Should Piano Teachers Provide Lessons for Free

[Hmoll]

This has been mentioned in another thread. Without hijacking that thread - which seems to be winding down anyway - I thought I would begin one on the topic.

To what extent do you think piano teachers should provide their services without compensation?

Examples were made about people having to pay their doctors, haircutters, dog groomers, and of course piano teachers as if that made these people somehow greedy,  money-grubbing-uber-capitalists.

Someone in a universal health indurance country like the UK or Canada used that as an example of services rendered without compensation. Sorry, that's a bad example. Physicians still get paid in those countries, instead it's by the government not the patients.

I think it is unrealistic to expect piano teachers to provide lessons for free. They have a profession. They have to eat. For the most part, they do not charge ridiculous fees, and become rich in the process.
People who think lessons should cost nothing are probably valueing lesson at that amount.
Lots of  teeachers actually provide a lot of service for free to there students,  going over time at lessons, responding to emails, phone questions from students, etc.
In some professioons - law for example - a small proportion of services are provided "pro bono." (In the case of huge corporate law firms providing pro-bono lawyers for a handful of cases, that's more of a salve on their concience for when they spend the rest of their time grinding the poor under their boots - subject of another thread. However, I might like to see more of this in piano teachers - that is a good restablished, respected teacher  providing a certain percentage of lessons free of charge to needy talented students. Perhaps this happens a lot already.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on this?

[Swan]

Lots of  teeachers actually provide a lot of service for free to there students,

Yes you are absolutely spot on.  I think what really sets piano teachers apart (me being one of them) is that they view their job not necessarily just as a means to an end, but as a great oppportunity to explore and share their passion.

I know I have given many extra lessons to students for free (especially around exam time), and have kept parents waiting because I wanted to go through just this one more thing...

Take into consideration the time and effort spent on organising recitals - my studio has four a year.  

Lesson planning takes time - especially when you don't use methods, but individual repertoire for each individual student.

I also have studio excursions where I take students out to professional piano recitals and orchestras.  (About four a year).

Then there's the reporting and newsletters - once a term.

Then theres the studio sheet music library that is available to students for free.  Listening library.

I give out lots of awards and prizes (especially for littlies).

I'm among the cheapest teachers in town.  But then I'm in the very fortunate position of having a husband that also brings home the bacon!  Other piano teachers don't have this luxury and I wonder how on earth they manage - especially if they have kids.

Giving freebies is fine.  What I draw the line at, is if a student EXPECTS something for nothing.  If their attitude is "You should feel mighty privelaged that I'm allowing you to spend your time helping me," then off with their heads.  (Not literally... just a favourite saying of mine.  )

I've got to admit that in my ten years of teaching it's only relatives that EXPECT something for nothing.  (and what's more they get it.  :-/)

[bernhard]

There are several levels at which this issue can be approached.  

Here are some.

1. The bottom line is probably that piano teachers, like everyone else must pay for their food, rent, bills, etc.

If piano teachers were to teach for free they would need to get a job in order to earn a living.

If piano teachers were to take a job in order to make a living, then they would not have the time/energy to teach (and do all the extra work that teaching entails) the piano.

The logic is obvious: no payment no teaching. Not because teachers are money grabbing individuals but simply because instead of teaching, they would be earning a living doing something else.

(By the way this is true for every profession, not only piano teachers).

2. I sympathise with the Star Trek system, were material needs are taken care of by technology, and all individuals (at least individuals belonging to the Federation) simply pursue their interests without thought for material gains/needs. But even in that system there are serious problems, never dealt with in the series (it is a low-brow TV series anyway).

But what if the piano teacher happens to be a billionaire (s/he inherited his wealth)? What if s/he does not need to worry about paying bills? Should s/he still charge for lessons?

Yes.

3. Here is a simple reason: The path to the teacher’s house would have a permanent queue of people wanting to be taught (it is free after all). The great majority of these people would be time-wasters. They would actually stop the teacher from teaching.

4. But there is an even more profound reason to charge students: No one values what they do not pay for. Or putting it another way, the more you pay for something, the more you will value it. The teacher may not need to be paid, but the student needs to pay, since paying is part of the learning process. One cannot be given knowledge/understanding (there is a difference). One must work for it, one must take possession of it. Paying for a lesson (in whatever way) is part of the process of taking possession of knowledge/understanding.

5. Finally, payment does not necessarily need to be in money. The effort a student puts towards his/her studies (in any area, not only piano playing) is by far the best form of payment. But as I said, it is a fact of life, that the more you pay for something the more willing to put in some effort you will be. A teacher (any discipline) would do a huge disservice to a student by giving him/her everything “for free”.

6. Finally the only reason to teach a student for free (or for a reduced fee) is if the student is in such a difficult financial position that s/he cannot pay. Even then, this is not a sufficient condition: the student must also be willing to learn (talent is irrelevant and certainly not a good enough reason – although people who believe themselves to be talented are always going around as if the world owed them a living). Funny enough, the best students –the ones that will one day amount to something - will many times show their willingness to learn (and consequently his/her worth as a student) by insisting in paying their fees, even though the teacher – aware of their financial situation – may have released them from such an obligation.

7. Finally (and I find it amazing that some people do not realise this), there is no free lunch in the universe. An individual may get away with not paying for a service, or some good, but at the end of the chain, someone will have to pay. If a person does not pay for a Doctor’s consultation, someone will. And not the government, really, but the taxpayer. If an individual takes free lessons from a teacher, the teacher is paying for it with his/her time, and with the loss of income that s/he would have if s/he was teaching a paying student. In short, a student who wants free lessons is taking advantage of the teacher. People who expect to get something for nothing should feel deeply ashamed. There is a name for this kind of people: parasites. And we all know what to do if we find ourselves with a parasite.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Swan]

 Oh no!  Should I tell my mother she has to pay for lessons now?  

Bernhard, you certainly have a way with words!

[bernhard]

 Oh no!  Should I tell my mother she has to pay for lessons now?  

Bernhard, you certainly have a way with words!

Of course not. Your mother already paid in advance (for most of your life )

She is now collecting!

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[DarkWind]

Well your mom did pay you by allowing you to exist and stuff. Anyways, without students paying, we would have no Beethoven, no Chopin, etc. We would probably still have a Liszt, though . Students make the world go round, not just in music!

[J.S.Bach]

Good to know that you did not mention my name, otherwise it would be a slander. What I said was completely different and it is obvious that teachers have to charge for their lessons, just as anybody else.

Bernhard, it seems you are back in business. I hope you have no hard feelings, because I have none myself. To prove it, I’ll comment on some of your comments.

No one values what they do not pay for. Or putting it another way, the more you pay for something, the more you will value it. The teacher may not need to be paid, but the student needs to pay, since paying is part of the learning process.

You should stop using absolute terms like “no one.” That is not true. Just because this forum is free, it does not mean that many members, including you, do not value the exchange of information. Maybe it doesn’t matter for me, but your thousands of replies show your diligence in here. The same thing applies to peoples hobbies. And here is the best example: Glenn Gould did not pay his mother to teach him, but was so eager to play and learn everyday that his ultimate punishment was when his mother restricted him to touch the piano (He is among 0.1% I have talked about).

The effort a student puts towards his/her studies (in any area, not only piano playing) is by far the best form of payment.

I agree. That’s why to teach a very talented and financially poor student once in a while for free would be actually welcomed by good teachers.

Finally the only reason to teach a student for free (or for a reduced fee) is if the student is in such a difficult financial position that s/he cannot pay. Even then, this is not a sufficient condition: the student must also be willing to learn (talent is irrelevant and certainly not a good enough reason – although people who believe themselves to be talented are always going around as if the world owed them a living).

That is exactly what I said. However, what is your meaning of talent? It has already been decided that talent is the same as interest or extreme eagerness.

Finally (and I find it amazing that some people do not realise this), there is no free lunch in the universe.

Your usage of absolute terms is very amusing. Yes, we all have vanity and love to exaggerate. Given that I am studying psychology (I apologize, but I again have no teacher whom I pay for that. And Freud is for free), it is sometimes interesting to observe your writing methods. So, what you are saying is correct, but only if you exchange the word “universe” with the word “earth.” We really don’t know much about the universe, and even the little we know is by itself confusing and refuses to follow our own pathetic laws, whether in nature or physics. As for free lunch, you can explain it much better by stating that thousands of years ago humans were hunters and gatherers. If one did not hunt for himself, then somebody else had to give him his share that he had hunted by his own sweat. This system is the same today, except that it is much more complicated. Essentially, our main goal is still to eat to survive. Thus, first of all money = food. Given that many have a surplus, more and more people are beginning to change the formula money = property. So when someone refuses a free service, he is not really concerned about survival, but about property (it can be anything inanimate) and as to how he will compare to the others in his society (conspicuous consumption). Given this and that among all professions I value especially the work of the artists, I would expect that a good artist would prefer the passage of the information to an excellent artist over property gains.

J.S.Bach

[Hmoll]

Swan, and Bernhard thanks for your responses. I agree with them 100%, and just wanted to throw the topic out there for discussion.
Bernard, thanks for elaboprating, and adding to my views. I'm not particularly obtuse, so I understand your use of absolutes.

[f0bul0us]

it is obvious that teachers have to charge for their lessons, just as anybody else.

They don't "have" to, my teacher gives every student the first week of each month a free lesson. She's booked solid at 9 students (3/day), buys new repertoire for students that have played and performed old repertoire, shes takes us to master classes at a local university, and students who are going for upcoming exams/competitions (3 weeks) get 1 additional lesson a week (free) for those 3 weeks. How does she afford it?!?!?! She's an accountant, and her husband's a general practice physician!

[Hmoll]

They don't "have" to, my teacher gives every student the first week of each month a free lesson. She's booked solid at 9 students (3/day), buys new repertoire for students that have played and performed old repertoire, shes takes us to master classes at a local university, and students who are going for upcoming exams/competitions (3 weeks) get 1 additional lesson a week (free) for those 3 weeks. How does she afford it?!?!?! She's an accountant, and her husband's a general practice physician!

Don't kid yourself.
That free lesson is most likely priced into the other three.

[Swan]

Don't kid yourself.
That free lesson is most likely priced into the other three.

Now, now, don't be too cynical.  

But what if the piano teacher happens to be a billionaire (s/he inherited his wealth)? What if s/he does not need to worry about paying bills? Should s/he still charge for lessons?

If I was a millionaire - what was that a BILLIONAIRE -then I would establish scholarships.  The potential student would have to apply (and I would hire someone to do all of this paper work for me) and they would have to meet a few requirements:.
1. Doesn't matter about 'talent' - that's subjective anyway.
2.  Preferably from one parent households who are struggling financially.  
3.  Must be passing all subjects at school - or be willing to take on tutoring so that they DO begin passing all subjects at school.
4. Must stay in school until year 12.
5. Must practise to my standard - or they'd be released.
Can't think of a number 6 or more.

Hell If I was a BILLIONAIRE I'd build my own music school and employ teachers to teach scholarship winners!  AND I'd still teach myself, beacuse sitting around just counting all that money can't be as rewarding as seeing another human being experience a joy that only music can bring.   And knowing you had a part to play in that -for me at least- IS better than money.

So maybe this accountant/doctor's wife feels the same.

.... ohhh, now I want to be a BILLIONAIRE! ....

[bernhard]

Don't kid yourself.
That free lesson is most likely priced into the other three.

Especially since she is also an accountant!

[Accountant joke:
Two accountants, partners in the firm, leave the office  to have lunch. Halfway one of them says: "I must go back, I forgot to lock the safe". The other replies: "don't bother, we are both here"]

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Hmoll]

Especially since she is also an accountant!

[Accountant joke:
Two accountants, partners in the firm, leave the office  to have lunch. Halfway one of them says: "I must go back, I forgot to lock the safe". The other replies: "don't bother, we are both here"]

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

OK, two for one special:


What's the difference between an accountant and a lawyer?
The accountant knows he is boring.

[allchopin]

What's the difference between an accountant and a lawyer?  The accountant knows he is boring.

Accountants aren't boring.  They just get excited over boring things.

I'm not particularly obtuse, so I understand your use of absolutes.

Hahaha

The thing is, if you allow a student to take lessons from you for free, you must allow ALL your students to do so.  It would not be fair for one student to not pay while others are digging through their pockets for change (not literally, JS).  And saying that you are giving free lessons will, as Berny said, create a few more customers than one could probably handle.   I just think that when it comes to money, people are going to expect more judicious accounting (like it or not  ).  

[kulahola]

Of course YES.

It all depends on the level of talent of the student. I give lots of extra free lessons to my very talented students, in the memory of the many free lessons I myself got and still get now (I will soon have a whole free week of lessons with a great professor from Moscow conservatory).

Teachers who associate teaching and money are perverse.

[Shagdac]

Kulahola wrote:

It all depends on the level of talent of the student. I give lots of extra free lessons to my very talented students,

I was just wondering if you gave the lessons based entirely on their talent? Would you give lots of extra free lessons to students who possibly were not as talented, but had a better attitude, and sincere desire to learn? What do you base your decision to give free lessons on?

S

(Also, Good Luck with your lessons Kula, sounds like a wonderful opportunity!)

[kulahola]

Kulahola wrote:


I was just wondering if you gave the lessons based entirely on their talent? Would you give lots of extra free lessons to students who possibly were not as talented, but had a better attitude, and sincere desire to learn?

S

Dear Shagdac
Yes indeed I base the free lessons on talent. I am not calculating though, it can happen to me to say before a competition or a performance, I want to see you again tomorrow. Or I make lessons much longer than planned just because I am caught by the passion of teaching at that particular moment.
There is always a strong connection between good attitude and talent anyway. Bad students have seldom a desire to learn.

[bernhard]

Teachers who associate teaching and money are perverse.

Hey guys, remember a time when kulahola used the name Lallasvenson?

Guess what I found:

When advised to show a student the door if the student had not practised:

https://www.pianoforum.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.cgi?board=teac;action=display;num=1076431345

Reply #8: Lallasvenson (aka Kulahola) wrote:

Yes but if you tell the student to leave, you dont get any money either....

And when I suggested that s/he charges in advance:

Reply # 10:

but it does not help. if the parents pay in advance and if i dismiss the kid the parent will probably ask the lesson to be replaced or the money back!
and anyway i cant take money in advance. because of my busy schedule, i cant guarantee fixed lesson times...

Oh you! Perverse creature! How could you be such a money grabber?



Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[Swan]

Hey guys, remember a time when kulahola used the name Lallasvenson?

Guess what I found:

Bernhard.

:-/ Bernhard, you have entirely too much time on your hands.

[kulahola]

You really seem to be a kind of a forum nerd, always going back to old threads.... Indeed you seem to have plenty of time. Unfortunately I dont have as much time as you.
Anyway where is the contradiction ?

If my students are not worth it, of course they have to pay me the exact amount on the spot. What is new in what i am writing ? many teachers do it the same way without even thinking about it: giving extra time and extra lessons to extra talented students.

But you probably dont understand what I am saying anyway.

[J.S.Bach]

Unfortunately, as if Bernie’s reputation hasn’t gone down the drain already sufficiently, it continues to do so even more, despite the efforts of such loyal servants as B Minor who protect him from absolutely nothing with their own sweat and blood. I am assuming that Bernhard is over 30 or 40. Anyone knows his age? If so, let me know. I will be leaving this forum soon and it would be very helpful for my “Farewell” address. Many will be experiencing an unbounded excitement to get rid of an “enemy” like me.

J.S.Bach

[allchopin]

Bernhard, you have entirely too much time on your hands.

HAHAHA
Indeed.

Great investigative work!  I like it!  Hoisted by his/her own petard!

[kulahola]

for Bernie...

[Hmoll]

  I will be leaving this forum soon and it would be very helpful for my “Farewell” address. Many will be experiencing an unbounded excitement to get rid of an “enemy” like me.

J.S.Bach

What an ego maniac.

If you had posted anything useful, people here might actually regard you enough to consider you either an enemy or a friend.

Don't let the door hit your a@se on the way out.

Excuse me, I have to go polish B's shoes --- BAHAHAHAHAHAH

[Shagdac]

First of all I believe Bernhard was contributing to the topic, trying to show differences in consistancy with the opinions of Kulahona, that's all. At least it was still ON TOPIC. Second, Kulahola I truly would be interested in hearing about your opinions on this topic, your week long lessons from the professor at the Russian conservatory, or your week long stay there. Thirdly, JSBach...."LET IT GO"....Pleeeeeaaaassseee! I'm sorry, and am sincerely not trying to be rude, but either talk about this post, or don't. If you really felt indifference toward what people here say, you wouldn't find the need to write a post TELLING us you will be leaving soon. You would just go. I don't see the point. Perhaps Hmoll is right...about the ego. JS..if you would like to give your opinions on teachers giving lessons for free, would love to hear your opinions on this. If not, please don't feel you must waste your valuable time posting to inform others of your intentions in the future. If you want to go, simply go. If not stay and contribute.

Thanks,
S