Do you have to be a very good piano player to be a world class teacher

[pianoplayjl]

Ok, I'm probably just exagerrating the title but you get the idea how good the teacher has to be. This thread is just a question coming in from my 'post your teacher's repertoire' thread in Student's Corner. Does a teacher have to be a competent player (i.e. play everything fast, learn pieces very fast) to be a very good quality teacher?
I can't remember where, but a few days ago I read a thread mentioning a piano proffessor in a masterclass. I think it was something along the lines of: the professor doesn't play the piano as well as people expect him to, but gave a strong masterclass and the students came out stunned by the instruction they recieved.
I know this is weird, but does the teacher (or even, piano professor) have to have an amazing playing ability to be able to teach very good students?

Lol, sorry for the weirdest topic yet coming from me.

JL

[cjp_piano]

It's not a weird topic, there are several threads already on this. . .

[pianoplayjl]

It's not a weird topic, there are several threads already on this. . .

Then would you mind finding 1 or 2 threads with a similar topic? And can you share your views?

JL

[mcdiddy1]

Ok, I'm probably just exagerrating the title but you get the idea how good the teacher has to be. This thread is just a question coming in from my 'post your teacher's repertoire' thread in Student's Corner. Does a teacher have to be a competent player (i.e. play everything fast, learn pieces very fast) to be a very good quality teacher?
I can't remember where, but a few days ago I read a thread mentioning a piano proffessor in a masterclass. I think it was something along the lines of: the professor doesn't play the piano as well as people expect him to, but gave a strong masterclass and the students came out stunned by the instruction they recieved.
I know this is weird, but does the teacher (or even, piano professor) have to have an amazing playing ability to be able to teach very good students?

Lol, sorry for the weirdest topic yet coming from me.

JL

I don't think that is a weird topic. If you understand music, the properties of sound, how to teach etc then you will be able to teach music. The best player does not necessarily make the best teacher and it works the other way around. When people go to masterclasses, the students already know how to play piano. What they should get is a different perspective on aspects of music making you may not have known before or thought of before. The teacher does not have to be able to play all of their students repertoire to give advice. Some masterclasses are conducted by people who have never played the music before or may play a different instrument but are so knowledgable musically they still hold effective masterclasses. For me the best masterclasses are the ones where the teacher knows what to do musically, how to teach , and the instrument but other versions are effective too.

[gn622]

I would think that yes, you have to.

first of all, how can someone teach technique if the teacher himself don't have it? and remember that musicality is achieved through technique, which means that if you're not a great player you won't be able to teach the two integral parts of the piano.

and how will the teacher communicate his ideas with the students if he can't play?

[ian_f001]

first of all, how can someone teach technique if the teacher himself don't have it?

I think this is key. The mechanics of how you create sound at the piano, and thus are able to bring your interpretive ideas to life can only be addressed by someone who possesses and understands those mechanics (i.e. technique). A masterclass setting often focuses more on ideas and the larger picture, so it makes sense that a less than stellar performer could still shine in this venue.

I've had piano students perform in chamber groups coached by string players. The coaches were able to give very good musical direction to my student (the pianist), but it still required a lot of practical input on my part to help them implement the suggestions they were given.

Be wary of a teacher whose playing doesn't amaze and inspire you.

[cjp_piano]

I think it only makes sense that a "world class teacher" would be a good piano player. But obviously being a great performer does NOT mean you will be a good teacher. Usually really good teachers ARE good players, but good players are not necessarily good teachers.

It's interesting, though, because a good teacher can teach a student without necessarily being able to play their piece completely. One of my friends who was auditioning for DMA programs played Franck's Prelude, Chorale and Fugue for me. I have never played it and would have to practice many hours to be able to play it. BUT that doesn't mean I can't critique and comment. I gave him my feedback about different aspects of his performance that helped him play it better.

[mcdiddy1]

I think it only makes sense that a "world class teacher" would be a good piano player. But obviously being a great performer does NOT mean you will be a good teacher. Usually really good teachers ARE good players, but good players are not necessarily good teachers.

It's interesting, though, because a good teacher can teach a student without necessarily being able to play their piece completely. One of my friends who was auditioning for DMA programs played Franck's Prelude, Chorale and Fugue for me. I have never played it and would have to practice many hours to be able to play it. BUT that doesn't mean I can't critique and comment. I gave him my feedback about different aspects of his performance that helped him play it better.

I think the phrase "those that understand, teach" is true because being a teacher requires so much more than being a performer.

Great performers can be masters at teaching themselves and figuring out problems but when the do that often they forget what it is like to be a beginner and have difficult explaining to others. For me because I am an experienced performer I will look at a piece of music and already have an idea of what fingerings to use, techniques and phrasing if I can keep up musically. Sometimes I will have to play the passage to analyze how I would do it just to explain to the student how to play it.

My point is performers sometimes do the right thing through muscle memory and when explaining it to students skip the process of analyzing how to get there and get frustrated and use general global words like play louder , or play a stream of wind here etc. All of that is nice flowery language that may influence a student but will not help if the student does not know how to do it. You need technique in order to make musical choices but if the student has the technique teachers can provide the musical knowledge so the student can go toward that goal. If the student is missing this technique however then the teacher should be able to fill in the gap. Ultimatily  the definite of good teacher may be not as exact as the right teacher for the student. For a beginner, you want a teacher who knows the instrument well and pedagogy to teach it. For more advance student, a teacher can still be effective even if they are limited in playing ability. However the best teachers in my opinion will work to learn the instrument because they understand the technical side is more critical for most students.

[cjp_piano]

I think the phrase "those that understand, teach" is true because being a teacher requires so much more than being a performer.

Great performers can be masters at teaching themselves and figuring out problems but when the do that often they forget what it is like to be a beginner and have difficult explaining to others. For me because I am an experienced performer I will look at a piece of music and already have an idea of what fingerings to use, techniques and phrasing if I can keep up musically. Sometimes I will have to play the passage to analyze how I would do it just to explain to the student how to play it.

My point is performers sometimes do the right thing through muscle memory and when explaining it to students skip the process of analyzing how to get there and get frustrated and use general global words like play louder , or play a stream of wind here etc. All of that is nice flowery language that may influence a student but will not help if the student does not know how to do it. You need technique in order to make musical choices but if the student has the technique teachers can provide the musical knowledge so the student can go toward that goal. If the student is missing this technique however then the teacher should be able to fill in the gap. Ultimatily  the definite of good teacher may be not as exact as the right teacher for the student. For a beginner, you want a teacher who knows the instrument well and pedagogy to teach it. For more advance student, a teacher can still be effective even if they are limited in playing ability. However the best teachers in my opinion will work to learn the instrument because they understand the technical side is more critical for most students.

Yes, very true! It's one thing to be able to learn and play a difficult piece for yourself, but explaining and teaching how to do that to someone else is a whole different story!

[keyofc]

Then I would think the answer would be yes - you need to be a very good pianist for whatever level you are teaching to be a world class teacher.    Maybe you teach 1st year only and do not know how to play concertos.

[keypeg]

Then I would think the answer would be yes - you need to be a very good pianist for whatever level you are teaching to be a world class teacher.    Maybe you teach 1st year only and do not know how to play concertos.

Maybe you know how to play concertos, but don't know how to teach 1st year.  Everything that is done later on rests on what is taught first.  It's a huge responsibility.

[danhuyle]

How do you define a world class pianist? Someone who has proven methods to win competitions or make it to the finals of a competition? That's a world class pianist right there.

And these are the sort of teachers people look for. Then there are those with LMusA or the ABRSM version of it.

[iansinclair]

I would say yes and no.  That is, you have to be a very good pianist -- but you have to be careful to define quite accurately what you mean by very good.  It does not mean, for instance, that the teacher will be noted for a great deal of concertizing, or even that the teacher will be able to astonish you with the clarity and brilliance of their interpretation and playing.  It does mean that the teacher will play with excellent technique, however.  It also means that the teacher can see inadequate technique in a student -- but again a warning: this does not mean that the teacher takes a monkey see, monkey do approach to technique, because especially in more difficult passages it may be that one pianist's most effective technique is quite different from another's.  He or shee has to be able to figure what is going to work for you.  The teacher should be able to understand what a composer's intentions were in a piece, and help you express them, as well as being able to help you understand what  your intentions and interpretatons are and help you express those as well.  Above all, perhaps, the teacher should be able to understand you -- both in terms of physical talent and in temrs of musical though (for lack of a better term) and help you get the most out of that.

It is perhaps helpful to note that both in the world of opera and of ballet the best teachers and coaches are not, usually, the best singers or dancers.  They are good, yes -- but what they are good at is finding out what the Prices and Baryshnikovs and Flemings and Vilellas of the world are good at, and helping them become the very best they can be.