Sometimes we revisit the piece for an extra week, looking at another concept (or occassionally to actually achieve the first goal if they haven't practiced properly or have found it more difficult than expected), sometimes we come back to the piece after a few weeks to develop it at another level. 

Sometimes I wonder if I expect too much, give too much work - but most seem to keep up and I try to respond to where the student is at.  I try to push them a little further every week from where they were the week prior, but do this by giving them opportunity to learn something entirely new.  The goal and the standard is different for each student.  Sometimes I wonder if I am not giving them the expectation or opportunity to develop pieces or to face new learning with already familiar material - e.g. learning a technique where they can focus on the movement rather than the extra demands of the notation.  But, without the benefit of an outside assessment or comparison, I do think my students generally handle this well.  The one area that commonly seems to be overlooked is dynamic variation - but they are able to correct this when going through the piece again during the lesson.

I don't know if I am doing the right thing - I know each piece could be learnt more, but my students are mostly excellent readers (those who are not have a very sound theory knowledge, because I teach them how to understand / learn / memorise the music based on its structure - this is where the non-readers have an advantage over the fluent readers in my teaching approach; but the readers get more technical instruction).  I think it is important to experience a lot of music - for musical development rather than the learning of a handful of pieces.  Still, I hope I am not denying them something important - and I am keen to be told if I am.

Sorry this is so long - it's just a question I have on my mind nearly every day.

I totally agree with Hyrst's approach. I use two lists of pieces for each student - creatively called "List One" and "List Two"  . List one pieces are pieces for concerts, exams, competitions, etc and, as such, are prepared to the absolute best of the student's and my ability. List Two pieces have only two criteria - 1) the student must choose to play the piece and 2) the piece cannot take more than 4 weeks to be at some sort of acceptable standard (less time for younger students - 1-2 weeks). After this time it is up to the student to decide whether they want to spend the extra time perfecting the piece.

This approach keeps the pieces rolling over and keeps the student "fresh" but also allows for more intensive work on selected repertoire. My "perfect" ratio is about 1 List One piece to every 3-4 List Two pieces but obviously this varies according to many factors (student motivation, time restraints, etc).   

[slobone]

This one has me scratching my head. A new piece every week? What kind of pieces are we talking about? Really short beginner-type stuff, or "real pieces" by real composers? Do your students have enough time to polish these pieces, or is that not an option at their level?

My biggest complaint against my second teacher was that she rushed me on too quickly from one piece to the next. And these weren't beginner stuff -- we did Beethoven sonatas, Schumann's Faschingschwank, Kinderszenen, the Brahms B minor Capriccio, etc. I always felt she was misled by the fact that I was an excellent sight reader. But I never learned how to phrase, or even basic technical things like fingering. Instead I just read through an endless series of great pieces. In retrospect, I would rather have spent a whole year on one piece, if I really learned how to play it well.

Am I mixing up two different things? Are we talking about two different kinds of students?

[Bob]

Either easy pieces are students who can get through more in a week.  I thought he was talking about beginner/intermediate level students.

[hyrst]

To clarify, I do this mostly for the beginners and intermediates. 

Really, most of these students could work at a level a couple up if all they did was prepare pieces for exams and recitals. 

Not all my students are able to do this or to keep up with this rate, and their turnover is more like a couple of pieces in two or three months.  I have had students ask me if they can just work on one piece a week in this fashion so that they can spend more time developing their work and I ask the older students if they want to move on or to spend more time developing the current piece.  I tell them what they need to do on the current piece and we work through how to do this during the lesson. 

At the advanced intermediate onwards the balance changes.  By then, I believe students should have a  good foundation in theory, general knowledge and more experience with developing all the essentials of musicallity.  This is more a performance orientated and specialising level.  At this level, I expect students to regularly produce works at a good standard every few weeks from a lower grade - such as anything from grade 5 to 8.  These pieces should only require a couple of hours' work but should include dynamics, phrasing, articulation and general style - the purpose of these is to maintain reading fluency and to develop independence in interpretation (and for some to give them learning to be teachers by realising the processes involved in working independently, uncovering problems and resolving them, and building repertoire at student level so they can pass it on). 

The remainder of the repertoire work should teach the student how to develop pieces to performance standard and maintain pieces for a period of time.  This means they are required to look at pieces and technique in fine detail.  They have to face the demands of resolving unique techincal challenges - those of the performer, composer, style and particular piece.  They have to pay attention to clarity and interpretation.  They have to learn how to balance work over a long period, to keep listening, keep fresh, to keep control with over-familiar work.  This often means that a piece gets put aside after several weeks, but to return to it again in a few weeks. 

I hope this helps explain my approach a bit more.  I think there is a big difference between early and later stages of playing.  But, I guess I am not SURE there is.  Should I be teaching the early ones the same principles rather than growing them into it?  Are they missing out on essential technical foundations?  Do they get enough satisfaction from each piece?  I really am not sure...

But, every time I analyse my approach I return to the same thing.  I think they need a good general music foundation, in most cases I don't think the student is yet able to produce more in each piece and I hope they will develop with more experience with music rather than with that piece, the pieces are always at passing standard before we move on (they have the notes, basic rhythms, phrasing and some dynamics) and most of my students are quite young so it is hard for them to spend too long on one piece without getting bored. 
I guess time will tell.  Maybe each different learner needs something different and I can do no better than be guided by my gut feeling and their comments at present.

I operate from my basic beliefs and try to stay open to the given student's response at a given time to a given piece.  I guess that's what we all do.  I would liek to know if my beliefs work out in reality, though, in the long term.  I've only been a full-time, ongoing piano teacher  for a couple of years. 

[slobone]

hyrst, you sound like a very conscientious and committed teacher. I'm sure you know what you're doing. I feel better now! 

The only advice I can give you from my humble position as a non-teacher is that each student is different. I don't believe in the one-size fits all approach. Presumably some students show early signs of real musicianship, others will sadly never get no matter how many years they study.

Obviously there's a minimum amount of technical skill students must have before they can even attempt to interpret a "real" piece. But I do wonder whether teachers could be doing more to develop musicality at an earlier stage of the process.

Learning to listen to yourself as you play -- thinking in your head what you want the piece to sound like -- even singing the melody line(s) out loud to cultivate a feeling for phrasing -- aren't these habits that could be started even at an intermediate level? At what point is a student capable of making the phrase, not the note, the basic unit of the music?

[hyrst]

Those are really good and helpful points.  Thank you   I will be thinking how I can work better in these ways.

I thought you were a teacher!  So many things you say are so valuable and insightful.

[slobone]

No -- just a serial student -- I've had 5 teachers at one time or another. At the moment I'm trying to see how I do with my own approach (patched together, of course, from the aforementioned teachers.) Don't want to jinx myself -- but I think I'm doing reasonably well so far.

[hyrst]

Hi,
Good luck with your work.

I have been thinking and realised that the phrase is included in my teaching approach from very eraly because of looking at things like slurs, rhythmic stresses and patterns and sequences.  I think I might actually be  doing the  things I believe I should be doing.  I am encouraged.  Thanks.

Annah

[lostinidlewonder]

If students are doing examinations in piano then we work until they are at a level which I believe would be a distinction grade. I only do this because I am a little negative in my head about my students performance in exams, they will always play worse than when they play alone or with me in a lesson. With examination or competition there is no moving on if something isn't near the ideal way.

Outside of the competitive realm of exams and competition I always address the desire of the student. There are some who like to labor on a phrase of music to make it sound the best, then there are those who simply do not have this musical maturity and just want to learn the fingering and notes and then move on.

I have found that there little difference in the improvement to a student between :

1)Learning lots of pieces without completely mastering them before you move on and

2)Mastering few pieces until moving on to the next. However each improves the student in
different ways.

However the application of each must be considered. The first tends to encourage the rate of memory for music and understanding the general structure of music and increases experience with technical movements you find in music. 2) tends to focus on improvement in musical expression and refinement to technique.

I find advanced students do not wish to improve their rate of memory and rather like to exist in the realms of 2) more than 1) (but generally advanced students are working in 1 and 2 mode continuously) and other students benefit more from learning more music rather than laboring on few to mastery. Even advanced students can benefit from working in 1) mode though.

It is important to know when to move on in your music. For beginner and intermediate students this is an easy lesson but for more advanced it can be more of a challenge. Sometimes advanced students can get too used to perfecting something before moving on, so encouraging them to move on more often will improve the efficiency of their learning rate. How to monitor improvement to things you haven't completely mastered is something that needs careful consideration otherwise when you move on you might simply forget how and what to improve. This should interest an advanced student. I honesty believe at the piano you are only as good as the rate at which you can learn and master your music. I am not impressed listening to something play something incredibly difficult then find out it took them 5 years to learn it and they can play little else.

The advantage of working in 1) when dealing with an advanced student is to demonstrate to them how to initially learn a lot of music then use that first round of learning the pieces to go back and then master them all. This method is more efficient in my experience with advanced students than to learn pieces to mastery before moving on.

So the method of my teaching is generally like this: Learn as much music as you can without forcing the mastery of the music, then go back and improve it. Going back to improve what you have initially learned is a detailed method in itself. The student must appreciate the difference between learning a piece for the first time and the second time going through the piece again. How do we make changes to our practice routine in the music the second time through, how do we recall things we have forgotten, why have we forgotten some parts and not others. What does it feel like not knowing that you knew. I find that happens a lot, when you go through music fast then go back you are always trying to recall what you forgot, you simply do not know that you know. The information is somewhere in our heads but how do we see that path that we only walked through once? I find there are always hints you can throw at the student to make them finally realize that they didn't know that they already knew. Sometimes I will highlight this through parts of the score which they already know well and relate it to what they have forgotten, sometimes I will draw the shape of the patten of notes for them and it will recall everything.

[slobone]

It's very helpful for me to get the perspective of experienced teachers here, but I'm finding I still have a lot of questions about phrasing.

Let's take a student who is only interested in popular music, not classical, and who might even be learning to play by ear. Surely one of the very first things he/she would learn is how to play a melody in the right hand that had a musical, "vocal" sound to it. Granted you couldn't do this the first week, or maybe even the first year you started to play, but how long could it take if you made that your goal? If you have a good ear, it could happen very fast.

Contrast this with classical music, where for the first x years you learn how to read the notes on the page, and various technical issues. If your teacher is chopping up your trianing into little chunks, focusing on one specific problem at a time, at what point do you learn how to make a piece sound like music?

I'm not saying that technical matters aren't essential, but shouldn't there be time somewhere for another approach? Call it ear training or improvisation or whatever, but I have a feeling there are an awful lot of classical students who envy their peers who can play popular songs off the top of their head.

Let's take a typical easy Chopin waltz, mazurka or prelude. Basically you have a melody in the right hand and a fairly basic, oom pah pah type accompaniment in the left. Is this really that different in form from a popular song? Certainly waltzes and mazurkas were dance music in their day. Could a student learn to play the accompaniment in a rhythm that can be danced to, while the melody sounds like something that could be sung?

Now I realize that Chopin in particular is more subtle than that -- just when you think he's waltzing along he throws in a section that makes you stop and think. And there are always little technical trouble spots that have to be fixed. He can't actually be played like popular music. But could he maybe be approached from that direction?

An approach that tells the student "your goal is to make the music sound good -- everything else is just a means to that end."

For me, as I approach my twilight years    I find more and more that that's all I really care about. I'd rather take the easiest piece out of my piano bench and make it sound beautiful than spend a year struggling with some virtuoso etude and never get to the point where I can play it so it's actually worth listening to.

[keypeg]

Slobone, I was reading about the "other skills" that are not inherent in classical music.  I had a book fall into my lap called "Keyboard Proficiency" by L. Guhl and I wonder whether it addresses the kind of thing you are writing about.  It is written for the music major who is also taking piano, and actually reflects what she taught.  She teaches the piano kinetically, interval movement.  Concurrently she brings in theory: students begin to improvise with the 1st & 5th note of a chord by page 10 with I V and inversions coming in.  She sneaks in difficult (for me) rhythms and then assigns a variety of rhyths to be invented in the bass.

In the 2nd chapter I found myself sight reading in a 5-finger span, but I also had to sight read the same passages in 5 different keys, transposing as I played, and then doing the same thing in 5 keys in the minor key.  At the 3rd chapter I'm moving into modes.  You sight read a passage which is in a given mode, and should then play it in a different mode, while sight reading, starting on various starting keys.

It seems to combine classical elements, the flexibility of (the jazz musician?), theory.  It is one book I cannot zip through.  I spent 2 weeks on the rhythmic clapping exercise before I could get it straight.

The book was published in the 1970's and didn't take off because of the binding.  It closes itself as you try to play.  But for $5.00 you can get spiral binding done these days.

[hyrst]

Hi,
I think Slobone raised thet idea here, but I think it is important to recognise that there are students and teachers in classical fields who can dod what you  described playing by ear.  I have students who can pick up pieces and they play them when they are fiddling and waiting for me if I  am writign and things like that. 

YEt, I was alos one of those classical students who envied others who could just sit down and play stsuff although they had never learnt fomally.  I suppsoe I wouldn't have had that frustration if I knew how to improvise or had disciplined mysefl to memorise my pieces.  I think these natural people are rare, but htey stand out ot us - and if they had learnt pieno, they probalby would have been pretty good.  It is hard to face they could do these things with no learning after I worked hard and couldn't do it.

This is not the way Classical music WAS, though.  I believe it is a result of modern teaching  where most beginner teahcers really have no idea about chord progressions, improvisations, or anything much beyond what is written in the lesson books.  They can't do it, so they don't know what to teach.  Sure, this means young students miss out on learning skills that really could free up their playing, but at least they learn and experience music. 

I try to bring these impromptu skills into my teaching, but I find that most of my students feel very intimidated and lost.  I guess a lot of my beginners are young (6 is averaage) and taking in the reading is enough for them to cope with on average.  By the time my  students reach grade 1 or 2, I expect the average students to be playing something from memory and to be making up melodies on the spot and listening and inventing.  I guess I don't think a great deal about how to plan it, it just seems to happen.  Maybe because I recognise it and praise it instead of trying to get them focused on the books.  IF they start creating, I stop and listen and talk with them about howw they are putting it togehter and what they might be able to do to develop it more.  It is spontaneous.

As for the interpretation, I don't have many students who I feel play pieces with little more than reading.  There are a few, and with them I feel at a loss, llike I worry about them all the time.  But, I don't stay on the beginner's pieces just so they can play p/f, beat stress, character, etc.  I get the feeling that if they haven't done it by the end of a week or two, it isn't happening yet. 

[keypeg]

Hyrst, I was untrained, and I also did a fair bit of this by ear.  But this is a training which works with whatever knowledge this teacher has, so that eye-hand coordination, tracking, a mental discipline - I'm not trained in this so I don't know.  New abilities are brought in, and this is also within the rhealm of sight reading while transposing into different keys & modes.  Mainly I wanted to signal the existence of this book, because it may have some of the things that Slobone is looking for.

[hyrst]

I hope I didn't come across as annoyed.  I wrote in a real hurry before taking my children to school.  I wasn't meaning to criticise your post, keypeg - but I realised on reading it that it might have been read that I was directly replying to you.  I am sorry.  The book sounds great - I'd benefit from going through it.

I am really trying to work through the ideas here, and I am getting confused and fuzzy.

I want to work all this through and am tossing ideas in for critique.  It is really important to me that I balance my teaching to the best possible  way for each individual student and that I  have teaching principles that underlie  all my work and on which I make adjustments for the student.  To be honest, I spend a lot of time and energy trying to work through all of this.  I suppose that in time I will work out what I need to do, but I worry that I will miss the best path and never know I did - and that my students won't achieve all they can as a result.  I think I am taking on too much responsibility, in a sense - there is so much more to their development than anything I can cover in a weekly lesson.  But, my teaching influences their opportunities and values - and I want to be a good teacher, the best I am capable of.

Anyway, I am getting the impression from the stream of thoughts in this thread that mastery of pieces is far from the goal of learning - except the aspect that teaches about performance.  Underlying learning is musicianship - the creative and interpretive side of music.  So, building on concepts of reading, then would come knowledge of the broader aspects of pieces.  So, pieces should be learnt on three levels - the reading to be gained (a new chord, a new ornament etc and how to produce them), a general knowledge of style and projection and then used as a source of cretive ideas.  It seems to me that completion in all three areas is impossible at any level and that the goal of playing a piece very well before moving on works against these three goals of learning.

Is this what other people think, too?

[keypeg]

Hi Hyrst.  I didn't register annoyance.  I'm not a teacher so in general should not be posting here.  However I recognized that the book I have might correspond to Slobone's quest, and that's why I mentioned it.  I do find it interesting, when you mentioned students who can just play by ear, that I could do that, yet the Piano Proficiency book gave me something else.

[lostinidlewonder]

Let's take a student who is only interested in popular music, not classical, and who might even be learning to play by ear. Surely one of the very first things he/she would learn is how to play a melody in the right hand that had a musical, "vocal" sound to it. Granted you couldn't do this the first week, or maybe even the first year you started to play, but how long could it take if you made that your goal? If you have a good ear, it could happen very fast.

The new student still cannot escape basic classical piano training, that is in scales, chord, arpeggios etc. Not one person who plays the piano can escape these basic building blocks of music. This sets up the understanding to pattern recognition in the piano to music making.

Some student who likes popular music can usually play melody in right hand accompanied by chords in the left. This is usually the starting point then we learn how to make the left hand more interesting than just sustained chords and how to decorate a melody. But to tell them all these tools without them knowing how it is represented on sheet music and making all their knowledge based on the keyboard itself makes the learning of the instrument too lopsided I think.

Yes we can learn a great deal by considering everything at just the keyboard, but it must be understood also in notation form as well. This form highlights pattern in the keyboard to sheet music which is just as important as the physical feel you get from the hands to the keyboard. The visual observation the notes encourage a physical change at the keyboard, an observation which takes a lifetime of exploration.

All popular music now can be bought as written music so the student can either go the path of a jazz theory or the classical path with written notes. I like to teach a combination of both because one reason is most young kids are just not able to grasp the jazz theory needed to fill in all their notes so need to be helped by written notes. Jazz theory on the keyboard requires a keyboard experienced hand in my opinion, and most people who start out at the keyboard struggle with jazz because of this.

..... with classical music, .. for the first x years you learn how to read the notes on the page, and various technical issues. If your teacher is chopping up your training into little chunks, focusing on one specific problem at a time, at what point do you learn how to make a piece sound like music?

..... I'd rather take the easiest piece out of my piano bench and make it sound beautiful than spend a year struggling with some virtuoso etude and never get to the point where I can play it so it's actually worth listening to.

I guess it depends on what you want musically. Some people would be simply happy to play their favorite pieces in a simplified way. This is really fine and the more music you learn in this simplified way the better you will become. But there will come a point where everything will start feeling routine and you would like to perhaps explore more. When do you make that decision to explore more? How you explore more is an important itself, there is no use torturing yourself with difficult music but find a balance between what you can control and what challenges you slightly. I find that written music is the best way to go here, the improvements you make in jazz demands a very creative side to yourself which most never really develop enough to progress into the highest levels of playing.

[slobone]

I tried very carefully not to say that learning to play by ear was enough. Even jazz and pop musicians need to be good readers these days (and usually, to know a lot more theory than classical players need!). I also understand that you can't teach everything at the same time, especially to beginners. And I certainly agree that if a student isn't making progress on a piece, it's time to move on to something else.

My post was kind of rambling, and went way beyond my main point, which was about phrasing. I only used pop music as an illustration, because I think it shows that you can learn the rudiments of phrasing without a huge amount of technical preparation.

This is the exact opposite of what my last teacher told me. I kept hinting that I wanted her to teach me how to phrase, and she evaded the issue until one day I really confronted her about it.

Turns out that she had studied with a well-known teacher at a local university, whose specialty was training her students to phrase beautifully. But to do this, they had to learn what to do "with each knuckle of each finger" as my teacher put it. You had to have progressed to a technical level that was way beyond where I was, before you could even start.

I heard some of these students in a master class, and I have to agree that they sounded great. But is it really true that phrasing can only be introduced at that level (these were mostly graduate school performance majors)? Or is it a natural instinct that can be developed at a much earlier stage, even though the student won't be able yet to do it in a refined or subtle way?