Easy piano lessons taking over Serious piano lessons

[viktor_lacrimarum]

Hello everyone:

I'm Victor from Mexico.

I want to talk to you about a big problem for serious piano teachers; that is "Easy piano lessons". Here in Mexico there are a lot of piano courses and teachers which tell the students to learn to play piano easily, that they will be playing the piano from the very first lesson they take. This kind of theaching is taking over serious piano teaching. It is cheap and with very poor quality. On the other hand, serious teaching is a bit expensive but it is worth every penny.

Easy piano teaching is creating an incorrect idea of what playing piano is:

-Every time someone calls me to get information about my piano lessons they ask if they will be able to play the piano from the first lesson. When I tell them that playing piano is about discipline and hard work they just don't like it and stick with the easy piano lessons.

-It is unbelievable that people think that they can study piano... without having the instrument. Most people here think that music is something that is not taken seriously. Even worse is when they think that playing  a keyboard is the same as playing a grand piano.

I was hired to teach a girl. I asked her mother if she had a piano to study in. She said "yes" we have a piano. I agreed to go over her house to teach her there. What a horrible surprise!!! She wanted me to teach her on a little electronic keyboard that looked almost like a toy. It is incredible that they have no idea about the difference between a piano and a keyboard.

-Another problem about easy teaching is what me and a friend call "hook fingers". Hook fingers are those people that play the piano using simple chords on the left hand and a melody on the right hand. They usually play popular music and they use chord sheets instead of scores for learning pieces or "songs" as they usually call them. They even use youtube tutorials to learn to play something. Oh, and we use the term "hook fingers" because their fingers look so rigid and curved as hooks, their hands look almost dead, ther is no movement at all.

I think this is something really serious because it is slowly killing good music.

Is this, or something similar happening somewhere else?


Please tell me what do you think about it.

Thanks.

Victor.

[go12_3]

In my teaching students I have come across students using the portable keyboard as beginners though.  However, I have two  students win which thier parents will be purchasing a real piano for them.  And I am pleased about that because I know they are serious about their children learning to play piano.  Due to the economy in usa, it has affected students to get a piano and so the keyboard is what they can afford at the time.  In order for me to accept these students, I accept them to play on the keyboard, and they do have lessons on my grand piano which makes it special for them to play on.  They  learn to locate the highest and lowest Cs for example on my piano.  I don't feel it is the end of the world when my students have the portable keyboards as long as they enjoy learning their pieces.  I have 7 students that play on pianos.  The rest of my students have portable keyboards. (I only have 13 students now).

Now, about *easy piano lessons*, I don't have that philosophy because learning to play piano effectively takes discipline, effort and time.  I tell that to parents.  I had a parent called me to inquire about lessons and asked me how long it would take for her child to learn notes.  I told her it depends upon the age and how quickly the child comprehends the learning process of reading notes; and each student is different in how they learn to read notes.  Some parents do get excited when their child begins to read notes, like it is a big deal for them what their child has accomplished and that's a good thing though.; then that child will progress better too.

About *hook fingers*.  Never heard of that concept.  However, I do not use the popular music and chord sheets for my students.  Once they learn the notes , they do learn about the pieces and the composers.  They do learn about the structure of a chord and the it gets broken up in a piece , so that they can recognize the note patterns.  I don't go into the dominant  nor diminished chords , etc.  My students learn that there is a variety of music for them to learn, but when they have lessons for a few years with me,  then I introduce jazz, if I feel a student would enjoy that. There is a *fake book* in which a student plays the chords with the left hand and the melody with the RH.  I don't use that in my teaching.

best wishes,

go12_3

[allthumbs]

This is a problem everywhere. In the States, there is someone making a good living teaching this way. Play Piano in a Flash, it is called.

https://www.scotthouston.com/store/home.php

I've seen his show. It's for people who have no real musical talent, aptitude or desire to really master the instrument, but would like to be able to play a simple melody with a chord accompaniment.

Not very satisfying for anyone wishing to enjoy what classical music has to offer in terms of challenge and emotion.

allthumbs

[go12_3]

Yeah, I watched one of Scott Houston *shows* on tv and to me, it was a bunch of gibberish.  And I wonder about this play piano easy and quick----it just goes to show how our society wants easy and quick on everything.  I'm the slow and simple way to teach piano, makes life less stressful. No student is on the exact format anyhow.  

best wishes,

go12_3

[timothy42b]

I don't know, this has yet to convince me.

If we're trying to build musicians, maybe it doesn't hurt to "hook" them with some early success, with some fun, and with actually making music.

Maybe years of drudgery and misery before ever making music are not the only path.  They probably are the path, for the rare conservatory student/solo concert pianist.  But is that the only target of your teaching? 

Of those you hook with the "easy" way, are there any that get interested in doing more, and are motivated to do the work necessary?

Of those that you keep from having fun, are there any that lose interest and drop lessons after a year or two, still unable to play a simple tune? 

Of the total number of people who took piano lessons, how many still play years later?  Can sit down and bang out Happy Birthday as needed, using your "hook" method with simple left hand harmonies and a right hand melody?  (by the way, it's just I, V7, IV, but the melody starts on 5)

I don't think the right and wrong of this one is as obvious as you're claiming. 

[jgallag]

I agree with timothy. You don't have to force them into serious study or difficult repertoire to teach them how to play with proper technique. I would say that you should just demand the same kind of technique from these "popular" sheets that you would from similar figures in serious music. Perhaps a student wants to simply learn a song that could very well be played with the "hook" method you mentioned. So what if it's an easy, non-serious song? The student can still learn to play proper chords and at least some fundamentals of phrasing. Popular music doesn't have to be dead and lifeless, and if you teach proper technique from the beginning, and perhaps introduce the student to other genres, you could end up with a serious, talented student. I started playing from blues tapes my father bought me, some man playing the blues on the screen and showing the shapes of the chords and all of that. From there, I segued into real lessons which I have been taking for 11 years. Yeah, I started out on "popular music", and now I'm playing Beethoven, Ravel, Muczynski, Bach, to name a few, and study piano in college.

[timothy42b]

When we lost our church pianist, nothing in my one year of piano lessons or my Alfred beginner method books prepared me to help out. 

I came up with the hook method on my own.  I started with the SATB hymnal and each week patiently wrote out "hook" chords, with as simple changes as possible, and a right hand melody.  I wrote the fingerings in for each and every note.  And practiced hours each week trying to be ready for Sunday. 

I later learned about chord names and inversions.  And close position progressions.  And when in trouble, just used I, IV, and V7.  But when I started, I just looked for what notes the hymnal had, and put them where I could reach them quickly. 

After a couple years of doing it the slow way, I found a hymn accompaniment book that had guitar chords already written in.  The hours that would have saved me! 

I continued trying to learn the real notes, and on occasion the hymn was simple enough I played it as written, SATB.  That was fairly rare. 

My last year I played the hymns almost exclusively from lead sheets.  (different service) 

Okay, it wasn't high art.  It was utilitarian, purpose driven music. 

But, just a comment.  I didn't start out to do this playing myself.  I found a young piano student, eight years of lessons and quite accomplished.  But her traditional training had left her unprepared to play hymns while accompanying singing, she had no clue how to simplify, and was intimidated by the process. 

If eight years of lessons don't prepare you, but six months of hooks do, maybe it's not so bad. 

[go12_3]

I came up with the hook method on my own.  I started with the SATB hymnal and each week patiently wrote out "hook" chords, with as simple changes as possible, and a right hand melody.  I wrote the fingerings in for each and every note.  And practiced hours each week trying to be ready for Sunday. 

If eight years of lessons don't prepare you, but six months of hooks do, maybe it's not so bad. 

It all boils down to:   drive, determination , maybe some desperation.   

best wishes,

go12_3

[timothy42b]

It all boils down to:   drive, determination , maybe some desperation.   

best wishes,

go12_3

There was desperation aplenty involved. 

At my weekly lesson, if my piece wasn't to standard, it just got recycled another week. 

But at 1030 Sunday morning, I had to play the first hymn, ready or not.  Like a hanging, it helps to focus the mind, and the practice. 

Here's my question.  Do you tell the average piano student, when starting lessons, that 8 years later they probably still won't be able to play in church? 

[go12_3]

It depends upon which church you attend.  Some churches have members play the hymns but is assigned to play everyweek.  But, when a pianist isn't used to playing a hymnal format it becomes a real joy-ride.  For me, it isn't a favorite style of score that I would like to play because of the fingering becomes awkward with the chord progressions and the SABT arrangments which drives me up the wall.     Therefore, classical is real easy to teach and to learn.  Some teachers do teach the hymnals if a parent happens to request that.  I had  a couple of students that the parents wanted them to learn some hymns.  I only did it for a few weeks because I lost interest; but I taught enough to those students so that they did get the idea and did work on it on their own. 

best wishes,

go12_3

[jgallag]

Here's my question.  Do you tell the average piano student, when starting lessons, that 8 years later they probably still won't be able to play in church? 

If a student cannot read music after eight years of music, there's a problem. However, I think hymnals simply take time to get used to. No, the student may not have experience when they're suddenly called upon to play in church, but if the student can't play the hymns within a week, I'd call into question their sight-reading education. Although, this does account for a generous pastor. Mine normally gives me three days notice, and I don't even have one of the hymnals we use, so I normally end up sight reading on Sunday. On top of this, we have an organist, so I may be asked to play in church a total of five times a year. I don't have regular practice.

I worry about sight-reading and teaching in general. I think I had a good experience there, but that may have been because of my eagerness to encounter new music. I would and still do read many things, and my library must contain at least 500 pieces, god knows I can't play all of them. I had my friend from college over two days ago. She's a great pianist, wonderful technique, but she sat down to read some of the scores I've been assigned and she looked completely lost, barely completing a measure before she had to stop and get her bearings again (These were Ravel's Valses Nobles and Muczynski's Preludes), but later I sat down and read a piece she played last semester (Rachmaninov's Polichinelle) with little problem. Sure, there were areas where I needed to refine things very much, but it was quite possible to pick out the melody from my playing and to even get an overall gist of the piece's form. Honestly, I've never played that piece before. Hymns should be well within a student's ability to read and understand within a week if they've had eight years of lessons. I don't see why a student after one year of lessons, as you yourself mentioned, shouldn't know the proper way to play a chord (intervals are a type of chord to me) and rudimentary pedaling, which should be enough for your hymns.

As far as your Alfred comment, I used those books. There's nothing in there that would prepare you for anything at all, so why would you expect it to prepare you for hymns? The problem I see with "method books" is that they do not teach anything at all. The teacher does that. The method books are simply "progressive pieces" that aren't musically stimulating or truly useful. Yes, they're fine if the teacher provides the correct technique, but if I'm not mistaken Bach wrote some beautiful pieces that could be managed by the beginner. If the teacher took the time, he/she could come up with some wonderful little pieces that address the students' technical deficiencies. I personally love composition, so I don't see this as a problem. If you ask me, a proper method book would begin with a detailed description of the technique to be learned (i.e. - jumping, fast arpeggios), so the student can at least have a reference from the teacher's instructions, and then several pieces that focus on this technical difficulty. It'd be nice if they were musically pleasing too, as most of them are not.

[timothy42b]

If a student cannot read music after eight years of music, there's a problem. However, I think hymnals simply take time to get used to.

I did not mean to be overly critical of any approach.

And hymns appear to be deceptively difficult.  I say this because I have observed guest organists blaze through difficult preludes then stumble on what would seem to be simple hymns.  I suspect that if you did enough hymns from a given hymnal you'd build up a stock of common patterns that would make it easier. 

I really meant the hymn to be an example of one type of practical music.  Music that may not be inherently difficult, nor of profound significance, but that when played fluently will enhance a social function.  This could be Happy Birthday, National Anthem, sing-alongs, nursery rhymes, etc.  Something short of cocktail lounge level difficulty, but played smoothly and deftly. 

All of you can do this.  A surprising number of piano students can't.  And maybe that's okay, depending on what the purpose of their lessons is.  It would seem the "hook"  methods being complained about target that skill, and that doesn't seem all bad to me. 

[soitainly]

 This forum is mainly focused on performance level classical piano so the answers are going to be skewed towards one side. I think the oringinal poster is mostly right though, a piano teacher has somewhat of an obligation to teach the fundemantals of techique as well as music reading and theory. But to only teach classical isn't always best for every student, I think depending on what the person wants to play, then mixing chord/melody charts isn't a bad skill to learn either. The Scott Houston approach is very limited and seems like a lazy cop out for the real thing, but the ability to do what he does seems like an essential skill to be a musician in today's world.

 I grew up playing guitar, and my learning method at first was learning chords. You didn't have rock music written out those days so you pretty much had to do simlpified arrangements or learn by ear. Of course I knew freinds who took lessons who's teacher's just kind of showed them what to play on a given song, but I don't think this facilitated much for a student being able to learn a song on his own. I spent a bit of time playing in church where you just showed up and played the chords written. Of course along the way I learned how to read a bit and learned how to play by ear as well as improvise.

 Right now I am learning classical piano. But at some point I plan on teaching myself how to look at a lead sheet so that I can jam with my friends. In case some of the classically trained students have never tried jamming before, its REALLY FUN. I don't know how you would ever be able to "sit in" with other musicians of another genre with out some basic training in this way. You might be even able to make a living at it. This in no way hampers anything you might be doing in your classical playing, I think all music builds on itself and helps your interpretaion and understanding of what makes music work.

[Petter]

Is this the hook technique of which you speaketh?

[allthumbs]

Is this the hook technique of which you speaketh?

Sorry, I would be so bored playing that. It does nothing for me.

[lostinidlewonder]

The average piano student will not go past grade 2 AMEB examinations. That is taking a sample of all people who get piano lessons. Also, most piano students will not do exams to start with! The majority of them learn the piano because they want to play things they like, some are forced into doing it, for others it is just a curiosity.

Early beginners usually have no concept of where they want to get to in piano (often most of them have no idea about the type of piano music there is out there). So to improve their technique via intense practice and intricate direction can be quite useless. I personally have found this problem with a lot of beginners, they have no desire to play with perfect technique, they don't mind if they hit a wrong note or something is done uncomfortably.

For musicians this type of practice seems distastful and wrong, we couldn't imagine doing it ourselves! However when we teach music we always have to do it in terms of the students interest and capabilities. Good piano technique might be far away from the interest of a beginner so why bother forcing it down their throats? We trick them into learning good habits without them knowing so. If we categorize and list out their problems and try to show a way to solve it, this can be useless. They have to either learn it immediately, or have it become a part of something which interests them.

Learning a lot of short easy pieces will unavoidably improve a beginner student. They have to get their hands moving and both hands at the same time, they have to start memorizing things etc. With early beginners I am not so careful in mastering a single piece before moving on. Once they sort of get it, we move on and do something else. Never try to perfect something with beginners unless it interests them.

[viktor_lacrimarum]

Hello everyone:

Thank you for your answers. I think I have been a bit misunderstood on what I was trying to say. First of all, I'm not against teaching simple music to my students. I use popular tunes such as cartoon themes or child songs with them. However, this doesn't mean I don't talk to them about technique. I read someone was talking about hymns and let me tell you I work with hymns too, I have even played countless times at a church.

What this post is about is a big problem (or at least I think it is a big problem) in my country about some guy that has no idea of what playing the piano means and makes a living of it saying he is a teacher and telling people about a miracolous way of learning piano fast, easy and cheap;
 leaving real piano teachers like us who know about what playing the piano is about, without a job. I've seen a course called "piano facil" (easy piano) which is a set of DVDs and it comes with a "free" electronic keyboard. By the way, this is also confusing people; here in Mexico, a lot of people can't seem to understand the difference between a piano and a keyboard (and this doesn't mean I don' t let my students play their keyboard; most of them study this way).

Why is this happening? This so called piano teachers tell their students that they can learn to play the piano in an easy way. This teaching is cheap and accessible to a lot of people, but it has a very poor quality.

Now about that "hook hands" thing I told you about. First of all, it is not a method, it is an expression that a friend and I invented. This expression means that their piano playing is done playing simple chords on the left hand and a simple melody on the right hand. Now, don't get me wrong, there are some classical works that are very simple and use chords (such as Chopin's Prelude N° 20. The thing is that I was working with this guy teaching technique, working with Bach, Mozart, Scales....and so on. But at the end, there was no use on teaching him all that, he went with another "piano teacher" who told him that he could learn to play the piano without working with "such difficult and boring things" such as scales, and works by Bach, Mozart etc.


I hope I get myself clear this time.

Thanks

Vik.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't think you have been misunderstood, at least I don't see how we have been misunderstanding you!

What do you mean by, "I'm not against teaching simple music....... however this doesn't mean I don't talk to them about technique."

You mention you are annoyed that people learn "hook" hands, where the LH plays chord and the RH a melody. There is nothing wrong with a beginner or someone just starting the piano to learn this way. It is getting the basic coordination of playing with two hands. This is not a lack of technique learning piano this way, but it certainly does not present all of which we can do with the piano! But why not let a beginner learn this style if it interests them so? Why can't you let them learn this way, then slowly edge them towards different ways of playing? Maybe make the Lh not so boring playing simple block chords. It is a boring LH that makes this "hook" style you menton limited. However this is an excellent starting point in which we can start making the Lh more complicated, eg: instead of playing a simple CEG together we could play C (EG) (EG) like a waltz, or even C G E G C G E G (like Mozarts K.330).

There is nothing wrong with beginners studying single styles of piano playing. For an early beginner who is merely curious in learning piano, they probably will not study it for longer than 1 year, thus teaching them Bach and Mozart could be just totally useless. Teach them some blues, easy jazz, or something that interest them, if they have the discipline to study piano properly after that, then go ahead and spend time cultivating their technique and musical craft. We just shoudn't expect much out of beginners, they do not need to be nurtured in a direction, they merely need to gain more and more playing experience, no matter if that experience leaves out parts of piano technique. Once they have the core basic tools of piano practice/playing and once they develop a taste for what they like on the piano, then we can go ahead and improve their technical capabilities.

Of course basic tools such as chord, scales etc should be learnt, even some excerises for the beginners hands are essential. All that play piano should understand what it means to play something comfortable, that is a general compass for our technique. If it feels comfortable, it's usually correct!

[jgallag]

lost, I have a question for you. If I understand you correctly, you believe that students should simply be exposed to the piano for the first year, and if they show continued interest then the teacher should begin teaching them technique the second year. Where do lesson books fit into this? The material in the books I've seen (Alfred and Bastien) is neither pleasing nor technically useful as far as I can see. They simply get harder for the sake of getting harder, and most if not all of the material in there can be played fine with very poor technique. I ask because (fingers crossed) I might get a beginner or two at college, where I'll teach supervised lessons for a few weeks, and then be on my own.

[lostinidlewonder]

I do believe that beginner students should simply play as much as they can in the first year. This is a tricky situation to describe in words, I do believe the beginner is among the hardest student to teach because what works for the individual is always very different. One might argue that an advanced student is the same but this is not so, they understand how to learn and play the piano thus directions you give can be general but understood. Where with beginners if you are general they will have no idea what you are on about. You must get into the beginners head and hands and nurture small change in them.

I have never taught pieces out of a single book, I don't believe that one book can be written in such a way that it is relevant for all students. If we do a book we do whatever I think will help the student learn the piano AND what interests the student. If these two factors are not present then usually we do not do the piece. There is a point in slowly increasing difficulty of a students playing, like I mentioned in my previous post, making the LH more complicated. These address basic coordination issues.

It is important to ask your student to know what they like to learn. What pieces interest them as opposed to what doesn't. Some have no idea, they just play whatever you give them, more often than not, these students do not learn the piano for very long. Those that have a taste and are eagre to choose pieces they like, these students usually last a little longer because they have a personal interest in the music they learn. This is why I don't like teaching out of a single book. It takes away our ability to choose pieces and know what we like. Most teachers teach from books because they do not know enough pieces, as a teacher it is our responsbility to get all that material, be able to weigh which pieces are useful and what each piece aims to develop. Then we have to consider our beginner student and question whether a piece is suitable or not. This process is quite complicated and difficult to explain in words, it of course is dependant on the student.

Difficulty in the piano is subjective. A preliminary piece played with one hand might be hard for an early beginner! Putting one note in the Lh together with the Rh might be an astronomically large jump in difficulty! I am exaggerating of course, but this is the situation with most beginners. Any time you give them something they haven't experienced before it can result in a slow learning curve. Thus an axiom that teachers can use to deal with improving beginners is, baby steps. Make small changes and work with the technique that the student currently displays. Do not try to recreate or even create technique in your beginner student.

You must always work in terms of your students hands and ability level. That is what you make small changes to, not wipe it clean and start from your own starting point. This often means playing a lot of pieces which are not much difficult than each other, but merely demonstrate basic tools of playing piano. The Hook method (Lh support Rh melody) mentioned in this thread is a good starting point for early beginners. In fact I am yet to meet an early beginner that needs to learn single handed pieces because they have no ability to use 2 hands at once, get them using 2 hands straight away.

There is also no point in obsessing about good technique if the student does not practice by themselves. If the student does not display a discipline to their work then there is no point in being specific in teaching them. If they cannot get the basic things how can we expect them to get the fine touches? We simply teach them the core basic tools of piano playing, they will play 2nd rate, but so what? We as teachers have to allow for students who do not practice a lot (and this will be the majority of your students if you teach the general public). Those that do practice and are organized and disciplined in their work, it is often a lot easier to know how to improve them since we can be more detailed and be confident that the student can practice their difficulties alone and not only with our supervision. You get those students that can only learn when the teacher is there with them, it is important to get them to work on their own.

[viktor_lacrimarum]

Stil misunderstoo

The only one who seemed to understand my point was "allthumbs".

I do agree with everything you say about teaching. Let me ask you something and maybe you could understand what I mean:

Do you think that a good teacher would tell it's students that learning piano is easy and that they don't have to go through boring excercises and boring classical music?

And even worse... how would you feel if you see this kind of people getting all the students and making a living of it even if he barely knows where the middle C is located??? (Meanwhile, a good teacher like you has very few or no students)

I know that classical music is not everything in the piano. God! I've played church music, I've played in a Goth metal band, Power Metal band and a Progressive metal band; anime music, ambient music... the thing is that this "easy piano teachers" tell their students that classical music is boring and they don't show anything about the beauty about piano.


Hope I make myself clear this time.

[lostinidlewonder]

I do agree with everything you say about teaching.

Do you think that a good teacher would tell it's students that learning piano is easy and that they don't have to go through boring excercises and boring classical music?

Exactly never make a student go through boring classical music, you kill the joy of learning the piano for them then. I did not say that they should not do excersises, these are very important for the beginner, we wrote many pages on that on other threads.

And even worse... how would you feel if you see this kind of people getting all the students and making a living of it even if he barely knows where the middle C is located??? (Meanwhile, a good teacher like you has very few or no students)

What??? I have more than enough students. Knowing the names of notes is dead simple and everyone should know this.

... the thing is that this "easy piano teachers" tell their students that classical music is boring and they don't show anything about the beauty about piano.

From my experience it is the students themselves that say that classical music is boring. Like I said before, a student needs to develop taste, if one says they don't like classical music then we must investigate to see if they actually don't like it or if it is in fact the few classical pieces they have been exposed to encourage their dislike. More often than not it is the latter.

Hope I make myself clear this time.

If we have misunderstood you, you are still yet to point out how we have done so.

[soitainly]

 One thing a lot of music teachers, and classical music fans in general, do is turn people off of the music more than they know. A teacher really should indulge the students taste in music from the source that got them interested in the first place. If a kid come in and wants to play country and western then teach him to play that, don't mock him and say that C&W music is invalid and he should only learn classical.

 The best way to get people to like classical is just to expose them to it. Don't insist on it, just introduce them to the great works. Some of them may never like it, and a good many that do hate classical do becsause some one got their hackles up by saying that classical is the only good music. I am sure most of you realize I am stating the obvious, but people being snobs about classical really makes it distastefull to the general population.

[viktor_lacrimarum]

The best way to get people to like classical is just to expose them to it. Don't insist on it, just introduce them to the great works. Some of them may never like it, and a good many that do hate classical do becsause some one got their hackles up by saying that classical is the only good music. I am sure most of you realize I am stating the obvious, but people being snobs about classical really makes it distastefull to the general population.

I do agree with you, and I have the feeling that everyone here thinks I'm that kind of people. But I'm not. I love classical music, and I do exactly as you say; expose my students to it.

About teaching them what they want to learn. I agree, and I do it. I had this guy come to me because he wanted to play the keyboard solos in bands like Stratovarius, Symphony X, Dream Theater... etc. I agreed, and I teach him how to play them, I gave him excercises that helped him with speed, chromatic scales etc. We even spent time listening to the songs and writing down the music.

Exactly never make a student go through boring classical music, you kill the joy of learning the piano for them then.

I can't agree with this. Classical music is boring because is an idea established by society, just like when everyone says that reading is boring. I know I can't teach classical music from the beginning. I don't even use classical music with my younger students. But one thing is not to teach classical music from the beginning because that might give my students a wrong idea of what playing the piano is (maybe making them think that it is something extremely difficult) and a completely different thing is to tell them that classical music is boring.  I mean, I can't say that Jazz is boring if I have no idea of what Jazz is all about. I'm not going to tell my students that classical music is boring if they have no idea of what classical music is about. That will give them a mistaken impression about it and they will stay away from it without knowing the beauty about it, and all this thanks to a "piano teacher" that told them that it was boring.

[lostinidlewonder]

I can't agree with this. Classical music is boring because is an idea established by society....

I love classical music but I will also admit that there are boring classical pieces. For example, early Czerny in Cmajor. So interesting huh. Those sort of things can kill classical music for beginners who think these pieces represent all of what classical music has to offer.