How to lure students to non qualified teachers?

[pianoplayjl]

 

[keyboardclass]

And why would you do that?  All my teachers had the finest of education.

[keypeg]

a stab at a partial answer:
- ultra-cheap lessons
- promise magic (play piano like a master in 10 hours)
- have a fancy, professional looking web-site since people can't distinguish package from content
- use big sophisticated music-words so you sound like you know something
- use simple words that make you accessible
- play a signature piece that sounds much harder than it is
- play an easy version of "beloved music" so the listener will hear what isn't there

[keyboardclass]

- create your own pseudo-science to support your erroneous notions

[pianowolfi]

a stab at a partial answer:
- ultra-cheap lessons
- promise magic (play piano like a master in 10 hours)
- have a fancy, professional looking web-site since people can't distinguish package from content
- use big sophisticated music-words so you sound like you know something
- use simple words that make you accessible
- play a signature piece that sounds much harder than it is
- play an easy version of "beloved music" so the listener will hear what isn't there

Haha genius! 

Pianoplayjl: you are very young. Just study music seriously. If you are seriously studying music there will inevitably appear one or two students, maybe friends, friends of friends, or children of friends. You'll probably teach those one or two students for a few months/years. You'll make your experiences, and they as well. You will slowly grow into the business from there.

[lostprin36]

great..........

[slane]

My aunty used to teach a few beginner students with far less qualification than you. I don't know how she found them, but probably through her church where people heard her play. She didn't charge very much. Even if she had an AMus she probably would have still under sold herself. She set the limit of her abilities at getting a child to Preliminary. I think she used her own daughter as the guinea pig so she knew she could manage that much.

I think you need to sit down and think about the limits of your abilities and what are your strengths so that you can honestly sell yourself.
when I learnt as a child, there was a teacher who was very popular and difficult to get into. My mother found someone in the paper who was a disaster. Eventually I got in with the popular teacher. I've often thought that if one of her daughters (all good pianists but less qualified) had taken on the beginner kids until someone dropped out with their mum, that would have been a good way to ensure that those children were being taught in her approved way. Sort of like an apprentice relationship.
Perhaps you could find a teacher who would enter into that sort of arrangement. Maybe even your own teacher?

Have you considered doing the certificate of teacher of music? Although they recommend that you are 18 years old before entering. And that you have 6th grade. It looks like the syllabus is aimed at teaching beginners upto first grade.

[thorn]

Define "non-qualified". My flute teacher didn't have a formal teaching qualification to her name, but she did have a degree, a lot of students that got grade 8 distinction, a ridiculous amount of orchestral experience and she did peri teaching as well as private.

I would say that you don't need a teaching specific qualification, but you do need a strong musical background and teaching experience gained through being willing to take anything you can get.

[perfect_pitch]

And why would you do that?  All my teachers had the finest of education.

And yet you're still a condescending twat??? What happened?   

[pianowolfi]

And yet you're still a condescending twat??? What happened?   

Exactly my thoughts.

[keyboardclass]

Oh dear, I seem to have rattled some cages.

[pianowolfi]

Oh dear, I seem to have rattled some cages.

Keep on dreaming.

[perfect_pitch]

Oh dear, I seem to have rattled some cages.

PFFFFT...    Grin   Hardly...

Your comments seem to have given me a smile, maybe a laugh
Your comments seem to show how ignorant you are to the benefits of refining ones skills as a piano player and to respect the advice of others...

but more importantly your comments seem to re-affirm that the internet if full of morons.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And I do apologise to pianoplayji... I wouldn't take anything keyboardclass has to say, seriously.

[keypeg]

I originally thought that the question was a complaint, and heavy in irony.  I.e. that the OP was a student who had been lured by an incompetent teacher and was regretting it, or was a teacher whose students were being lured away by such teachers.  (For me, "qualified" has nothing to do with pieces of paper such as degrees, and everything to do with the ability to teach well.)

Ok, IF the question was more along the lines "I don't have pieces of paper such as degrees yet (I am "unqualified") but I want students come to me - how do I do it?"

If you know enough about piano and music to have something to teach, and you also have some workable idea on how to teach them, then you are not unqualified.  some people with degrees may in fact be unqualified if they don't know how to teach.  If you don't know enough about either of these things, or you don't know how to teach them, then you should get those things first before teaching anyone.

If you do have those abilities, then you want to attract students to your studio - you aren't luring them if you have something to offer.

[slane]

First of all, I thought jl, who I'm going to assume is a girl for this post, was being somewhat self deprecating in using the word "lure". I also know she's Australian where self deprecation is quite normal in conversation. She's also underestimating herself. She has 7th grade and is doing 8th grade but probably no pedagogical experience. I wouldn't call that "non qualified". Lacking experience perhaps.

keyboardclasses response had a bitter ring to it. However KBC may have missed the intent of the original post.

In the realm of emails and forum posts where there are no body language or facial queues as to the intent of the writer it is very easy to be offended by something that was not intended that way. Calling someone a moron however is unequivocally offensive.  

Therefore lets all remember that we are crossing cultural boundaries here. That this means of communication is strangely two dimensional and we must all give one another the benefit of the doubt. If a post has offended you, ignore it, or think before you react, or ask someone for a second opinion. I have found many times that an email that has offended me, when read by another, comes out to be quite civil.

[ajspiano]

keyboardclasses response had a bitter ring to it. However KBC may have missed the intent of the original post.

In the realm of emails and forum posts where there are no body language or facial queues as to the intent of the writer it is very easy to be offended by something that was not intended that way. Calling someone a moron however is unequivocally offensive. 

This would probably be fair if it were not for the fact that the majority or KBC's responses end up offending someone and are generally seen as condescending and rude.

But you know..  whatever..  you should come with a thick skin if you want to make the internet your playground.


_________________

in response to the question - the majority of music degrees are irrelevant to teaching, so unless I see Amus/Lmus AND (not or) Atmus/Ltmus at the end of the name I assume nothing about a persons capabilities. Even then, its possible to hold a teaching degree and still be a prick - allow me to introduce you to several of my highschool teachers, who continually gave me hell despite excellent marks and the fact that I never put a foot out of line - some people just shouldn't be teachers.

Really - to pass an Amus you have to play 4 pieces at that difficulty level, I know people who hold an Amus and are so far behind me performance wise (I don't hold one) that there's no comparision. I also know people who hold only an Amus and are far better performers, but worse  teachers. And ofcourse there are those who are better in both respects.

If you're looking to teach, just advertise yourself, and make sure you put the effort in to do a good job when you get a student(s). 1 is enough to start the word of mouth trend if you do a good job and have a fair price.

Also JL - gumtree has been my strongest advertising source (free and effective, yay!) since starting up in melbourne - I don't have a degree and my price is on the higher side, though not the highest in the area.

[keyboardclass]

This would probably be fair if it were not for the fact that the majority or KBC's responses end up offending someone and are generally seen as condescending and rude.

In the sense that the internet is huge and you're bound to offend someone.  Otherwise, bit of an exaggeration.

In response to my post in this thread - I was taught by one of the best to always seek out the best and I took his advice.

[keypeg]

In response to my post in this thread - I was taught by one of the best to always seek out the best and I took his advice.

Two things are hard to define.
- what "the best" (or even good) is
- what "qualified" may mean

[keyboardclass]

Two things are hard to define.
- what "the best" (or even good) is
- what "qualified" may mean

So go for the worldclass performer.  If they're a poor teacher make sure you're a good learner.

[keypeg]

So go for the worldclass performer.  If they're a poor teacher make sure you're a good learner.

I can see that at a later stage, but not for a beginner who has never had lessons and maybe never played an instrument.  A beginner needs to get foundations in everything: how to sit, how to move, how to practice, how to read, what reading means.  That needs a certain kind of teacher who is aware of these kinds of goals.  The beginner does not yet have the means to know how to practice, what type of thing to pay attention to, etc.  This "how" is what makes the student a good learner.

If you get a top performer who wants to develop musicianship - musical ideas, make pieces shine, tell a student how best to interpret Mozart or Chopin or whoever - that performer will be having the student use those tools.  The student has to be able to go home, organize himself.  He already knows how to sit, how to do staccato and legato or whatever.  He knows how to read music, how to approach a piece in sections etc.  If he DOESN'T have these yet, will our top performer musician be interested in developing what is in the first list?

[nyiregyhazi]

- create your own pseudo-science to support your erroneous notions

Personally, I took the time to study performance to advanced level at a music college. If you want to make insinuations about non qualified teachers, start with those who didn't even bother doing so.

Anyone with a background in the subject is warmly invited to actively look for any erroneous applications of science in my blog and to expose them, should any exist. I'm entirely open to dialogue with any informed parties who understand mechanics sufficiently to have an opinion. However, I have no interest in "discussion" with anyone whose best attempt at that it is to say "Nah, my teacher said to do something different, therefore you must be wrong". This kind of narrow dead-end thinking offers no scope for productive discussion and it is what keeps understanding in the dark ages. The only sure way to advance understanding is to get the heart of objective issues that lie beneath the surface of precisely what it is that makes an efficient technique efficient- not to preach a narrow and subjective stance as if it were gospel.

[ajspiano]

Personally, I took the time to study performance to advanced level at a music college. If you want to make insinuations about non qualified teachers, start with those who didn't even bother doing so.

Like me for example hahahha - you know how i'm always bringing down the quality here with my psuedoscience.. and only have students because I lie to them day in and day out based on assumptions that I make without thoroughly testing them and discussing them with other advanced pianists..

We must all remember that its simply not possible to find quality information outside an educational institution on account of the fact that books are all fictional, the scientific method is only licensed to those attending a university, and no private piano teachers exist on our planet.

[nyiregyhazi]

Like me for example hahahha - you know how i'm always bringing down the quality here with my psuedoscience.. and only have students because I lie to them day in and day out based on assumptions that I make without thoroughly testing them and discussing them with other advanced pianists..

Well, as long as you learned to play. It's those who neither took the trouble of going to music college nor learning to play to a remotely advanced level outside of that (yet who possess delusions of extreme expertise), who bother me.

[ajspiano]

What I find particularly disturbing is that I know of someone here in Australia who sucessfully completed a Bmus, with honours, despite having 0 technical understanding - having a severe piano related injury (prepared her pieces almost entirely through mental practice) - and despite that situation received no technical help from university professors.. or any of her teachers during her prior studies..

EDIT: I don't mean to devalue degrees - its just that its an fairly unregulated field. The quality and content may be very very different from place to place, even teacher to teacher within 1 institution..

[pianoplunker]

Candy ?

[pianoplunker]

Actually this question has so much subjectiveness to it in my opinion. But that is Ok.  It all depends by what "non-qualified" is.
I mean you can have a world  class concert pianist be your teacher, but then does the student need qualifications to gain any benefit from that fact ?  My very first piano teacher when I was 7 might not have had any quaiifications. I dont know.  But she taught me alot about music and she was able to because I have always loved music. I didnt even have to bother with those boring technique books since I loved music so much. She would make sure that I understood this piece was sad or that piece was happy. And tell my mother I needed to practice the technique books.
Later in life, I had a concert pianist for a teacher since I was so into the great works of Brahms, Chopin I needed a great pianist to teach me. He didnt teach me one note of anything and was always wondering why I was so lacking in technique if I was trying to play this kind of music.  Maybe I should have paid more attention to those boring technique books which my first teacher presented to me - my bad

[keyboardclass]

Personally, I took the time to study performance to advanced level at a music college.

Which in no way makes one a scientist.  To go spouting off about science with no qualifications in the subject is pretty poor pedagogy.  I wouldn't go to a doctor who only had a music degree - even if he was a postgrad!  And let's not forget here, we are dealing with peoples' health when handling piano technique.

Anyone with a background in the subject is warmly invited to actively look for any erroneous applications of science in my blog and to expose them, should any exist.

So we mere mortals with no science 'background' just have to accept your precepts?  Sounds like witchcraftery to me!

ajs, with a diploma on the wall you at least have proof that you can do an entire concert programme successfully.  And surely it shows some respect for your profession?

[keyboardclass]

I can see that at a later stage, but not for a beginner who has never had lessons and maybe never played an instrument.  A beginner needs to get foundations in everything: how to sit, how to move, how to practice, how to read, what reading means.  That needs a certain kind of teacher who is aware of these kinds of goals.  The beginner does not yet have the means to know how to practice, what type of thing to pay attention to, etc.  This "how" is what makes the student a good learner.

If you find a teacher like that it's purely by luck.  Qualifications just give you the edge.

[keypeg]

The teacher that I study with is the teacher that knows how to help me with what I want to learn to do.  In playing a musical instrument that means having an understanding of the instrument, of music, how the body is used in playing it, and also an ability to teach.  I don't care whether that knowledge is proven by a piece of paper called diploma, or whether it was acquired in some other manner.  If these abilities are there, then in my eyes that person is "qualified" to teach me.

Degrees can mean that their holder has a lot of knowledge and has been tested for the same, and so has something offer.  Titles can also create narrow-mindedness and inflexibility, because of what needs to be done in order to be granted these titles.  A person may ascribe to a system and reject everything that is outside that system merely because they are not part of that system.  That includes rejecting things that work.

Teaching has at the same time adherence to things that the teacher understands, and flexibility of "getting" the student and being able to work with that student as that student is.  Excellent teachers are a rare find, and maybe there is some serendipity to the finding.

[keypeg]

quoting:  A beginner needs to get foundations in everything: how to sit, how to move, how to practice, how to read, what reading means.  That needs a certain kind of teacher who is aware of these kinds of goals.  The beginner does not yet have the means to know how to practice, what type of thing to pay attention to, etc.  This "how" is what makes the student a good learner.
If you find a teacher like that it's purely by luck.  Qualifications just give you the edge.

This luck begins by knowing that these are the goals, so that the right thing is being looked for.  It begins with the interview, where the teacher says what his goals are for the student, and maybe observing what he does and how he does it.  If the teacher says his goal is to get you to play these fancy pieces in this wonderful way, and shows off how great his own playing is --- well, he isn't aiming for those important things.  If as student you interview teachers with the wrong goals, then you are less likely to find that teacher.  So luck is only part of it.  Knowing what it is that beginning lessons are about seems crucial from the student side.

[keyboardclass]

I disagree.  The beginner knows nothing.  The teacher can tick all the right boxes and still be inadequate.  It's all down to luck which is why I think a student should try as many teachers as possible.  A famous concert pianist I had the privilege of a lesson from said as a child his father dragged him round all the best teachers in Chicago till he found what he thought was the best.

[keypeg]

I disagree.  The beginner knows nothing.  The teacher can tick all the right boxes and still be inadequate.  It's all down to luck which is why I think a student should try as many teachers as possible.  A famous concert pianist I had the privilege of a lesson from said as a child his father dragged him round all the best teachers in Chicago till he found what he thought was the best.

Very possible - I've had ups and downs myself both as student and as parent.  But had we known a thing or two, it would have been easier.  If I start a new instrument now, at least I know what the priorities are.  The father of the famous concert pianist, maybe he had an idea of what to look for, and what the priorities were in general?  Yes, the beginner knows nothing.  But no, the beginner can at least know something.

[nyiregyhazi]

If the teacher says his goal is to get you to play these fancy pieces in this wonderful way, and shows off how great his own playing is --- well, he isn't aiming for those important things.

You tend to talk a lot about the problems with generalisations and assumptions and I tend to agree. However, you have made a HUGE one here, yourself. The above does not follow at all. All good teachers are aiming to teach students to play pieces well. A teacher demonstrating ability to play the instrument is in no way a warning signal and neither does it display misplaced priorities. If anything, I'd be more wary of teachers who are so lost in physical issues, that they have lost sight of the fact that the reason for everything is supposed to be that it contributes to playing music well.

The best teachers do not lose sight of that and may not feel the need to burden a student with anything other than the long-term goal, when giving an introduction. That does not mean they do not teach well. A teacher who realises that good technique is a means to an end just sets about teaching that means at a matter of course- without making any big deal of the fact that they will do so. After all-why would they not teach technique? Unless we assume that a pianist who is interested in musical results CANNOT be up to teaching technique, illustrating awareness of the goal is not evidence of a teacher who does not teach means. That they have not lost sight of the final goal does not mean they have a poor grasp of the procedures that contribute to it. Perhaps you were just a little careless about how you phrased what you meant, but to assume that of any teacher who plays well and has not forgotten what technique is FOR would be a grave error. Your criterion in no way distinguishes between the good and bad. It could be expected equally from either.

[nyiregyhazi]

Which in no way makes one a scientist.  To go spouting off about science with no qualifications in the subject is pretty poor pedagogy.  I wouldn't go to a doctor who only had a music degree - even if he was a postgrad!  And let's not forget here, we are dealing with peoples' health when handling piano technique.So we mere mortals with no science 'background' just have to accept your precepts?  Sounds like witchcraftery to me!

ajs, with a diploma on the wall you at least have proof that you can do an entire concert programme successfully.  And surely it shows some respect for your profession?

I studied mechanics. If you feel the basic applications I have made of it are in error please have the courtesy to debunk me. Words are very cheap- especially libellous ones made without substantiation. If you know nothing about the subject then be a skeptic and say you are skeptical. To accuse a person of pseudoscience (without having any knowledge as a basis for this libellous claim) is to be a closed-minded cynic. If you want to hold grindea's words as gospel fine. Just don't think that everything else is automatically bullshit or that you have a right to make defamatory accusations that you cannot directly substantiate.

That health is a big issue is precisely why I am filling the gaping holes in traditional technical analysis. Whether a person knows it or not, mechanical efficiency is what defines probability of impact and excess effort. I think it's a shame that such defining issues are not typically explored. If you understand what reduces impact, you can start to understand what it is about certain approaches that makes them effective and improve the likelihood of progress. Above all, the most basic understanding of mechanics reveals that the tension-release idea is snake-oil. Relaxing after impact occurs (or even before) does not magically kill travelling momentum or prevent it impacting on joints and nerves. Only actively changing the direction in which momentum continues to travel can prevent a high impact landing. If you could find a scientist in the world who feels otherwise, we really would be looking at pseudoscience. Tension-release is simply a unsophisticated and totally subjective way to explain a totally different reality. It's an archaic pseudoscience that needs to be debunked, with a more accurate analysis of what really takes out impact in an evolved technique. Anyone who does it literally is doomed to fail.

[keyboardclass]

I studied mechanics.

Yeh, to 'A' level.

Words are very cheap- especially libellous ones made without substantiation.

So stop threatening and sue! 

[nyiregyhazi]

Yeh, to 'A' level.

And? You think they teach lies about classical mechanics at A level? Newton's laws about conservation of momentum are no different at university level. If you relax when jumping from a chair onto the ground, your whole body will collapse and impact into the floor- due to the momentum travelling. If you clench your legs to land, you will impact heavily on the muscles (and particularly on the knees) and relaxing afterwards will not help one bit. Suddenly stopping momentum with tension makes for injury. However, if you push off from the floor, you can REDIRECT momentum into ongoing movement- rather than into impact. A tension and release atttitude is simply useless for healthy landings- unless something else altogether should ensue by accident. Aside from not generally being claimed as scientific, there could not be any greater example of pseudoscience being portrayed as if it were fact. The whole premise hinges on contravening one of the most basic levels of mechanics (that which says momentum doesn't just vanish). You don't even need an A-level for this piece of rock-solid scientific fact. They taught it to my class when I was 13.

Regardless of what attitude a person takes to piano playing, all healthy technique is based upon finding a way to avoid expending unnecessary energy through inefficient movement (hence reducing the momentum that travels into the keybeds at a given dynamic level) and knowing how to prevent momentum from hitting a dead stop. All techniques depend on these same basic issues. It's just that traditional explanations have been woefully inadequate about actually exploring the foundation issues that specifically define how it is possible to contact the piano comfortably and without strain. Due to a failure to get to grips with objective issues that are actually rather simple, we've ended up with the nonsensical and scientifically implausible idea that tensing and then relaxing absorbs impact. Frankly, it's on a par with a flat earth.

[keyboardclass]

Jeez, any one who reads all that certainly does need to get out more!

[nyiregyhazi]

Jeez, any one who reads all that certainly does need to get out more!

What a hilariously incisive retort. Far better to come up with such a profound witticism, than to stop and think about how these issues relate to the nature of physical possibility, huh? What makes you think that burying your head in the sand will magically make it possible for tension-release to absorb impact effectively? The scientific plausibility of a literal interpretation providing a healthy technique is literally zero. What you don't realise that those who whom the explanation worked, ended up doing something totally different to your literal interpretation. Your failure lies in your success in managing to abide by how the reality was been improperly described by Grindea's coarsely approximate explanation.

[keyboardclass]

the nature of physical possibility

!??  pull the other one!

[nyiregyhazi]

!??  pull the other one!

If you have nothing to say for yourself, is there any particular need to hit the reply button and start typing? This is a forum for discussion. Not a playground for such witlessly inane retorts.

[keyboardclass]

Anyone can type your kind of tripe!  Maybe I need a pseudo-science of my own?

[nyiregyhazi]

Anyone can type your kind of tripe!  Maybe I need a pseudo-science of my own?

Sorry, I don't do off-topic slanging matches. If you'd like to set about debunking some "pseudo-science", l leave you with an open-invitation to do so (just as I took the time to provide an accountable illustration of why it is totally implausible for tension/relaxation actions to have any significant value with regard to achieving so much as a jot of shock-absorption).

Otherwise, I'll leave you to entertain yourself by shouting heckles that you cannot substantiate into the ether.

[keypeg]

You tend to talk a lot about the problems with generalisations and assumptions and I tend to agree. However, you have made a HUGE one here, yourself. The above does not follow at all. All good teachers are aiming to teach students to play pieces well. A teacher demonstrating ability to play the instrument is in no way a warning signal and neither does it display misplaced priorities. If anything, I'd be more wary of teachers who are so lost in physical issues, that they have lost sight of the fact that the reason for everything is supposed to be that it contributes to playing music well.

I was referring to a particular attitude which apparently didn't come across.

[nyiregyhazi]

I was referring to a particular attitude which apparently didn't come across.

Okay, I'd be careful how you phrase things though, if you don't want to fall into the trap of the generalisations that you so frequently complain about. Read at face value, what you wrote made the unequivocal statement that a teacher who shows that he plays very well and speaks of what pieces you should end up able to play can be assumed to be someone whose priorities are in the wrong places. There was nothing about the subtext of what you wrote that suggested that this massively unwarranted assumption ought to be taken at anything other than face value.

[keypeg]

I was thinking of a scenario that happens all too often and those who have encountered it would recognize it. When we begin on an instrument, a large part of the effort has to be on things like how to sit, move, how to learn how to read music, how to approach pieces.  Although it happens within the context of pieces, almost with the pieces being the vehicle for those skills, the larger focus is on those skills.  The teacher should have some kind of underlying map of the skills that he is building.  If the idea is mostly about pieces, without this underlying idea, that is something I would not have as a student.  At the extreme you get the attitude that says "You can play any piece that you want and I'll tell you the right and wrong notes." with nothing getting developed in any kind of systematic way whatsoever.  Adult students beginning for the first time as adults are especially likely to encounter this.

[nyiregyhazi]

I was thinking of a scenario that happens all too often and those who have encountered it would recognize it. When we begin on an instrument, a large part of the effort has to be on things like how to sit, move, how to learn how to read music, how to approach pieces.  Although it happens within the context of pieces, almost with the pieces being the vehicle for those skills, the larger focus is on those skills.  The teacher should have some kind of underlying map of the skills that he is building.  If the idea is mostly about pieces, without this underlying idea, that is something I would not have as a student.  At the extreme you get the attitude that says "You can play any piece that you want and I'll tell you the right and wrong notes." with nothing getting developed in any kind of systematic way whatsoever.  Adult students beginning for the first time as adults are especially likely to encounter this.

To be honest, this does not read greatly differently to the previous generalisation that a teacher who speaks about which pieces will be learned might necessarily have the wrong priorities.

ALL good teachers are focused on teaching students to play pieces well. The only difference is that good teachers convey the means to do so. While you are right to identify that certain teachers fail to pass on necessary skills sets, I have to say that your basis for supposedly identifying such teachers is badly missing the point and falls foul of some pretty outrageous generalisation. You cannot teach a student to play a piece well without providing the skill set. A teacher who cannot do so is just a poor teacher. It simply has nothing at all to do with whether a teacher is focused on pieces or not. The real issue (whether they get genuine results in those pieces) is totally different issue and focus on pieces is in no way evidence of whether they do so. Also, if pieces are not being mastered while learning the skills you have to questions whether any skills are truly being learned at all. The idea of a teacher who trains students in skills that they cannot apply to playing any real music is simply self-contradictory. A skill that cannot be applied is not a real skill. A teacher who claims to provide skills without getting students to master repertoire is selling snake-oil.

 All good teachers produce students who both have skills and use them to play pieces well. A teacher who misses on either just isn't a good teacher. All it comes down is that they're either a good teacher or a bad one. Focus on repertoire does not point towards either.

[love_that_tune]

Haha genius! 

Pianoplayjl: you are very young. Just study music seriously. If you are seriously studying music there will inevitably appear one or two students, maybe friends, friends of friends, or children of friends. You'll probably teach those one or two students for a few months/years. You'll make your experiences, and they as well. You will slowly grow into the business from there.

Isn't this how most of us started teaching?  I actually taught in the studio of my teacher.  And I'd like to add that the best teacher is the one who keeps learning and stretching themselves.