How to teach a piece you can't play

[danhuyle]

As a teacher, when you have a student wanting to learn a piece you haven't played before

a. not teach them the piece
b. teach the piece based on what you see on the page
c. if you know the piece, but haven't played/can't play the piece yourself
d. tell the student to pick a piece that you can teach

You know what I'm going for here. If I haven't played the tough stuff, do I teach it based on what I see on the music?

If you have played the piece yourself, you know how to teach it, and you can't play the piece yourself.
E.g. If a student wanted to learn Liszt Transcendental Etude no10, since I've played it before (it's too hard for me), I can teach the student how to learn it so they can play it themselves. In the end, it's all the about the development of the student, not the teacher.

[tb230]

As a teacher, you should be able to determine whether this is a piece you will be able to play or not. You also know the level of your student and thus be able to recommend suitable pieces. Keep the student's best interests in min, and if your student can handle something you can't manage, forward him/her to a more advanced teacher. As you say yourself, it's all about the development of the student....   

[crazybluearmadillo]

Learn the piece!  That's my first suggestion, do you mean you can't play it... or you can't sight read it?  2nd Suggestion - listen, listen, listen.  If for some reason you just don't have the time to learn the piece listen to some master pianists play it.

I've had student's who come to me with pieces that are relatively advanced, but they're individual level is well below my own.  For instance, I've never actually played Moonlight Sonata or Für Elise (oh my goodness, does everyone want to play that piece!) but I can play/sight read them well enough to get across the point I'm trying to teach.  Remember they will move at a slower pace (if they're at a level acceptable for you to be teaching) and so you can easily pull something out for a few minutes before their lesson and refresh what they will be practicing.

[danhuyle]

If a student wanted to learn a Beethoven Sonata that I haven't played, I'd listen to the recording of it (I've got Alfred Brendel) so that I know how it goes and what to pick out.

@tb230 - Yes exactly, it'll be easier for both student and teacher. There was one lesson where I wanted to learn Liszt Transcendental Etude no5, however my teacher has only played 1,9,10 only. Anyway, she says you have to play at lightning speed and all the stuff associated with Liszt TE 5. She just says if I wanted to learn it, I'd have to memorize it and convince her that I can handle it. I did memorize TE 5, however, I wanted to fine tune it, and it wasn't worth wasting lessons on it for technique and clarity of melodies.
Like most people learning Liszt TE, it's to learn the set, so I just stuck to TE 9. Better than nothing.

When it comes to learning Bach (whatever you can name), Mozart/Beethoven/Haydn/Schubert Sonatas, she'll teach it as long as she's convinced that I can play it.
The reason why she allowed me to play La Campanella for my exam that year because she was impressed by how I was able to maneuver that overall even though I had real difficulty with the 215 fingering passage. I had the whole thing memorized way before I came to her to learn it. 

Then there was another time where I wanted to switch from Shostakovich Op87/2 to Op87/4, however, Op87/4 was a lot a tougher for me to handle than Op87/2.

Looking back at the whole thing, it's the student who has to present the piece they want to learn to the teacher and it's the teacher's decision to go through with it or not? I believe that it's the effort the student puts in that will convince the teacher to teach the piece or not, otherwise, it's just wasting lessons.

Since I have been a student, it's the student who must put in the effort to learn the pieces they want to learn from the teacher. Then it's the teacher who makes the decision if the student has the capacity to handle the piece or not. If not, then the teacher has to back it up with a reason based on the demands of the piece, then suggest an alternative to it?

[pianoman53]

It seems to be some sort of thing among teachers nowadays (Obviously, I can't tell how it was before, since I, well, didn't exist) and it's really lame. What you have to do is discover what is the composers "trade mark", and, obviously, look in the scores, and see what it says. Ofc, you also have to know some technical basics.
And if you're going to listen to recordings, don't just listen to one.

[asiantraveller101]

Option a, and possibly option c. It is important for teachers to recognize what they are capable of and what they are not. We hold responsibility to our students to teach and guide them with the correct technique and musicianship. We cannot attempt to do what we know we cannot or are not capable of doing. For example, I cannot play Liszt etudes well, and thus I have not taught a single Liszt etudes in my entire teaching career. Likewise, with Rachmaninoff. Though I love his works, and have played some of his pieces myself, I can vouch that I would never be able to teach his concerti or etudes.
It is imperative that we are not ruining our students with improper or bad technique, by our egoistic reluctance to admit our own weaknesses/shortfalls.

[pianoman53]

I hope you point out to your students that they might take lessons for other teachers, if you can't teach them everything..

I think option 3 is kind of naive. What is you get many students? Either you become one of those teachers who only teaches the same 10 pieces to every single student, or you get forced to learn a billion pieces...

[lukebar]

Definitely time to suggest the student move on to a teacher who teaches more advanced repertoire (assuming that the student is truly ready for the more difficult repertoire and isn't trying to bite off more than they can chew.) If a student and teacher have a good relationship and have worked together for a while, the student will likely balk at the idea and resist. But it would truly be in their best interest to find someone who is capable of playing the repertoire they wish to learn.

There will likely be technical issues that the student needs help with. Also, from a musical standpoint, you don't want to just copy off an interpretation that you like from a recording. The process should be to help the student make their OWN stylistically appropriate choices regarding the interpretation. If you haven't played the piece yourself, or others similar to it, it is unlikely that you've considered all of the possible interpretations and thus won't be able to guide the student through this process.

But also remember, it is worthy and honorable to be a great teacher for a student at any level. There are many fine musicians and teachers who have no desire to work with anyone but aspiring professionals capable of playing at the most advanced levels. There are many teachers working with beginning students who I wouldn't let my dog take lessons from. We NEED more knowledgeable, experienced, and caring teachers at all levels, but ESPECIALLY at the beginning levels.

Know your strengths and be proud of what you are able to offer. I've worked with all levels of students, and, hands down, my most rewarding teaching experiences have come with beginning and intermediate level students.

[danhuyle]

And here I thought the most rewarding is teaching the most advanced students, since if you can teach advanced students, you can teach all other levels?

The student(s) reach grade 7 - Bach P&E in C minor from wtc1, Chopin Nocturne, Debussy Prelude, one movement from a Mozart sonata (they don't allow whole sonatas to be played at this level)

Grade 8 - Albeniz Evocacion from Iberia book1, Chopin Nocturne/Waltz, Bach Prelude and Fugue, one movement from Mozart/Beethoven Sonata

Amus (associate diploma) - Beethoven Sonata in F major, Mozart K330/332, Shostakovich Prelude and Fugue Op87 no2/4, Albeniz El Puerto from Iberia book 1, Brahms Op118/2.

Lmus (Licentiate diploma) Very advanced level. Shostakovich Prelude and Fugue Op87/24, Samuel Barber Excursion no1, Chopin Fantasie Op49, Scriabin Op8/12 (a lot of interpretations for this), Chopin Etude Op10/9, Mozart Sonata. Better option - send them to another teacher. To get this qualification, you must have perfect rhythm, tempo, and phrasing. You gotta be at a Horowitz/Richter/Argarich level to have a chance.

In Australia we have AMEB (Australian music Examination Board), it goes by level from Preliminary to LMus and there's pieces on the list to choose from. If you get a lot of students, just assign the same pieces?

I can teach people how to learn and memorize pieces. You'd be surprised at just how easy it is to memorize Liszt Sonata (100% of pianists can memorize it). Just because it's easy to memorize does not mean it's easy; memorizing is just a new beginning to explore possibilities. That's one of the things I can offer. Taking things to the next level, another teacher will take care of that.

Oh yeah, another thing that gets me. I play slower than a recording, that means, they're right and I'm wrong? A piece that you hear from a recording plays at 4:54, you play at 6:00. I got it all wrong. It's too slow. Why? Recording is right and I'm wrong. I find myself asking this question too. They say it's not a race, and it feels like one.

Good recordings that are never wrong
Chopin - Vladimir Ashkenazy
Liszt Sonata (huge selection) - Yundi Li
Liszt Transcendental Etudes - Berezovsky, Lugansky
La Campanella - Yundi Li
Paganini Etudes - don't know of any so far
Scriabin Op8/12 - Horowitz
Mozart Sonatas - Andras Schiff
Beethoven Sonatas - Wilhelm Kempff, Brendel (since I have it)

[lukebar]

And here I thought the most rewarding is teaching the most advanced students, since if you can teach advanced students, you can teach all other levels?

Ummmm. No. I don't think that's the case at all.

[pianoman53]

Why are you speaking like everything is black and white?
"You must be at a Richter level to have a chance"
Seriously? That's just bull, and I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about.

And how would you be able to teach beginners, only because you think you know how to teach advanced ones?

I'm sorry, but I somehow don't think you're very serious about this.

[cjp_piano]

A very good teacher can teach a piece even if he cannot play it himself. Imagine if you broke both of your arms and literally could not play, does that mean you cannot teach?

But it's much easier to teach if you can play it. That being said, it's more important that you can PRACTICE it with them. Maybe you can't play it up to speed or everything hands together, but if you can help them work out how to practice the separate parts (by doing it also yourself), then you can be successful.

[keypeg]

A very good teacher can teach a piece even if he cannot play it himself. Imagine if you broke both of your arms and literally could not play, does that mean you cannot teach?

But it's much easier to teach if you can play it. That being said, it's more important that you can PRACTICE it with them. Maybe you can't play it up to speed or everything hands together, but if you can help them work out how to practice the separate parts (by doing it also yourself), then you can be successful.

I imagine that a teacher who no longer has time to practice much or who because of age or injury could no longer use his body as before could do so.  But he would have to know "how" to approach playing it.  It's not just a matter of how it should sound (which can be gotten through recordings and YouTube).  It's not even just about how to divide up sections and put them back together.  There are tricky passages and ways of technique to get at them.  The teacher has to know how to get at them.  If he "can't" because he couldn't solve it himself, then maybe he shouldn't be teaching it.  But if he can solve it himself, but only time or an injury / deterioration due to age or illness are preventing it, then that is different.

[mcdiddy1]

It depends on what they student needs are.

Some students need a teacher. They need to give them information they do not possess. They need to learn how to play the instrument, what the notes mean, what the techniques are, practice strategies etc. They need to see how the piece sounds like in person and sometimes it is best describe in demonstration. These students are the beginners in playing an the instrument or may be beginners in music in general.

There are some students who need a coach. A coach is for someone who knows what to do but channels thier focus in a singular direction. The coach may not necessarily be able to do the same things physically as the student but that does not mean their information is any less valuable. The more advance a student gets the less they need a teacher who plays all of their repertoire. It is of course a huge advantage for the teacher to be able to but students need to take what they know and learn how to better diaganois what they need to work on for themselves.

[keypeg]

Maybe the bottom line for the coach is that this teacher has to be able to do what the student cannot do, or know what the student doesn't know, since that's where the needs are?  I think a tricky spot in this is that a student may think his needs are in one area, but a master teacher like this might see that the holes lie in a totally different area.  At that thought maybe a coach has to have a broad comprehension of all sides of music, but might be specialized in something particular.

[nyiregyhazi]

There are some students who need a coach. A coach is for someone who knows what to do but channels thier focus in a singular direction. The coach may not necessarily be able to do the same things physically as the student but that does not mean their information is any less valuable. The more advance a student gets the less they need a teacher who plays all of their repertoire. It is of course a huge advantage for the teacher to be able to but students need to take what they know and learn how to better diaganois what they need to work on for themselves.

If that student were playing note-perfect Chopin Etudes with ease, I could agree with a coach idea. However, if we're talking anything less than that, the "coach" may well just be an incompetent charlatan who holds the student back from learning anything. You don't necessarily have to play every piece, but a "coach" who cannot look at a piece of music from the inside is going to be a pretty useless guide. Whether you play a piece or not, you need to be able to look at it with the eyes of someone who could- otherwise you're going to miss virtually everything of significance.

[keypeg]

A coach helping a student has to be able to look inside TWO things -- the music, what it contains and its challenges -- the student, what he can and cannot do, and the cause and effect of that.  That is a double expertise, I'd think.

[mcdiddy1]

If that student were playing note-perfect Chopin Etudes with ease, I could agree with a coach idea. However, if we're talking anything less than that, the "coach" may well just be an incompetent charlatan who holds the student back from learning anything. You don't necessarily have to play every piece, but a "coach" who cannot look at a piece of music from the inside is going to be a pretty useless guide. Whether you play a piece or not, you need to be able to look at it with the eyes of someone who could- otherwise you're going to miss virtually everything of significance.

Well I think coaching applies to anyone who has the ability to play but needs direction on what to work on specifically. There are many players who have a natural technique to play note perfect pieces but lack musical knowledge to reach their highest level of playing. That is true the "coach" should have reached a high level of playing to be able to lead the student to being able to successfully play it. But trying to find a teacher who has played everything in piano literature and play it perfectly on sight is not going to happen.

Out of curisoity have you have a teacher who was "an incompetent charlatan"? If so what did they teach you. I would think the success of lack of success of their students would revel themselves.

Maybe the bottom line for the coach is that this teacher has to be able to do what the student cannot do, or know what the student doesn't know, since that's where the needs are?  I think a tricky spot in this is that a student may think his needs are in one area, but a master teacher like this might see that the holes lie in a totally different area.  At that thought maybe a coach has to have a broad comprehension of all sides of music, but might be specialized in something particular.

I think that is true. It works that way with master classes. Some teachers who hold master class are either knowledge able a great deal of musical compositions or have a particular specialty for a certain piece or composer. These teachers generally do not "teach" the student how to play the piano but make suggestions to improve an interpretation or a more efficient technique to help with the musicality of the piece much like a coach does.
I think a master teacher has to be able to teach, be able to detect what the student does not know, and when to coach the student up to be able to develop their own artistic interpretation.

[nyiregyhazi]

"Well I think coaching applies to anyone who has the ability to play but needs direction on what to work on specifically. There are many players who have a natural technique to play note perfect pieces but lack musical knowledge to reach their highest level of playing."

And almost without fail, they also lack the technique to execute the highest level of musical playing. Good sound requires technique too. There's no such thing as a student who has enough technique, unless they are playing perfect Chopin studies. If that's the case, fine. If a student who's below that level is being treated as having enough technique, they are not being taught well. The idea that mere "coaching" consitutes proper teaching anything below extremely advanced level is something I find pretty shocking to even contemplate. It would also make me wonder if the teacher really had all that much musical insight to convey either- or if they were just going with flowery metaphors etc. that momentarily inspire but ultimately do little else.

"But trying to find a teacher who has played everything in piano literature and play it perfectly on sight is not going to happen. "

Sure- but it's important they can understand it rapidly at sight.

"Out of curisoity have you have a teacher who was "an incompetent charlatan"? If so what did they teach you. I would think the success of lack of success of their students would revel themselves."

Not really. Teaching little about technique still allows many to reach grade 8. Those who lose out would be those with real talent, who go on to hit a wall beyond which their technique would never allow them to progress. Often you see students who are clearly talented, but who just haven't learned the basics.


"I think that is true. It works that way with master classes. Some teachers who hold master class are either knowledge able a great deal of musical compositions or have a particular specialty for a certain piece or composer. These teachers generally do not "teach" the student how to play the piano but make suggestions to improve an interpretation or a more efficient technique to help with the musicality of the piece much like a coach does."

Absolutely- but it's important to distinguish between a master who only coaches a student due to having little time and a regular teacher who only "coaches" (week after week) due to having little idea about how to teach any proper technique.

[keypeg]

.

[lostinidlewonder]

As a teacher you should have the musical learning craft to be able to learn/teach on the spot any piece your student puts before you (certainly all people who are not at an advanced level which constitutes the majority of piano students).

We have to know pieces we have not seen before in much more detail than simply being able to play the piece with mastery. You have to notice what parts of the piece the student technically plays incorrectly, this could be a mere combination of certain notes or even the movement of a single finger on a single note! A good teacher should be able to visualize how the hand should move just by reading the score, this is a trait of strong sight readers as well, since we have read countless pieces over the years and get used to seeing the routine and building blocks.

When I first started out teaching I thought all I needed was to be able to play a piece at mastery to be able to teach it effectively, this is good but it is not the complete picture. A teacher needs to be able to diagnose what troubles the student to learn the piece both consciously and technically. This requires that you are able to see many angles and approaches to a single piece and anticipate/notice the challenges each and every bar provides for the individual student. This is experience based and makes simply mastering pieces to gain confidence to teach a less universal teaching approach.

[lukebar]

A very good teacher can teach a piece even if he cannot play it himself. Imagine if you broke both of your arms and literally could not play, does that mean you cannot teach?

I don't think we are talking about 'physically' being capable of playing a piece. Nor do we mean that teachers must play every piece that they teach. But I think if a teacher is teaching a piece to a student, they should have (or have had at one time) the ability, the capacity for learning it and playing it at a high level. They should have pieces in their repertoire of a comparable difficulty, and in a similar style.

That's not the same thing as saying that a teacher must learn every piece that they work on a student with. If only there were enough hours in the day!

[cjp_piano]

I don't think we are talking about 'physically' being capable of playing a piece. Nor do we mean that teachers must play every piece that they teach. But I think if a teacher is teaching a piece to a student, they should have (or have had at one time) the ability, the capacity for learning it and playing it at a high level. They should have pieces in their repertoire of a comparable difficulty, and in a similar style.

That's not the same thing as saying that a teacher must learn every piece that they work on a student with. If only there were enough hours in the day!

Exactly, that's what I was saying

[dcstudio]

Why not challenge yourself to learn the piece with your student--even if you only have time to do this during your lesson?  Don't doubt yourself simply because you don't know the piece.  Think of what you could show him.  I would say something like:

"Wow, Liszt?  that's awesome!  I've never played that one but we could sure learn it together!

Learning is part of teaching--embrace that!

Qudos to you for asking this question!  you are a GREAT teacher, my friend! 

[danhuyle]

Why not challenge yourself to learn the piece with your student--even if you only have time to do this during your lesson?  Don't doubt yourself simply because you don't know the piece.  Think of what you could show him.  I would say something like:

"Wow, Liszt?  that's awesome!  I've never played that one but we could sure learn it together!

Learning is part of teaching--embrace that!

Qudos to you for asking this question!  you are a GREAT teacher, my friend! 

That's an interesting one.

[pianoplayjl]

I reckon you should sight it on the spot once or twice before writing in the fingering. during the time your student is learing perhaps review the score a few times before adding in detailed expression. this may occur a few weeks after the student has started learning the piece.