Continue with teacher or change?

[bernadette60614]

I am adult beginner taking lessons at the community music section of a local university. My teacher is a second generation piano teacher and a graduate of the Moscow Conservatory.

In 4 lessons, I've learned a great deal from her:  hand position, the value of exact fingering, how to play a grace note so that it is truly graceful.

However, in 4 weeks I've worked on only one piece which is page pages long.  I feel that I am improving in every way, but I feel that I will never earn her complete approval (thus far, the most positive remarks she has made are:  There is nothing wrong with you.  That wasn't terrible.  However, she has told me that I'll never be really good because I did not learn good finger positioning as a child and that I don't have a "good" piano (I have a Roland upright..but since we live in a townhouse that's the best I can do.)

I don't expect warm and fuzzy, but I'm wondering if 1) having a student work on only one piece is typical 2) if I should be asking to work on additional pieces 3) if I should investigate other teachers who might be more positive.

[j_menz]

This is the second time you have asked basically the same question. The first time, I advised you to have a discussion with your teacher about these things. Did you? If so, how did that go? If not, why not?

Ultimately, you have to be happy that your teacher is right for you, but as an adult student you have a great deal more to do with that than would a child.  Don't be afraid to ask questions; about teaching philosophy, about what you can expect to do over a certain period, about what is expected of you and about what you expect. You are, after all, paying.

As I said, it's important to be comfortable with who is teaching you and that they can provide you with the support you need. You need to make sure you pull your weight in that regard. If having done that you are still not happy, a change of teacher is probably to be recommended, but only after you have pulled your weight in the relationship stakes.

[chopin2015]

Work on this one piece with her. If there are other pieces you can tackle on your own time, do it! Try to finish on your own, then when you have worked on your entire piece with the teacher, you will be ready to perform something else for her. And she will point out rediculous, painfully important things you clearly missed. Haha
Eventually you will get better at being prepared though. Not right now though. Take initiative on your own. Later you can work on more with the teacher, but trust she can still tell you a lot about the only piece you are working on together.

[outin]

I would say 4 weeks is too short a time to really know how much you can benefit from this teacher. I had doubts for a long time with mine because she is so demanding and I didn't seem to progress as easily and fast as I would have wanted. Yours sound critical and almost brutally honest also. That can be a bit hard. So if you just want to play for fun, maybe a different kind of teacher would be better. But if you really want to be as good as you possibly can, then I would stick with this one longer.

[keypeg]

I'm not following the concern about a single piece.  What is your goal for lessons?  Is it to learn as many pieces as possible, or to learn how to play the piano?  If it is to play the piano, do you believe that this must be accomplished with more pieces?  Actually, what is your goal, and what is your teacher's goal for you?

[soitainly]

 I agree with the thought that 4 weeks isn't really a lot of time to evaluate a teacher. I understand your feelings about the negative comments, but do you really want to pay a someone to just be nice and make you feel good, or to teach you piano. If she is a really good teacher then as long as she isn't rude or just plain mean, I would think about continuing for a bit at least.

 That being said, I would be put off by such a negative attitude saying you will never be good but some people are just brought up to think that way. If it negatively affects your will to play piano and it isn't enjoyable then yes, change teachers. But there are no perfect teachers out there, they are human beings just like the rest of us with character flaws. I am sure lots of teachers make a living off of just telling people that they are good, when in reality they aren't teaching much. I guess i would rather be challenged than patronized.

 Really it comes down to just how you live your life. Of course we all want praise from others, but you have to at some point try to measure your self by your own standards.

[chopin2015]

However, I can see your concern. Someone who has the attitude of "you will never be good enough" towards you can be a real pain to deal with. Also, it could affect your progress. They could be close-minded and treat you poorly because you are "just another light pianist".

Ive had a professor who told me i dont belong at the school i really wanted to go to, he avoided communication with me and denied me access to piano education at the college. Mother ***er! i dont care what he can and cant play(and that is after I listened to his recordings). First off, my hands are bigger. Second, I hate people who do not care.

Anyways, it seems you are learning stuff. So that is the opposite of an ego block situation. I say just stick with it. Besides. There is some truth in all feedback. Sorry.

[ppianista]

The answer is simple: Look for another teacher. This woman seems to have professional standards which make her a bad match. You're an adult beginner, so it's obvious that you don't want to be a professional pianist; you're learning just for the fun of it. Your present teacher doesn't seem to be flexible enough to adjust her teaching to your goals and needs. But you are the boss. If she can't deliver what you're asking for, just fire her. 

[outin]

The answer is simple: Look for another teacher. This woman seems to have professional standards which make her a bad match. You're an adult beginner, so it's obvious that you don't want to be a professional pianist; you're learning just for the fun of it.

I wouldn't assume something like that... Not wanting to be a professional doesn't necessarily mean that one is not interested in learning in the same standard than those who start early and may become professional one day. The word fun doesn't quite describe my attitude towards piano playing or any other serious activity I have undertaken on my freetime. Things tend to become more serious whether I want it or not. Fun to me means not doing much with my brain and that does not apply to playing the piano. The enjoyment comes from achieving something through sometimes hard work.

I tried a teacher with a different attitude (low standards) and became totally frustrated in just a few lessons...I still get frustrated, but mainly because of my incompetence and lack of quality time to concentrate on practicing, not the high standards of my teacher. I am 46 and if I can get through the initial pains of getting my mind and body to adjust I might have even 30 years left to get better, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some standard in my playing, only limited by my natural (dis)abilities.

I don't think we know enough of OP as a person to know what's best for her, we can only offer her different viewpoints and our experience to help her make up her mind.

[keypeg]

This woman seems to have professional standards which make her a bad match. You're an adult beginner, so it's obvious that you don't want to be a professional pianist; you're learning just for the fun of it.

Is that what adult beginners want?  They/we want to learn "just for the fun of it"?  It's something that happens as one reaches a certain age, or how does that work?

[j_menz]

You're an adult beginner, so it's obvious that you don't want to be a professional pianist; you're learning just for the fun of it.

I fail to see how this would make one iota of difference to how one should be taught.

Certainly adults are different from children (generally speaking) and require a different approach, but it has to do with the maturity of the pupil, not the goal.

[lina22]

You had better change your teacher. You won't make a big progress playing just one piece. Believe me. I have a lot of experience in piano teaching. She should have given you at least four different pieces. Has your teacher graduated form Moscow conservatory? She might play very well, but she might not be a good teacher at all. It seems she does not think much of you if she can't find more pieces of music just for you.

[ppianista]

I wouldn't assume something like that... Not wanting to be a professional doesn't necessarily mean that one is not interested in learning in the same standard than those who start early and may become professional one day. The word fun doesn't quite describe my attitude towards piano playing or any other serious activity I have undertaken on my freetime. Things tend to become more serious whether I want it or not. Fun to me means not doing much with my brain and that does not apply to playing the piano. The enjoyment comes from achieving something through sometimes hard work.

By "fun" I certainly didn't mean something "low", inferior or superficial. I should have said "just for the love of music and the instrument". What I want to express by that: This is something that comes from you - the learner - only.
But if you are (or want to be) a professional musician then it must be your goal to meet the professional standards; and these standards are something "external". You should MAKE them your own but they are there independently from you.
That's a big difference.

I might have even 30 years left to get better, so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some standard in my playing, only limited by my natural (dis)abilities.

If you wanted to be a pro but fell short of the standards asked in the business then this would be the end of the story. But your story won't end (unless your love of the piano runs dry).

I don't think we know enough of OP as a person to know what's best for her, we can only offer her different viewpoints and our experience to help her make up her mind.

What I said was my viewpoint.
 

[ppianista]

Is that what adult beginners want?  They/we want to learn "just for the fun of it"?  It's something that happens as one reaches a certain age, or how does that work?

When you reach a certain age it is most probably (to 99%) impossible that you will ever be a concert pianist or a professional musician. So it wouldn't be wise if anybody (including yourself) expected that from you. 
Which kinds of possible motivations to take piano lessons do remain? What do YOU think?

[ppianista]

I fail to see how this would make one iota of difference to how one should be taught.

You're right. Learning to play the piano should be fun for beginners at any age. And if it isn't then there's something wrong with the teacher or with the teacher-pupil-relationship.

Certainly adults are different from children (generally speaking) and require a different approach, but it has to do with the maturity of the pupil, not the goal.

As I said before (to outin and keypeg), nobody should expect from an adult beginner ever to become a professional musician. (If an adult beginner had this goal she/he would lack maturity   ). So the expectations of a teacher can - and should - adjust TOTALLY to the individual intentions (wishes, needs...) of the learner.

But, of course, a teacher should never teach POOR piano playing.
 

[keypeg]

When you reach a certain age it is most probably (to 99%) impossible that you will ever be a concert pianist or a professional musician. So it wouldn't be wise if anybody (including yourself) expected that from you. 
Which kinds of possible motivations to take piano lessons do remain? What do YOU think?

We should start here:

How many children taking lessons expect to be a CONCERT pianist, or professional musician?

If you are stating things according to age, then you are stating that children take lessons because they and their parents want them to be concert pianists or professional musicians.  Would you agree that this is not so for all children - in fact for the majority of children?  I would bet that you do.

Then, if you are saying that piano should only be studied seriously by someone who will become a professional musician, it means that MOST students of all ages should not study piano seriously, and the 6 year old, 11 year old, 26 year old and 40 year old should all be doing things "just for the fun of it".  Would you recommend that for younger students?  I bet you won't.

So what is left?  Probably that young students be given a solid grounding in piano and music if they take lessons, and then you see what unfolds.  If that is so, why should that stop at any particular age?  "Oops, sorry, you're 25 / 45.  It's "just for the fun of it for you."  Why?  Why should an older student not work as seriously as any other student, and also find a teacher willing to do so?  Why not?

Which kinds of possible motivations to take piano lessons do remain? What do YOU think?

I can only speak for myself.  And it is not "just for the fun of it" - not frivolous.  The point is that we are individuals.

[keypeg]

nm

[keypeg]

By "fun" I certainly didn't mean something "low", inferior or superficial. I should have said "just for the love of music and the instrument". What I want to express by that: This is something that comes from you - the learner - only.
But if you are (or want to be) a professional musician then it must be your goal to meet the professional standards; and these standards are something "external". You should MAKE them your own but they are there independently from you. 

I am not sure what that means, practically speaking.  Our practicing comes from us whether we are working toward some kind of standard, or playing a piece for enjoyment.  What we achieve on piano cannot come from a teacher like an empty thing being filled, or by osmosis.  Most of what gets reached is done by the actions of the student, and it comes as much from acting out an instruction as it does from reaching inside to make it happen.  So the "external" is still found from within the student.

So what is this other part?  The "fun" that comes "from you"?  Do you mean NOT to reach for things?  What are you actually picturing?  I think I know the answer, but I'd like to be sure.
[/quote]

[ppianista]

If you are stating things according to age, then you are stating that children take lessons because they and their parents want them to be concert pianists or professional musicians.  Would you agree that this is not so for all children - in fact for the majority of children?  I would bet that you do.

Sure.

Then, if you are saying that piano should only be studied seriously by someone who will become a professional musician, it means that MOST students of all ages should not study piano seriously, and the 6 year old, 11 year old, 26 year old and 40 year old should all be doing things "just for the fun of it".  Would you recommend that for younger students?  I bet you won't.

Sure.

(You're advancing very didactically. I like that. )

So what is left?  Probably that young students be given a solid grounding in piano and music if they take lessons, and then you see what unfolds.  If that is so, why should that stop at any particular age?  "Oops, sorry, you're 25 / 45.  It's "just for the fun of it for you."  Why?  Why should an older student not work as seriously as any other student, and also find a teacher willing to do so?  Why not?

There's no reason, of course.

I think, you're reacting a little too edgy to my words "just for the fun of it". ("Aye, there's the rub.") Being a non-native speaker, I may have used these words a little too careless. Perhaps I should have chosen something like "pleasure", "delight", "bliss", "mirth", "zest"...? (I had to look the last three up.)

Can we agree on this:  
There are things we live on - like money, food etc. And there are things we live for. The latter may not be necessary for our self-preservation. We could perhaps do without them if the going gets rough. But not for too long. Because all our efforts of self-preservation would be meaningless without something to live for.

As for me, playing the piano and (most of the time...) teaching are things I definitely live FOR. I would go on with them without payment. But the payment is, of course, very welcome. I can't afford to forego it. But the reason why I actually play the piano and teach is: it's simply fun. "Fun", however, in a vital sense...

And here's my point: I definitely think that there are many non-pro adult pianists or piano students, for whom their playing is as vital as it is for me.


(I have to stop here; it's 1 a.m. in my corner of the world... Good night!)

[keypeg]

As for me, playing the piano and (most of the time...) teaching are things I definitely live FOR. I would go on with them without payment. But the payment is, of course, very welcome. I can't afford to forego it. But the reason why I actually play the piano and teach is: it's simply fun. "Fun", however, in a vital sense...

And here's my point: I definitely think that there are many non-pro adult pianists or piano students, for whom their playing is as vital as it is for me.

I understand what you are saying about joy, fun, passion etc. which you also have as a professional, and it is good when you say that this also exists for those who don't make a living out of music.

However, your original statement was about the level of study and older student might engage in, or be taught at.  The idea was that there would be lower standards, or something along that line.   What we were actually discussing is not whether older students and professional musicians might both have "fun" or "joy" in playing, but what kind of instruction the older student might have.

You are right that I am gun-shy about "just for fun", esp. in the context of instruction.  It's because of what some of us encountered.  If you are an older student you have to actually state that you want to learn seriously and will put in the work, or you may get a different type of instruction.  It is something that we have to contend with.

The very first thing that I try to tell fellow students is to understand what learning an instrument means to them.  If so, you may discover that getting skills and knowledge is the important thing, rather than getting at a collection of pieces that you can play in some manner.  Because here people are also falling from the frying pan into the fire.  They don't want the "have fun - chord + melody" kind of instruction, so they go for "serious".  They end up in a place called a conservatory as beginners, with a professor who is a performer with tons of credentials, and that professor proceeds to teach advanced interpretation.  Obviously the beginner needs to get basic skills before doing anything like interpretation and perfecting a piece.  For example, if you can't play evenly yet, and you can't make the LH distinct from the RH, how do you go about refining music?   There is massive confusion out there in the world of older students.

Does this make more sense?

[ppianista]

However, your original statement was about the level of study an older student might engage in, or be taught at.  The idea was that there would be lower standards, or something along that line.   What we were actually discussing is not whether older students and professional musicians might both have "fun" or "joy" in playing, but what kind of instruction the older student might have.

Well, I certainly didn't want to suggest that older students should be taught poor piano playing or that a teacher shouldn't require serious training from them in general. But the teacher shouldn't judge their present and future achievements by the standards that count for professional performers. One simply can't expect that level of perfection from them. It would be totally wrong. On the one hand it would mean to frustrate the students, and on the other hand there are many levels at which one can be a really good pianist. The pianistic perfection that we are used to (by listening to CDs, watching Claudio Arrau and Horowitz on Youtube etc.) should be regarded as the exception that it actually is.

They don't want the "have fun - chord + melody" kind of instruction...

That's what I mean by "teaching poor piano playing".

They end up in a place called a conservatory as beginners, with a professor who is a performer with tons of credentials, and that professor proceeds to teach advanced interpretation.  Obviously the beginner needs to get basic skills before doing anything like interpretation and perfecting a piece.  For example, if you can't play evenly yet, and you can't make the LH distinct from the RH, how do you go about refining music?   There is massive confusion out there in the world of older students.

And that's so because many teachers seem to be too inflexible. They can't (or don't want to) adjust their teaching to the individual student and HER/HIS individual needs. Which they in fact SHOULD do. It's their responsibility. It's what they're paid for.

So - the answer to bernadette's question still remains simple: If that woman isn't able (or willing) to deliver what she actually is paid for - fire her!
 

[keypeg]

But the teacher shouldn't judge their present and future achievements by the standards that count for professional performers. One simply can't expect that level of perfection from them.

I see now that we are looking at different angles to the question.

When you talk about levels of perfection and standards, then I am seeing results in a piece - how that piece will sound as a performance.  I'm looking at something much different.  There are stages to learning.  The first stage is in developing skills.  You learn to read music effectively.  You learn to play one hand quiet and one hand loud with control.  You learn how to make your movements effective (technique).  The student gets developed in skill and knowledge.  And then with those skills in place, interpretation can happen seriously, using these skills.

What I have outlined is separate from age.  You yourself, in another thread, wrote a very insightful post about developing technique (in young children especially, I would assume).  You described how a new student will have a lot of unnecessary motions and imperfections, and that you gradually mould this.  I would say that an older student needs exactly the same thing.  If so, then the line between young students and older students disappears.  It is no longer whether an older student can have a professional career, while a younger student might.  It is the level and the learning needs at that level.

I've been heavily involved in what happens with older student, because of my own experience.  So I can outline a few things that happen.

- You can get a course of study which does not aim to develop the student, or not as deeply as a child student would be developed.  The assumption is that adults do not think they have the time to work properly, and that they want to get at playing beloved pieces relatively instantly.  It is "product oriented" rather than "process oriented".  If you compare adult methods to child method books you will see this.  That is also why some teachers now recommend that if method books are to be used, take the child method if you're serious.

- You get a beginner trying to get quality, serious instruction, getting a teacher with a reputation as a performer and maybe at a "conservatory" having something for that kind of clientele.  The teacher launches straight into interpretation, honing pieces etc., instead of doing the first step of developing the student as per the above. This seems to be a relatively new phenomenon.

My interest in Bernadette's story is whether it's process or product.  I read that her technique is improving, and everything she is doing is getting better and better.  That is what I would want to have happen.  It suggests that the teacher is focusing on developing ability, and is using the piece as a vehicle, rather than focusing on the piece.  Meanwhile Bernadette is disturbed only by the fact that they are staying on one piece.  Therefore on the student-side there may be misunderstanding of what the goals are.  I.e. one gets used to the idea that studying music involves doing pieces, and large numbers of pieces means more is being accomplished.  Now, large number can be a goal for other reasons --- exposure to variety of music and variety of challenges.  The bottom line is what the teacher's goals are for the student.

[bernadette60614]

Yes, I think the issue may be somewhat cultural. My teacher tends to be more of a command/control without explanation approach.  I have learned far more about achieving technique, practicing strategies et al here than I have from her...even though I've asked the same questions.

[chopin2015]

You need to trust her if you are not going to switch teachers. You will find answers to your questions soon. Possibly too soon.

[keypeg]

Yes, I think the issue may be somewhat cultural. My teacher tends to be more of a command/control without explanation approach.  I have learned far more about achieving technique, practicing strategies et al here than I have from her...even though I've asked the same questions.

The part that I find important personally --- technique, practicing strategies ---- are in what you write.  What matters ofc is what you find important.

There is a thing about learning and explanations.  Often in music, if you have a good teacher (a rarity), the learning comes through the things you are asked to do, and how you are told to do them, and it really cannot come through words.  There are things that I have learned this way.  When I read people explain them, I understand what they mean because of the experience.  But without the experience the words would be relatively meaningless, or I would merely be interpreting them.

[ppianista]

When you talk about levels of perfection and standards, then I am seeing results in a piece - how that piece will sound as a performance.  I'm looking at something much different.  There are stages to learning.  The first stage is in developing skills.  You learn to read music effectively.  You learn to play one hand quiet and one hand loud with control.  You learn how to make your movements effective (technique).  The student gets developed in skill and knowledge.  And then with those skills in place, interpretation can happen seriously, using these skills.

I disagree. Developing "technical" skills apart from interpretational or performing abilities won't do any good.

As I already said, you will find good pianists on any level of "technical" education (and at any age, too). I experience this regularly at student's concerts. There you can recognise the good performers at once. And how do you recognise them? You will see the beauty of the music they're playing - no matter if they play with or without hesitations, interruptions, wrong notes and all kinds of possible imperfections that may occur on stage. And you will know the difference by the way people suddenly pay attention, too.  

That's my criterion for a good pianist. A good pianist is a good musician in the first place. And a good musician is able to make beauty happen here and now. This is the main skill to which all "technical" skills are just secondary contributions or extensions.

You can get a course of study which does not aim to develop the student, or not as deeply as a child student would be developed.  The assumption is that adults do not think they have the time to work properly, and that they want to get at playing beloved pieces relatively instantly.  It is "product oriented" rather than "process oriented".

Well, I think that it's crucial for a good musical education that both items are closely connected. Right from the beginning. - So most of my pupils will experience some real "music-making" already in their first lesson - together with the fun and satisfaction of it. And this experience should remain the center and the "motor" of their whole learning process. With talented pupils this is easy to achieve, with less talented pupils it's work to get them near it (there I really deserve my payment... ).

If you compare adult methods to child method books you will see this.  That is also why some teachers now recommend that if method books are to be used, take the child method if you're serious.

I agree. But some adult learners may have a hard time studying stuff like

"Hänschen klein"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd27wg3BCW0  

or "Alle meine Entchen"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1fnhjP-Cz0.

 

[keypeg]

ppianista, please do check your pm's.

[keypeg]

I disagree. Developing "technical" skills apart from interpretational or performing abilities won't do any good.

I was not talking about "apart" or "together".  I was talking about the goals that you have for a beginner, which DOES involve developing skills.  When we have those skills, then we also have the tools.  In other words, if an absolute beginner goes with a conservatory teacher who wants that student to bring out subtleties in the music, that will be impossible.  Take for example highlighting a voices in polyphony, if you do not yet have the ability to control louds and softs at any level.  Whether you do this WITHIN music or outside of it, the teacher of a beginner should be developing skills in the student.

In Bernadette's case, if her teacher is aiming to develop her skills, then she is perfect for this student.  Because that is what we need.  And indeed, that seems to be so.

There you can recognise the good performers at once. And how do you recognise them? You will see the beauty of the music they're playing - no matter if they play with or without hesitations, interruptions, wrong notes and all kinds of possible imperfections that may occur on stage. And you will know the difference by the way people suddenly pay attention, too.  

It depends on what the needs of each student is, where the strengths and weaknesses are.  You can have a strong sense of music, but have poor coordination.  In that case, the student with the musical impulse needs to be guided technically to have that come together.  That was me, the student who had a certain something.  But I needed the technical part.  Fortunately now on piano I have a teacher who understands that.

That's my criterion for a good pianist. A good pianist is a good musician in the first place. And a good musician is able to make beauty happen here and now.

It is very possible to feel all kinds of things in the music, hear it in your head, but because you do not have technical training, you can't get it out.  For example, hearing a fast passage going crescendo, but your fingers lock up because you don't know how to do "loud" and you don't know how to do "fast" either.  Yes, an experienced teacher will hear the potential of "what might be" - but you are locked up and trapped in this lack of technique all the same, until someone gives you the basics that you need to unlock it all.

I agree. But some adult learners may have a hard time studying stuff like

"Hänschen klein"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wd27wg3BCW0  

or "Alle meine Entchen"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L1fnhjP-Cz0.

This does not address what I was writing about.  It is not about children's songs vs. grown-up sounding songs (btw Haenschen klein" has been recycled in Suzuki as "lightly row").  It is about skills that are developed in the children's method books that are skipped in the adult books.

Btw, it was fun listening to those songs.  I see that the words to "Hoppe, Hoppe, Reiter" did not get sanitized like so many English nursery rhymes.  The crows still get their feast. 

[ppianista]

Hello keypeg,

I think we don't disagree so much in the matter as it may seem. To me, you seem to overstate the differences a little bit for the sake of argument.

I was talking about the goals that you have for a beginner, which DOES involve developing skills.

Did I deny that? Certainly not.
But the goal will always be: music-making. And it's not necessary to become a pro or even a virtuoso to accomplish this goal. To the contrary: The ambition to become a virtuoso and the competitive strain that goes along with it can be fatally misleading. 

In Bernadette's case, if her teacher is aiming to develop her skills, then she is perfect for this student.  Because that is what we need.  And indeed, that seems to be so.

I disagree. Because she seems not to be very sensible to Bernadette's feelings and needs. It's simply idotic for a teacher to begin lessons with the remark: "You will never be good." It's not only wrong in a psychological sense, it also reveals a strange understanding of what "being good" means.
If that woman had said something like that to ME in my first lesson it would have been the last...

 

It is very possible to feel all kinds of things in the music, hear it in your head, but because you do not have technical training, you can't get it out.

Sure. But is this something I denied in my postings? I don't think so.

[ppianista]

I see that the words to "Hoppe, Hoppe, Reiter" did not get sanitized like so many English nursery rhymes.  The crows still get their feast.  

Yeah, they're lucky. But that may change. Because in Germany, there's a strong tendency of "sanatizing" chilrden's songs, stories and fairy tales, too. Bollocks!
 

[keypeg]

ppianista, the differences are actually coming about because each time I write something in this thread, you have argued against what you thought I was saying.  Your views are probably the same as mine, but when you read what I say, you have argued against it... hence, what you *thought* I was saying.  I have a pretty good idea of where this misunderstanding is coming from so please read on.

I have in mind your post in the thread that I started.  In it we're all discussing the teaching of technique, which is a component of music.  There you talk about the beginner who has all kinds of "wrong" things in his mechanism, but you allow them, and gradually shape what the beginner can do.  Reading this, I see a teacher who watches his students and tries to shape their abilities over time.  Therefore you are already there.  Inherent in this is the fact of skills plus knowledge about music, combined with playing music - because how other than playing music do you get a context for those abilities? And without abilities, how do you start playing more refined as you progress?  They are two co-dependent things.  So you're there, where my thinking is.

There is something missing when you read my writing and disagree with it, and I think I know what it is.  You would be familiar with how you teach, and often good teachers will think that how they teach and maybe how they were taught is how everyone teaches.  I've encountered this before.  When I write, I am mindful of what adult students frequently encounter over here.  I'm writing "over here" because with the Haenschen Klein reference, I suspect you're "over there" on the other side of the ocean.    Actually what happens "over here" is not only reserved for older students, but maybe more frequently for older students.

So about the "over here":

I emphasize skills and knowledge because often they are almost totally absent in the equation.  The common idea is that adults do not really want to learn to play the piano.  Rather, they want to manage to produce their favourite music without spending much time practice, or taking lessons for very long.  While you might give music, and through the music try to gradually shape technique so that the music can be honed ---- and while you might give "theoretical" knowledge like learning to read and interpret music through more understanding --- and this happens hand in hand WITH the music ----- this requiring a teacher who is aware of these things while teaching ---- That part doesn't come in.  Ever.  Because it's deemed adult students don't want to really learn how to play.  A decade or so ago you would even read, "Give them whatever they want, because they soon quit anyway."  There was some fire with that smoke.

About "children's methods" and "adult methods".  The method book is probably a North American phenomenon.  This is not about whether you play a simplified version of Ode to Joy versus Alle Meine Entchen.  It has to do with what is taught, and what goals are set.  By "what is taught" I am not talking about repertoire, but about the skills and knowledge part.  Contending with key signatures and modulations is a "what is taught".  Getting a feeling for chromaticism, or learning how to use the pedal, or becoming familiar with music of various periods is "what is taught".  And along the way, there are also pieces.

I you have not examined the method books, and the "adult" counterpart by any publisher, you won't know what I'm talking about.  And if you don't know what I'm talking about, you risk arguing against what I'm saying without knowing what I'm saying.  That is what probably happened.

The same with the new phenomenon of capturing the "adult market" by creating programs in conservatories for rank beginners.  Of course a teacher can give any kind of music, and can teach interpretation.  But if it's a rank beginner, then the teacher has to be aware that the beginner cannot just up and  emphasize the main voice in polyphony.  The student first has to learn to read notes, learn how to practice, learn how to control the most basic voicing.  In other words, the teacher has to develop the basic skills of the student.  And a lot of the teachers used to teaching advanced students don't know how to do that... don't even think of it.

These are things I'm seeing.

And if THIS teacher is actually improving her student's skills, then the right thing is happening on that front.  I do agree that the comment about "never being good' is not a good comment.  The trouble is that finding any teacher at all who will give skills along the way and knows how to do so, AND is willing to take on adult students is very, very, very difficult.  That is the reality here.

If you began lessons as a child you won't run into these things.

I hope this is a bit more clear.

[ppianista]

 

(Answer in words will come later. You're sooo much faster with English words... I can't keep pace.)  

[keypeg]

 

(Answer in words will come later. You're sooo much faster with English words... I can't keep pace.)  

A picture is worth a thousand words.  Performed music says a million words.  Thank you!  It made me cry in a good way. 

[keypeg]

I've looked at all of Bernadette's post.  There is a student who started by self-teaching, using the Alfred books, and got up to a certain level of pieces.  And now there is this teacher.  P2U warned in another thread that teachers in conservatories are often there because of how well they play, not how well they teach, and that they tend to work with students who have already learned the nuts and bolts of playing.  In any case, this teacher's assessment is that her student "has" flexible fingers and reads well, but has smudgy playing - and the student plays everything legato.  Corrections are to "hand/wrist position" - i.e. the hands are "too flat fingered", wrist drapes "too much", and something about the arms.  They have worked on one single piece - the Rondo a la Turka.

I am right back to the original premise, where the teacher's aim for a beginner is to shape the student's playing, rather than shaping a piece.  One still works on pieces, but the piece is not the goal.  If you come in having self-taught, then there is a whole lot you didn't learn along the way including how to practice.  You were not guided naturally along the first steps while doing very simple pieces.  Fancier pieces are too busy to get at them.

That's beside me wondering whether there is such a thing as "a" hand "position" (meaning the shape).  The hands constantly change shape according to what is being played.

I've noted that one of the OP's questions in this forum involves how to practice - therefore it's not being taught.  And if you come in self-taught, it will appear that you "already" have things which you may not actually have.  The teacher's goal has to be to build these things.  Is this better done by a great musician who teaches at an advanced level normally, or by a teacher of beginners who is used to building these things, and thinking along those terms?

[chopin2015]

I've looked at all of Bernadette's post.  There is a student who started by self-teaching, using the Alfred books, and got up to a certain level of pieces.  And now there is this teacher.  P2U warned in another thread that teachers in conservatories are often there because of how well they play, not how well they teach, and that they tend to work with students who have already learned the nuts and bolts of playing.  In any case, this teacher's assessment is that her student "has" flexible fingers and reads well, but has smudgy playing - and the student plays everything legato.  Corrections are to "hand/wrist position" - i.e. the hands are "too flat fingered", wrist drapes "too much", and something about the arms.  They have worked on one single piece - the Rondo a la Turka.

I am right back to the original premise, where the teacher's aim for a beginner is to shape the student's playing, rather than shaping a piece.  One still works on pieces, but the piece is not the goal.  If you come in having self-taught, then there is a whole lot you didn't learn along the way including how to practice.  You were not guided naturally along the first steps while doing very simple pieces.  Fancier pieces are too busy to get at them.

That's beside me wondering whether there is such a thing as "a" hand "position" (meaning the shape).  The hands constantly change shape according to what is being played.

I've noted that one of the OP's questions in this forum involves how to practice - therefore it's not being taught.  And if you come in self-taught, it will appear that you "already" have things which you may not actually have.  The teacher's goal has to be to build these things.  Is this better done by a great musician who teaches at an advanced level normally, or by a teacher of beginners who is used to building these things, and thinking along those terms?

I like your post.

I see where u say that the hands change shape and position, according to what they are playing. I agree, they should. But the problem is when someone is not changing their hand position, or is doing the opposite of what you think should happen. Anyways, i remember my teacher in russia from the rastropovich university, he spent many hours teaching me how to relax. I miss him. He was more strict about fingerings than my current teacher, and that really helps. As annoying as it was to spend hours just playing with making your arm "drop dead" as neuhaus teaches, it is not good to spend lesson time practicing. Lol
 Not exactly what op is experiencing, but the point is...her teacher has high standards that cannot be achieved and surpassed in short time. So, get some patience and suck it up. It is ok to focus on playing ability rather than repertoire..there is much to be learned during this phase, and if u learn correctly, it is not really as hard to correct mistakes and habits as others think. Actually, its so simple you cant believe that patience can make all that happen! Lol
 Then, you can work on rep. Including stuff you really love and are inspired by, whether its ballade no. 1 or rach preludes or whatever!
I do have a philosophy though. As u learn and work through each piece, you will get better at EVERYTHING. So, just work on pieces and sight read any chance u get, because everything adds up. You do learn technique when learning new repertoire. So dont forget to explore.

[dima_76557]

As annoying as it was to spend hours just playing with making your arm "drop dead" as neuhaus teaches, it is not good to spend lesson time practicing.

Please get book by Neuhaus "Art of Piano Playing" from library or buy. Many people misunderstand or read book selectively, discard much too much and say: "This is Neuhaus system". Heinrich Gustavovich did not teach passive system like that. Fingertips always alive and active, hand arches always strong with relaxed arm behind. "Freedom" Neuhaus discusses about is not same as "dropping dead"! It is result of confidence in all musical and mechanical elements and constant striving for artistic sound image with alert fingertips, even in "dull" exercises.
Excuse off-top and bad English. Thank you.

[chopin2015]

Please get book by Neuhaus "Art of Piano Playing" from library or buy. Many people misunderstand or read book selectively, discard much too much and say: "This is Neuhaus system". Heinrich Gustavovich did not teach passive system like that. Fingertips always alive and active, hand arches always strong with relaxed arm behind. "Freedom" Neuhaus discusses about is not same as "dropping dead"! It is result of confidence in all musical and mechanical elements and constant striving for artistic sound image with alert fingertips, even in "dull" exercises.
Excuse off-top and bad English. Thank you.

Always firm in fingertip, shaped like a hammer, ready to strike. Free in the elbow, no resistance in shoulders, arm is not tense in the bicep when you let it "drop dead", i know.  Sorry i wasnt talking about technique though. It was jyst an exerpt about lesson structure at university piano lessons.

[ppianista]

However, in 4 weeks I've worked on only one piece which is page pages long. 

I was wondering right at first reading but never came around to ask: Which piece is this? I've never seen a piece for beginners that is "page pages long".

[ppianista]

I hope this is a bit more clear.

Yes, it is.

You're talking about common attitudes of teachers towards grown-up students. It seems that there's a tendency not to take them seriously. They are viewed as "hopeless cases" that can't be treated in the right way, so one prescribes them whatever makes them feel a little better. It seems to be the equivalent of palliative care in medicin.
(And it comes down to what I call "teaching poor piano playing".)

But it's really difficult to teach adult beginners. (It's very different with relaunchers.) As a teacher, one should really listen to what they want and adjust the education to THEIR individual goals. But one should also keep in mind what we learned from the neuroscientists: Our brains remain teachable. The old saying: "Was Hänschen nicht lernt, lernt Hans nimmermehr" *) is wrong.

*) English translation: "What Little Johnny won't have learnt can't be learned by Big John ever."

True remains, however, that adult students will need more time. Their progress will be slower. The training will be harder for them than it is for children. So they need any encouragement and any little experience of success they possibly can get to make it. 

And if THIS teacher is actually improving her student's skills, then the right thing is happening on that front.  I do agree that the comment about "never being good' is not a good comment.  The trouble is that finding any teacher at all who will give skills along the way and knows how to do so, AND is willing to take on adult students is very, very, very difficult.  That is the reality here.

OK. But is this so very different from the situation with beginning children? I have been mildly shocked several times when I took over other teachers' pupils. The opinion that anyone who manages to play a little piano is able to teach beginners seems to be widely spread...
 

[ppianista]

I was wondering right at first reading but never came around to ask: Which piece is this? I've never seen a piece for beginners that is "page pages long".

I just found that Bernadette opened a thread in "Student's Corner" with:

My teacher (about whom I've perhaps overwritten) has asked me to chose a second piece.  She has suggested either an early Beethoven sonata or one of the Bach's two part inventions.

That's perhaps a little too easy for an adult beginner. I think, Chopin op.25, 11 might be  little more appropriate... 

[bernadette60614]

Thank you all for your thoughts.

The piece, BTW, is Rondo Alla Turca. (My fingers are fleet, but smudgy with typing, too!)

My take away from these discussions is that as superb as my teacher may be that she may not be the best for an adult beginner.

Given that, how do I find the best teacher for an adult beginner?  We live within walking distance of a university with an outstanding (though not reknown) music program so I have a greater number of choices than someone who lives in a smaller town.

The available instructors range from 30 year old newly minted Ph.d.s in teaching to teachers with long experience but with only a B.A. to my teacher who has been teaching/performing for over 25 years and was trained at the Moscow Conservatory.

I certainly do not want to offend my teacher, but my sense based upon some responses here is that I need more in terms of some fundamentals...how to practice, e.g.

Thanks!

[keypeg]

Bernadette, the answer is not to be found be institution or credentials.  You first have to know what your priorities are, which is probably to get the tools for playing well.  You then need to find out what the priorities are of the teachers you are considering.  This is not an easy task., and I don't know who leads the dialogue.  A second possibility is that with whatever teacher you are with, the things that you need to learn are brought out, and the shape of the lessons evolve.  For example, if you don't know how to practice and your teacher never considered that possibility, you might ask for help with that.

[keypeg]

I just found that Bernadette opened a thread in "Student's Corner" with:


My teacher (about whom I've perhaps overwritten) has asked me to chose a second piece.  She has suggested either an early Beethoven sonata or one of the Bach's two part inventions.

That's perhaps a little too easy for an adult beginner. I think, Chopin op.25, 11 might be  little more appropriate...  

This is the piece that you are "proposing" for a beginner.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS9J2WAlN-0

I can only think that you are joking, since this is advanced music.

Ppianista, it's not that long ago that I entered music studies as a newcomer.  It's confusing enough in that situation.  Please say what you actually mean.  Are you actually saying that a Beethoven sonata is "too easy" for a beginner?  Or are you saying the opposite?  Ditto for a two-part Invention?

[keypeg]

I would start with this:

OK. But is this so very different from the situation with beginning children? I have been mildly shocked several times when I took over other teachers' pupils. The opinion that anyone who manages to play a little piano is able to teach beginners seems to be widely spread...  

Yes, teaching, period, is often not done well, for any age group.  If you add an "attitude" as per:

You're talking about common attitudes of teachers towards grown-up students. It seems that there's a tendency not to take them seriously. They are viewed as "hopeless cases" that can't be treated in the right way...

Take the poor quality teaching that the kids you inherit get, and add the above attitude on top of it, and you really get a mess.

Our brains remain teachable. The old saying: "Was Hänschen nicht lernt, lernt Hans nimmermehr" *) is wrong.

I agree.  I coined the phrase "The hardened wax theorem" which considered childhood to be malleable, and at some age we are "set" and can no longer learn - as if we hardened into a permanent shape like cooled wax.  I reject this.

HOWEVER - There are aspects both to how we learn and how we are taught as children or adults, which will affect how the learning will go.  I'll go into that in a separate post so bear with me.

But it's really difficult to teach adult beginners. (It's very different with relaunchers.)

Let's define this for a minute, because it is too easy to assume things and end up talking about different things.  This is what I come up with.

- Your adult beginner can be somebody who has never played any kind of instrument, and also did not try to teach himself how to play the piano before he came to you.
- Your adult beginner can have experience in other instruments --- well-taught, self-taught, or mistaught. You inherit that.
- Your adult beginner may have taught himself first, using method books (as with the OP), and you inherit that.  Is this still a "beginner"?

- Your "relaunching" student may have been well taught, have good foundations that you can build on.
- Your "relaunching" student may also have been mistaught, in which case you have a mess on your hands.  Very often relaunching students HAVE been mistaught, which is why they stopped for as long as they did, and you do have a mess on your hands.

Your mistaught relauncher may have the mess much more ingrained than your beginner who self-taught for a few months.  Your mistaught relauncher will also be used to a given relationship with his former teacher(s), ways of learning which are faulty, and you will have to break through all that.

I want to address the other things separately.

[chopin2015]

Thank you all for your thoughts.

The piece, BTW, is Rondo Alla Turca. (My fingers are fleet, but smudgy with typing, too!)

My take away from these discussions is that as superb as my teacher may be that she may not be the best for an adult beginner.

Given that, how do I find the best teacher for an adult beginner?  We live within walking distance of a university with an outstanding (though not reknown) music program so I have a greater number of choices than someone who lives in a smaller town.

The available instructors range from 30 year old newly minted Ph.d.s in teaching to teachers with long experience but with only a B.A. to my teacher who has been teaching/performing for over 25 years and was trained at the Moscow Conservatory.

I certainly do not want to offend my teacher, but my sense based upon some responses here is that I need more in terms of some fundamentals...how to practice, e.g.

Thanks!

You are very lucky to not come from a small town. Good luck with your studies!

[keypeg]

There is something in particular I'd like to get at, where I'm not totally clear on what you are actually saying, and you may not have been clear about my thoughts.   I'm picking out some specific things:

But it's really difficult to teach adult beginners. (It's very different with relaunchers.) As a teacher, one should really listen to what they want and adjust the education to THEIR individual goals. But one should also keep in mind what we learned from the neuroscientists: Our brains remain teachable. The old saying: "Was Hänschen nicht lernt, lernt Hans nimmermehr" *) is wrong.

............
True remains, however, that adult students will need more time. Their progress will be slower. The training will be harder for them than it is for children. So they need any encouragement and any little experience of success they possibly can get to make it.
  ..........
But is this so very different from the situation with beginning children?

My first confusion is with your first paragraph.  Are you saying that adult beginners should be able to set their own goals and say what they want, but relaunchers should not be given that option?  In the bottom paragraph you suggest that maybe (adult beginners?  adult relaunchers?) need what beginner children need.  Do the beginner children choose what they want, or are they given what they need to progress?  Part of the problem is in understanding what is meant by "what they want".

Some exploration:
Some differences with adults is that while the child is concrete and direct, the adult is geared toward concepts and will interpret and complicate what he is told.  Or if he is taught by concept, it starts at that level.  The child will begin with the simple things he is told to do, and his skills build (assuming good teaching), while the adult is aware of how the finished music should sound and tries to produce this immediately.  The adult has been taught in life to produce perfect things, and this gets in the way and causes anxiety both in lessons and at home.  These are behaviours rather than age-limited abilities.  If we change our behaviours, then the results change.  So if (if!) "adults learn slower", this slowness might be caused by what they are doing in order to learn.  Change the doing and you change the learning.  It can also be caused by how they are taught or not taught.

Then we also have to look at what needs to be learned.  You need to enter a different mindset.  You need to be present to your playing, which a small child probably is.  You need to learn how to practice - to focus on a section, and a particular thing in that section.  This will not come automatically.  But how often is the beginner given whole swaths of concepts, whole pieces of music, since "adults can understand so much more, and can conceptualize."  These are the kinds of things that I see under "basics" when I talk about them.  It does not mean I am thinking of abstract exercises away from music.

These students who are so very slow to learn to play Alle Meine Entchen, what is it that they are doing, and what is it that they are learning?  What are they being taught, and how, with what goals?  Might the fact that it is a familiar melody actually slow down the learning, since then you try to play it as instantly as you can sing it?  What exactly is going on?  I am not only a student, I am also an educator, so this interests me on both sides.  And I have gone into this for a while now, and not just alone.

[ppianista]

I can only think that you are joking, since this is advanced music.

Yes, I was joking. Because playing "Alla turca" is not exactly what "beginners" are asked to play. (Bernadette said she was a beginner.)

[ppianista]

- Your adult beginner can be somebody who has never played any kind of instrument, and also did not try to teach himself how to play the piano before he came to you.
- Your adult beginner can have experience in other instruments --- well-taught, self-taught, or mistaught. You inherit that.
- Your adult beginner may have taught himself first, using method books (as with the OP), and you inherit that.  Is this still a "beginner"?

- Your "relaunching" student may have been well taught, have good foundations that you can build on.
- Your "relaunching" student may also have been mistaught, in which case you have a mess on your hands.  Very often relaunching students HAVE been mistaught, which is why they stopped for as long as they did, and you do have a mess on your hands.

Your mistaught relauncher may have the mess much more ingrained than your beginner who self-taught for a few months.  Your mistaught relauncher will also be used to a given relationship with his former teacher(s), ways of learning which are faulty, and you will have to break through all that.

Let's keep it simple: A "beginner" is someone who had no piano lessons before; an adult "relauncher" is someone who already had piano lessons when being young.

Of course each single student is different and therefore to be taught differently. The good thing with adult students is that they can express what they want to learn. With children, everybody - student, parents, teacher - still has to find out where the learning process may lead to and how motivated the child actually is.  

[ppianista]

My first confusion is with your first paragraph.  Are you saying that adult beginners should be able to set their own goals and say what they want, but relaunchers should not be given that option?

Doesn't sound very logical, does it? Any adult who comes to a teacher for a first piano lesson talks about what she/he wants and did before pianowise.

If we change our behaviours, then the results change.  So if (if!) "adults learn slower", this slowness might be caused by what they are doing in order to learn.  Change the doing and you change the learning.  It can also be caused by how they are taught or not taught.

Of course there are always individual differences on the side of the student and of the teacher. But taught by experience and, lately, neuroscience one can generally say that an adult will learn more slowly than a child - under the same premises.

(But of course one has to consider that children are more limited in understanding the theoretical or conceptual parts.)

These students who are so very slow to learn to play Alle Meine Entchen...

When I said that some adults may "have a hard time" to learn stuff like that, I meant the challenge of being confronted with such "childish" music as an adult.

That's one of the obstacles adult beginners have to be ready to overcome: At home, they may listen to Beethoven, Chopin, Bartok, Oscar Peterson, Miles Davis, Keith Jarrett... but in their piano lessons they have to learn "Alle meine Entchen", "Merrily we roll along", "Jingle Bells"... This gap between their musical taste/understanding and their own humble efforts may be experienced as frustrating.

[keypeg]

Ppianista, thank you for clearing up the first question.  Now I understand that you mean adults come in with wishes, not goals per se.  Now it makes sense.

Meanwhile I see that I was not clear enough with my own post, given your response, so I will clarify.  I was looking to these things with a view of teaching and guiding.  I am also writing teacher-to-teacher because I have both the role of teacher and of student.

me: If we change our behaviours, then the results change.  So if (if!) "adults learn slower", this slowness might be caused by what they are doing in order to learn.  Change the doing and you change the learning.  It can also be caused by how they are taught or not taught.

ppianista: Of course there are always individual differences on the side of the student and of the teacher. But taught by experience and, lately, neuroscience one can generally say that an adult will learn more slowly than a child - under the same premises.

(But of course one has to consider that children are more limited in understanding the theoretical or conceptual parts.) 

I began with specific behaviours:
- conceptualizing, translating into concepts, therefore not working with simple, "here and now"
- conceiving music as the finished product they are used to hearing
- being trained to hand in perfect homework/assignments

For learning to play music on an instrument, each of these behaviours get in the way and slow down learning:

- conceptualizing, translating into concepts, therefore not working with simple, "here and now"
Piano skills are built, and quite often they come through simple, direct action.  As you work directly with whatever you are asked to do, and experience it, the concepts first come as experiences.  What really matters is that you are doing simple things that become part of how you play.  An adult may be so caught up in the concept that he never gets at the direct experience.  He may even translate the instructions he receives into something complicated, and by the time he executes it, he's in his head.  He is not doing the simple thing he was asked to do, but his complex interpretation of it.

If as a teacher you are aware of this behaviour, then you can teach other behaviours.  Part of teaching is guidance on learning strategies and thinking strategies.  If as a student you are aware of these things, then you can also act on them. If you change learning behaviour, then you also change results.  And that is what we want both as teachers and students.

Meanwhile, if scientists study "how fast age groups learn", but they don't look at learning strategies (they are not expert in teaching, learning, or the subject area), then what do their results reflect?  I'm not that interested in neuroscience and statistics.  Both as a teacher and as  a student I am interested in how people teach and learn, and what things work and don't work, and why. 

One of the things I see is a backward thinking in teaching.  It goes like this: "Adults conceptualize and like to talk about things.  So we will discuss music mostly as concept, largely in theory, and use words.  With children we will use actions."  I'd say that teaching concepts in addition is a good thing.  Work with the strengths.  But if it is instead of, then you are not guiding the student toward those activities that he needs to do in order to learn.  Does this make sense?