I'm curious what parents can afford this. I'd try it tommorrow if i'd be paid for the efforts.
This is easily enough solved. If parents are paying x amount of money for an hour of lessons a week, could they not pay the same for four lessons lasting 15 minutes in length?
It is not only feasible, but eminently more desirable. It has been proven time and again that doing something everyday for 10-20 minutes is much, much more effective, whether in learning an instrument, language, etc.. than doing it for 2-3 hours a day or two a week.
What seems to be more economical is to get all the students together once a month or at the end of each week - and give a 'master class' where they can perform what they have practiced.
I think this idea is very widely used, the idea of an end of the month, or semester, what have you, recital. It can be done with either weekly, or daily lessons.
On the topic of 'everyday lessons' - do you think that this could best be reserved for those 'special students' that you find every ten years? Someone you invest much in if they show a lot of interest? Or, would that be unprofessional and cause other students to be jealous.
No, yes, and no.
First, no, I don't think it should be reserved for special students, in fact, I'd say the opposite. The special students are the ones that "get it" and probably don't need the kind of meticulous, detailed every day instruction as much as your average. Not that I don't think this student would not benefit greatly from the extra instruction.
Secondly, yes! I do believe that the first criteria for this type of intensive instruction to work is interest and desire on the part of the student (or the student's parents, but preferably the student). I know many people who have said that they just want to be able to play a little, or to learn a couple of songs, or that they want their child to benefit from the supposed peripheral niceties of learning an instrument. For this level of interest, I don't think daily lessons are appropriate. Although, it would be nice if you could provide inspiration or motivation to the student to want more out of it.
Lastly, I think that if you were to take one or two of your students and do a little experiment by giving these two daily lessons, and then giving a recital with all of your students, it would damn well inspire jealousy in the other students, which would hopefully lead to them demanding the same everyday lessons. I don't think, however, that choosing your best students for the special treatment would be good. You should instead take a couple of the mediocre ones and see how they stack up with the talented ones after a period.
I know there is another thread about parental involvement, but for young children I find excellent progress with those who are positive and willing to be involved and take with them the things I teach to help the child practice. This is a kind of version of me teaching them everyday. It really makes a difference to have someone working well with them daily - it is worth while.
Definitely. I don't think anyone would argue that the parent's involvement in the child's education is anything but vital. I think that even with everyday lessons, it would be far better for the parent to sit in, at least in the beginning, to get an idea of what it is the child should be doing. I think in this case too, the child, through the parent's increased familiarity with the learning process, would benefit from daily lessons. At least until the parent is sufficiently able to coach the child, or the child can do that for themselves.
They would be better off if they had daily short lessons, but the parents in such a case would not invest in the inconvenience or cost.
Emphasis added. I think you've hit on the biggest stumbling block to the deal. It would be a hassle to take the kid to his lessons everyday. I do think, however, that a parent who is serious about providing his child with a musical education would do so. Examples abound in other activities like martial arts, sports, clubs, etc..
As for the cost, I think that you could pitch it that it is actually
cheaper to do everyday lessons.
For example, I would charge $300.00US for one month's lessons. The student would receive five 30 minute lessons a week, so that is roughly 20 lessons per month, which is, in total, 10 hours of instruction, or 30$ an hour.
This is
quite reasonable.
One of these has 2 lessons a week - one on technique and theory and one on pieces - and even then it is hard to fit everything because she learns so fast.
Yes! How many times (and I speak only as a student, having had this frustrating situation occur time and again) do you have the student come in, having their entire week's progress blocked by something that takes you five minutes to sort out - at least to the point where they can practice it on their own - like a rhythm, or notation, a theory problem, maybe a technical problem, whatever.
With 4-5 times a week, the feedback is doubled or quadrupled, and one can't help but believe that progress would reflect this.
There would be far fewer students if they had daily lessons.
I think you may be right. However, I would argue that it is a possibility that you could end up with more students this way. If the few students that you have are all progressing at a rate that is commensurate with the instruction (that is, 4-5x faster than someone taking only one lesson, compared to 4-5) that people would flock to your door to attain similar results.
This is, of course, if you accept that the number of lessons would have a direct correlation to progress. I do believe, based only on my experience in comparison to other students that I've observed, that this is at least close to being the case.
I think learning how to learn on your own is also critical.
Learning how to learn to play the piano, or, the methods that one goes about mastering pieces, how to analyze piece, good practice methods, how to sight-read, etc.. as you've said, is the name of the game. However, I think that, in the beginning, at least, that you should not be developing these methods through your own intuition, because probably your methods won't be very good, if they were, we wouldn't need teachers. A few months of persistent and methodical guidance from a teacher can instill the basics of good learning habits (assuming that what you're teaching is indeed good, but this is a whole unrelated topic).
Those who would commit to everyday lessons I think would also be likely to be careful with practice most days anyway.
Certainly this is true. The only point I would make is that, given how specious the human memory is, and how terrible some people are at following precise instructions after the fact. Even if one is following to the detail the lesson plan, there is no assurance that the student won't be practicing with improper technique, or making rhythm errors, wrong notes, etc... all of which will have to wait a week until the next lesson to be corrected. That is, if they're corrected at all that week - as you said, it is sometimes, especially with motivated learners that are juggling multiple pieces, to cover everything in a lesson. So, worst case scenario, the student has been practicing, perhaps diligently and in a highly structured manner, but nevertheless improperly for weeks at a time. I think this is absolutely detrimental to progress.
Topic: Everyday lessons.