Thanks for the interesting reply. I too, couldn't agree more that one doesn't have to Play to teach. As I said, that one teacher of mine, was brilliant. I have a friend that always tell me, "Those who can PLAY do, Those who can't TEACH"! I don't agree with that either!
If you can do it, you do it.
If you cannot do it, you teach it.
If you cannot teach, you become a pedagogue so that you can teach the teachers how best to teach…
Anyway, what I found interesting in particular was the bit about "not how to play a piece, but how to LEARN to play a piece". I know that it must vary SO greatly from piece to piece and depend on hundreds of different factors, but if you could go over some of the standard things you look at in determining exactly how YOU would go about learning a piece in minutes?....and what are the "most" likely factors that would make someone else take months as opposed to your minutes? Does this difference in the amount of time spent learning a piece have entirely to do with "correct learning techniques" or do other factors weigh into it?
The three factors that dictate how long it will take to learn a piece:
1. The difficulty of a piece (this however is personal: different people find different pieces easy or difficult). A “difficult” piece is one for which you have not developed the technique yet. So this is what takes time. Most composers are very limited in terms of technical difficulty. So once you learn one or two pieces by that composer, the other ones are usually learnt pretty fast.
2. The length of a piece. Given two pieces of similar difficulty, the longest one will take more time to learn.
3. The learning strategies. With the correct learning strategies you should be able to learn anything very fast (perhaps not in minutes, but certainly faster than with any other way). But notice that there are no “final” answer: learning strategies are always evolving, and people are always coming up with new ideas. So you should stick with a learning/practice method only until you find a better way. Also notice that A way may be better then another depending on your level. I make my students go through practice procedures that my not be optimal for me, but which will deliver the goods for them much better. So each case is each case.
I mean, I would think if you have a piano student of 1 month and one who has studied 10 years...and you gave them both Fur Elise....of course the student who had 10 years could play it much easier and faster..always(right?), but it would be because of experience and level of playing, wouldn't it, not JUST because of how they learned the piece?
It depends. I have taught Fur Elise (argh) successfully to many one month students, while seeing people who had been playing the piano for ten years, and they could never get past the easy bit. So, giving a definite piece, learning strategy will make or break it. However, if both students have at their disposal the same (efficient) learning techniques, the ten year one will certainly learn it much faster, simply because for a student who has been learning (properly) for ten years, Fur Elise would be technically ridiculous.
However if you have been learning the piano inefficiently for ten years, and you are convinced that your way is the best – or only way (just because you were taught by some Russian, he he
), then it is going to be very difficult almost impossible to learn anything fast because you will have ten years of inefficient learning habits to contend with. Inefficient learning habits are far more difficult to dislodge than bad technical habits.
Would there be a way a student of limited time could be given techniques, that would actually allow them to learn a piece faster?
Of course!
If you have time, (I know I take alot of it, and I'm sorry) could you please list out the steps you feel one needs to take "exactly" to learn a piece quickly, I'm very interested to see what you do. Also, could you learn ANY piece quickly, doesn't it matter the difficulty of the piece? And when you say LEARN a piece, I'm assuming you mean PLAY a piece?
When I say learn a piece, I mean having it memorised, and ready for performance. But I mean something else as well. If you have truly learnt a piece (and I expect this from my students – not that they always fulfil my expectations
) you should be able to give a small llecture on its structure (harmonic and melodic patterns and how they create the particular magic of that piece of music, etc.), on the composer’s intention and historical circumstances, all the while (and from memory) using fragments of the piece to provide evidence for your statements. Actually there are several members of this forum that do that (ayahav comes to mind).
And yes, you can learn any piece quickly (or to put it another way, quicker than by any other method). Of course the more difficult pieces will take more time. But again difficulty is highly subjective.
And no, I cannot list all the steps, because the steps will be different depending on the piece. Also they are probably infinite. And finally, they keep changing. If you asked me this question ten years ago, I would have given you a list that nowadays I would regard as hopelessly inefficient. So any list I may give you now will probably be outdated in a couple of years time. I have posted now several threads where I detailed the way I go about specific pieces. Everything that can be written about is there. There are many things that cannot really be written about because they are dependent on the student and on the situation, so it is not possible to make generalisations. My main principle is: have a clear and specific aim. If you are not getting it
change you are doing.
Ask specific questions. The answer may be more useful!
Best wishes,
Bernhard.
Topic: Teaching or Playing?