Daily Lessons??? What do you do? (?'s on Bernhard method)

[torchygirl]

I have been reading a lot of the posts here from Bernhard, like everyone else.  Bernhard, if you read this, thank you so much for all the time you dedicate to this forum.  Have you ever considered with all the time you spend doing these maybe you should have a place where you take donations (paypal, or something?).  Thanks so much everyone else too for the lively discussions.  They keep me motivated!

I am curious about daily lessons and welcome anyone's comments. 

I am an adult beginner, working on pieces from Agay's Joy of Classics.  (I have taken piano before, but have never really practiced before.)  I almost feel like I should go to lessons every other week, because I don't feel I make enough progress to come weekly.    (Although my really wonderful teacher never makes me feel that way.)

Do daily lessons amount to supervised practice sessions?  Do you expect people to have learned anything between lessons?  How much practice time do you expect someone to put in outside of the time with you?   Sometimes between days I feel I am moving backwards; it would be very hard for me to have someone watch my ups and downs every day.

I take it you would also include theory in practice?  Should this be something I have my teacher be doing?  I am looking at the Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory on my own, but I am wondering if I should ask my teacher to be incorporating this into my lesson.  Right now when I look at a piece, I see individual notes.  I am hoping to eventually become aware of groupings/chords.  But I am not sure I see that anytime soon.  (Do I need to memorize all the scales?  Is it enough that I can figure them out, and then maybe, with exposure, will become familiar with the frequently used ones?)

I would like to become a decent pianist for my own enjoyment (and not be embarrassed to play in front of friends).

Thanks for any input.

[bernhard]

I have been reading a lot of the posts here from Bernhard, like everyone else.  Bernhard, if you read this, thank you so much for all the time you dedicate to this forum.  Have you ever considered with all the time you spend doing these maybe you should have a place where you take donations (paypal, or something?).  Thanks so much everyone else too for the lively discussions.  They keep me motivated!

You are welcome.

Donations? Nah. I am accumulating merits for my next incarnation.

Do daily lessons amount to supervised practice sessions?

That is exactly it. I don’t think of them as “lessons”, but rather as sessions with a personal trainer.

  Do you expect people to have learned anything between lessons?

Yes, but I will be delighted if they manage not to forget what they learned the previous lesson. That is usually enough, since we can then build from there. If they have forgotten, then we just repeat the previous lesson. Patience is possibly the most important asset if you want to teach this way.

  How much practice time do you expect someone to put in outside of the time with you?

The time itself is not that important. What you achieve is far more important. If you can achieve your goals in ten minutes, there is no reason to keep at it for 10 hours. For beginners who come daily, I do not expect them to practice at all (the practice is done at the lesson). However, if they can repeat exactly what they did at the lesson when they arrive home, that is really nice (and it may take less time than it took at the lesson, since there will not be any demonstrations, corrections, interruptions and so on).

  Sometimes between days I feel I am moving backwards; it would be very hard for me to have someone watch my ups and downs every day.

There would not be any. Most likely you are having ups or downs because you are not practising correctly. You must always aim at progress. The most frequent reasons for lack of progress is tackling too large sections and not being consistent (that is, irregular practice and practising different things each day so nothing ever adds up to something)

I take it you would also include theory in practice?

Yes. I work from a piece. Once we select a piece everything relates to that piece. The piece will be analysed, technique will be acquired form the piece, scales will be learned in relation to the piece, improvisation will be based on the scales and harmonic progressions of the piece and so on. After 20 or 30 pieces, most of the theory and technique will have been covered. The music should always be at the forefront.

  Should this be something I have my teacher be doing?

I would hate for some internet self-proclaimed teacher to tell my students how I should or should not be teaching. So I am going to skip this one.

  I am looking at the Complete Idiot's Guide to Music Theory on my own, but I am wondering if I should ask my teacher to be incorporating this into my lesson.

There is a surprising amount of work a student can do on his/her own time. You already have the book. Why waste valuable lesson time by having your teacher incorporate it into the lesson? Use your teacher for the things you cannot find in books or elsewhere. However a book cannot demonstrate movements to you, or correct your movements. A book cannot listen to you and provide feedback. Of course you can request your teacher to do it, you are paying him. But it may not be in your best interests. Of course, if there is anything in the book you cannot understand, by all means ask him.

  Right now when I look at a piece, I see individual notes.  I am hoping to eventually become aware of groupings/chords.  But I am not sure I see that anytime soon.  (Do I need to memorize all the scales?  Is it enough that I can figure them out, and then maybe, with exposure, will become familiar with the frequently used ones?)

This will not happen by itself. You must make it happen. This means that you must aim and will at seeing musical patterns rather than isolated notes. As I said many times, think about how you read; you do not read isolated letters, but words and sentences, patterns created by isolated letters. The letters are important and you must learn them, but then you must go on to the next stage: syllables, and then words. Just exposure to letters will not get you to read words and sentences fluently. You must expose yourself to the words and sentences themselves. Very young children may experience difficulties in reading mostly because their vocabulary is very limited.

I would like to become a decent pianist for my own enjoyment (and not be embarrassed to play in front of friends).

What is stopping you?

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[outsyde yn]

hey i have  a friend who has daily lessons with her teacher.  I wonder if it's the same method that you use Bernhard?  I pretend like I have a teacher everyday.  My piano is in my room and I just pretend that i am my teacher.  so maybe I am having lessons everyday also.  maybe it's the same things.  i always practice the hard parts first!

bye
Clair

[torchygirl]

Bernhard-

Big Kiss blown your way!  (I'm facing east in Minnesota, USA, that would be the most direct route, yes?)

You must have an enormous amount of patience to work with students your way!  I am picturing you listening to songs from the Little Mermaid with all your focus.   It must take a Zen state of mind.

Karen - Should this be something I have my teacher be doing? (re incorporating theory into discussion of piece)

Bernhard - I would hate for some internet self-proclaimed teacher to tell my students how I should or should not be teaching.  So I am going to skip this one.

I *think* that my teacher is letting me lead on what I want to know.  I should talk to her about this so we can work together on a plan. We are still new to each other.
 I think her training is more in performing than teaching, so she may still be formulating her methods.  She does try to point out some interesting features in the music.  But I'm sure that she hasn't put all the thought into teaching that you obviously have, Bernhard.  I don't see any problem with suggesting certain tacks.  I am betting that almost all teachers could learn a lot from you.

I am happy to study theory on my own, and I haven't gotten all through the book yet (so maybe I am premature to ask this), but (at the risk of sounding stupid) I am not sure *how* to apply what I've seen so far.   As I said before, I understand how to figure out what I've read so far (the major scales are WWH etc. steps, I could write down the circle of 5ths with some time), but I don't have the knowledge at my fingertips (that saying is particularly apt in piano, isn't it?).  It make me a bit uncomfortable to see these long lists of scales in the book, which seem to me to belong in an appendix.  But maybe they are there because I should learn them, and not just how to derive them?  (I do not like to memorize, I like to understand and use.)   I probably need to look through the whole book before I worry about not being able to apply it - but any music analysis insights for a person at my level are welcomed.

Karen

[bernhard]

hey i have  a friend who has daily lessons with her teacher.  I wonder if it's the same method that you use Bernhard?  I pretend like I have a teacher everyday.  My piano is in my room and I just pretend that i am my teacher.  so maybe I am having lessons everyday also.  maybe it's the same things.  i always practice the hard parts first!

bye
Clair

That is actually a very good idea.

[bernhard]

Bernhard-


Big Kiss blown your way!  (I'm facing east in Minnesota, USA, that would be the most direct route, yes?)

 

You must have an enormous amount of patience to work with students your way!  I am picturing you listening to songs from the Little Mermaid with all your focus.   It must take a Zen state of mind.

There are limits even to my patience. So, one of the secrets is that I never assign dreadful pieces (one of the reasons  I stay clear from methods). I only assign pieces that I have myself an interest in learning. Fortunately the piano repertory is so large and there are so many superior pieces at all levels, that I can always find a musically superior piece that both I and the student can enjoy (the education of taste is part of a teachers duties, so ABBA is definitely not on)

I am happy to study theory on my own, and I haven't gotten all through the book yet (so maybe I am premature to ask this), but (at the risk of sounding stupid) I am not sure *how* to apply what I've seen so far.   As I said before, I understand how to figure out what I've read so far (the major scales are WWH etc. steps, I could write down the circle of 5ths with some time), but I don't have the knowledge at my fingertips (that saying is particularly apt in piano, isn't it?).  It make me a bit uncomfortable to see these long lists of scales in the book, which seem to me to belong in an appendix.  But maybe they are there because I should learn them, and not just how to derive them?  (I do not like to memorize, I like to understand and use.)   I probably need to look through the whole book before I worry about not being able to apply it - but any music analysis insights for a person at my level are welcomed.

Analysis by itself is not very useful - there is no such a thing as "analysis", but rather different wasy to analyse a piece. So the most important question to ask is: "what is my purpose in analysing a piece this or that way? What difference will it make?"

Now for a beginner, a good way to start is to realise that tonal music (which is the majority of Western music) is always scale based. What this means is that a tune is created by moving the notes of the scale around.

Here is the C major scale: CDEFGABC

Now here is the first phrase of twinkle twinkle little star:

CC GG AAG FF EE DD C

As you can se it only uses the notes of C major, therefore it is in C major.

So one kind of analyis, aims at figuring out from which scales the notes of a tune are derived. Since composers rarely stick with a single scale (or more properly "key") it can be quite interesting to see how the tune moves from one key to the next, and which devices the composer uses to effect a smooth (or sometimes brusque) transition between keys.

Of course there are many cases where knowing the keys used in a piece of music will not give you much relevant information, and other kinds of analysis will. For instance most Baroque music can be understood as different variations on a "motif", that is a fragment of melody. The composer starts with that little fragment and then starts varying it by writing it backwards, playing it twice or half the speed, reversing the intervals and so on. Analysis ("motif analysis") in this case consists in idetifying the motif and following all its permutations in the course fo the piece.

The ultimate purpose of analysis ( in my opinion) should be to understand how a piece of music is put together, how it is structured.

Also remember that most composers (if any at all) do not use analysis to guide composition. Most (if not all) just compose. Analysis is always posterior to the piece of music. Whynot said quite rightly in another thread that Palestrina music was so beautiful that people tried to figure out how he did it, and created all sorts of theories, but Palestrina himself was blissfully unaware of how he actually did it. The theory that explains Mozart and Beethoven did not exist at the time they were composing their pieces. They came up with music for which theorists had to create new explanations. As I said elsewhere, the history of theory is the history of breaking the rules of theory.

Since you are a beginner, I suggest to you the historical/pragmatical approach. Instead of learning the whole theory (which will just confuse you because it will consist of many solutions for problems you have never encountered), simply use the bits of theory necessary to analyse your current pieces. They are (I imagine) pretty simple pieces, so analysing (in a number of different ways) them shoud be fairly easy. As your pieces increase in difficulty, the theory that served you so well in the simple pieces will be found lacking and will need to be expanded and complemented.

So let your knowledge of theory/analysis grow organically, guided by the pieces you are working on at the moment . This is exactly how theory developed historically, and should be the easiest way to learn it, since ontogeny always recapitulates philogeny.

I hope this helps.

Best wishes,
Bernhard.

[torchygirl]

Thank you again Bernhard for your insights.  I need to take some time reading through them once more.  But I didn't want you to think I hadn't run to my computer first thing this AM to read them (I did).   Unfortunately I have been having to deal with various house malfunctions most of the day.  But thank you again, and again, for you time.

Karen

(hmmmm, I wonder if I could post about my garbage disposal malfunctions in the "anything but piano" category?  Nah, somehow pianists and jamming at things with allen wrenches just don't seem to mesh....

[lostinidlewonder]

hey i have  a friend who has daily lessons with her teacher.

I don't know which teacher would teach a student every single day, probably one which has a rich student and makes good money off it lol. But seriously, I wouldn't want to see one of my students after just 1 day away from each other. That is just not enough time for them to get through the work. If i have to lead them to the water and watch them drink it they will just become insecure musicians forever. Ill say, over here walk that way, careful it is dangerous the path, so watch out for this and that, do this and that, try this or that, think about this.... or that.

Afterall, I reckon learning music is 95% the students work and 5% guidance, but unguided work early on can make everything you do fall apart, so you always have to put some effort into finding guidance in your musical study. But with al the guidance in the world you will get no where if you dont put in the blood and sweat working your hands on the 88 keys. Unguided work, works as well, but it always leaves some holes in our mastery of the keyboard.

Music is such a subjective and various thing in this world, to fully understand it we have to listen to lots and lots of peoples ideas on it. Thats why piano forum and other message boards like this is so brilliant!

[marialice]

I am currently teaching my boyfriend. The first two months literally every day he would stumble upon some problem that he just wouldn't approach very efficiently. I believe it really speeded things up that I could give him a little advice every day on his practice methods, help him identify the problems (when you just start often all you know is that something doesn't sound right, but that's not easy to solve), and show him why some things work better than others.

I guess you can't really call it daily 'lessons', I like the term 'supervised practice' a lot more. But I am very much convinced about their use. Especially in the beginning lots of time, energy and frustration can be wasted on inefficient practice and learning bad habits, which isn't very motivating for the student either.

I am not sure if I would do the same thing with paying students though. I see a lot of logistic problems.

[outsyde yn]

i wish I do have daily lessons just like my friend.  my mom says its a good idea just like when we are home schooled to have subjects everyday for a little bit.  if it's a teacher I can trust it doesn't matter if you are up and down a little bit, at least that's what my friend says to me, but she's kind of bossy.  she plays so good though.  that's why I just pretend I am my teacher everyday so I have one everyday.  and someday soon I will start teaching my cousin, he's 4 year old and i will teach him everyday Too!  it must be a popular method.

Bye,
Clair

[Egghead]

IBut seriously, I wouldn't want to see one of my students after just 1 day away from each other. That is just not enough time for them to get through the work. If i have to lead them to the water and watch them drink it they will just become insecure musicians forever. Ill say, over here walk that way, careful it is dangerous the path, so watch out for this and that, do this and that, try this or that, think about this.... or that.

First time I find myself disagreeing with you  . You dont want to see the student but maybe your student wants to see you after just one day! When I restarted piano lessons I frequently had questions coming up every day. I would have been very grateful for at least a "clinic" - i.e. an appointed time where one can drop in for a few minutes to clarify how instruction X was meant, or whether I am doing somethign the right way etc. When you are really unsure about something, having to wait for a whole week before clarification can seem a very long time.
The other situation is when you feel stuck in an unspecific way and dont feel like practicing. We all have "bad" days. Somebody asked what about if a bad day coincides with lesson-day.
Somehow, once you are having the lesson, the bad day mysteriously evaporates and you can have a surprisingly productive day. Imagine all these non-practicing brats having this experience almost every day  

As with all types of instruction: good instructors make themselves superfluous. The fastest way to do that, surly, must be daily instruction.  
Egghead

[BoliverAllmon]

I don't know which teacher would teach a student every single day, probably one which has a rich student and makes good money off it lol. But seriously, I wouldn't want to see one of my students after just 1 day away from each other. That is just not enough time for them to get through the work. If i have to lead them to the water and watch them drink it they will just become insecure musicians forever. Ill say, over here walk that way, careful it is dangerous the path, so watch out for this and that, do this and that, try this or that, think about this.... or that.

Afterall, I reckon learning music is 95% the students work and 5% guidance, but unguided work early on can make everything you do fall apart, so you always have to put some effort into finding guidance in your musical study. But with al the guidance in the world you will get no where if you dont put in the blood and sweat working your hands on the 88 keys. Unguided work, works as well, but it always leaves some holes in our mastery of the keyboard.

Music is such a subjective and various thing in this world, to fully understand it we have to listen to lots and lots of peoples ideas on it. Thats why piano forum and other message boards like this is so brilliant!

guidance should be a greater percentage. How will the student learn how to practice? That is the idea behind every day lessons. You must guide them. When doing this you speed up the learning process.

boliver

[lostinidlewonder]

I guess why I say I dont want to see a student every day is because I find that piano study takes time to see change. In one day I dont feel that is enough time for one to absorb enough music to actually analyse and talk about (unless they are dedicated musical students).

If you teach them daily they learn a lot faster yes, but they do not spend as much time really being alone and practicing with their own ideas. Yes that can come later after you stop the daily lessons, but then you would have had no experience in being alone. Being torn away from the comfort of a daily teacher would be tragic and very hard to deal with eheh. That is where I feel one should strive for individuality, especially of technique(how you actually physically move at the piano which is unique for everyone) and of course expression. It strikes up a good balance of control(teachers instruction) and individuality(students own ideas and tactics with how to work with the music and play) with weekly lessons for most people imo.

I see most of my students weekly and after a week i really can see how well they have dealt with what i set them when we last met. These small assignments set every week that every teacher does really is an indicator of the students progress. And i really really feel that for most students a week is a good length of time to change some musical ability in them. (take a few steps on the musical path without the teacher next to you i guess, and then let the teacher see if its still on track)I always ask students to explain how they practiced what i set them, how did they visualise this or that. It is really good because they can't lie if they have practiced or not

When i teach my students very early on i throw them into the deep end  and make them work out ways to think musically while memorising/practing their music. Of course i dont let them drown but i let them suffer a little I really dont like the idea of teaching a student for years and years and years, to me it seems like a failure on my behalf because i think musical students need to be able to feel free and confident that they can work on a plan out for anything without a teacher. Perhaps they will need guidance now and then but for the majority they are confident to be alone.

[Egghead]

In one day I dont feel that is enough time for one to absorb enough music to actually analyse and talk about (unless they are dedicated musical students).
If you teach them daily they learn a lot faster yes, but they do not spend as much time really being alone and practicing with their own ideas.

maybe I missed this: when did you last actually TRY teaching a student on a daily basis (one who was interested in this)?
Also: who say it has to be an hour a day? If you teach in a concentrated way, you probably present more material within one hour than a normal person can really grasp and remember (whether this is done daily or once a week). Subdividing the material may be more effective (ever made a cup of tea half way through a lesson?). Spreading it over several days: probably even more so.
I also think it depends on the teacher and what he teaches: some things I feel I need frequent feedback on, others I can and want to do on my own for several weeks.

I see most of my students weekly and after a week i really can see how well they have dealt with what i set them when we last met. These small assignments set every week that every teacher does really is an indicator of the students progress.

EVERY teacher? Nice that you are doing that, not everyone does.

When i teach my students very early on i throw them into the deep end  and make them work out ways to think musically while memorising/practing their music.

How do you do this? I'd be interested to hear more.

Egghead

[galonia]

Right now, I'm still on my "recovery track" after spending 2 years away from piano, so I have a lesson once a week, and my teacher is trying not to stress me out.

But before that, I used to have 2 or 3 lessons a week - the faster I was learning at home, the sooner I'd have my next lesson.  Before a big performance or competition or exam, the frequency of my lessons would be every day.  Each lesson goes for at least an hour, although never over 1 hours 15 minutes.

You're right - the daily lessons are only useful if you are doing enough work at home.  But before the big performances, just about the only thing I would do is play piano.  Or sit and think about my pieces and do my mental preparation stuff.  So this was not a problem - in fact, the drive to and from my lesson was like a holiday!

I found those very frequent lessons extremely helpful for speedy progress - you definitely learn more when you are being pushed to present more work more often.  And the daily lessons were great for putting those finishing touches on the pieces, those pesky little details that I cannot let disappear just before an important performance!  Plus giving a performance to my teacher repeatedly meant that I walked on stage feeling confident, and knowing that I had just pulled it off several times that week already, so no reason I can't do it again.

[lostinidlewonder]

when did you last actually TRY teaching a student on a daily basis (one who was interested in this)?

Yet to come across one who needs it, although i have three children (not mine!) who live with me that are constantly on my grand and ask for lessons almost every day which is really interesting.

However for the majority of my students which i see weekly i see that it is a week which is needed to see some change, i sometimes see very little change in some after a week so i could imagine how much more miniscule that would be after a day. I would be happy to take on a dedicated student, but i havent met one that dedicated, even the music students i teach which are enrolled in the univeristies here are not that dedicated. But Id be happy to, so long there is something to work on and analyise. You always have to analise how the student worked with what you gave them, so you can offer better assistance targeting their musical thinking and efficiency.

Also: who say it has to be an hour a day? If you teach in a concentrated way, you probably present more material within one hour than a normal person can really grasp and remember (whether this is done daily or once a week). Subdividing the material may be more effective (ever made a cup of tea half way through a lesson?). Spreading it over several days: probably even more so.

That would be nice, although I have lots of time restrictions, lots of people to see, and my own musical time and social life (which slowly ebbs away lol). I set the student work the previous week so the first half of the next lesson usually is going over how well they achieved what was set. This is where the student can check if they have done right or wrong, and make adjustments to their learning procedure.
I would think that each teacher would set their student some work to do until the next time you meet. I think that is a matter of structure more than anything else, to sit down and start on a different place from last week to me seem very scatter gun teaching but all to their own I guess.

How to "throw students in the deep end" is a long discussion. Ill be as to the point as i can though.

Since a lot of musical work has to do with the visualisation of the group of notes in the piece we try to learn I ask students to discuss this in detail instead of just trying to play. I ask them to identify common shapes found within their music made by the family of chords and scales we often encounter. This common shape sense aids our memory of course a great deal and i like to get students thinking this straight away. It is easy to observe these shapes by themselves but to see them in the sheet music, in an actual piece, and to understand how and why they change requires musical logic.

I ask students to work on Bar x to y for the week for a particular peice. I ensure that they write down how they observe the patterns that they see in the score. Sometimes they say things like, bar 1 is like 2 but the G is now A which is also highlighted in the Lh Amaj chord, whatever. I think this type of observations are very impottant, seeing how each hand relates to one another through similar notes. I like to read these observations from the more beginner/intermediant students who are still trying to get their heads/hands around form at the piano because it reveals their musical logic process.

I usually spend a while discussing shape and form the student came up with for the sections we set the previous week. Contrasting their ideas to my own I offer them other perspectives as to how they should perhaps see the pattern in the score, and what other patterns can be found to further guide our memory. I guess, tricks as to how to look at the score, and how to use it to aid the memory. This contrasting of ideas expands their logical mind, and hopefully then they can understand the patterns hidden in the movement of notes clearer.

As well as being able to highlight patterns in the sheet music they should also connect those patterns to the movement groups found in their playing (i.e: when the hands have to actually move). These usually set the basis for drills used to memorise the music. One would play passages where the hand doesnt have to move without disrupting the flow, but pause between each movement group. So I ask them to play for the the drills that they created to memorise and develop a "Routine touch" (play without thinking about notes rather the physical movement to produce them) for the music. Of course i will not ask of this from advanced students, rather i will listen to their playing and observe their physical playing as a whole rather than caring about how they went about binding it all together, i assume they know how to bind, i just critique the finishing touches.

A further way i throw students into the deep end is by setting them at least one very small section of a hard piece (of my choice) beyond their ability for now.  I ask them to make progress on that as if it where a peice they had to study and again write down and discuss the more indepth memory processes and visualisations that have to be gone through, also the physical technique required to produce it. They know it isnt music they have to play well, rather it is music used to demonstrate their ability to absorb music. If you can only absorb what is at your level that is never good, leaves too many mental boundaries and less room for growth imo.

What i want is not a student who is a master of playing, rather one who is a master of resource and tactics of musical study, so that they can work on anything and know if they are doing it right or wrong. The only way i find i can do that is by forcing them to make musical decisions. When I set something ridiculous often the following week I get a blank stare and its rather apparent that they where utterly lost and fell flat on their face. This is fine so long the teacher is there to guide, try this, put a bit more effort on this, this was on the right track, this wasn't etc. They begin to think more musically and see shapes in more difficult stuff, then when they look at their easier work the patterns just look so simplistic.

A further way i throw them into the deep end is by playing their music they learn back to them and ask them what i did right or wrong. I make obvious errors and also not so obvious, and ask them to tell me to stop when they think there is something wrong. I will also play music they havent heard before and play it without expression or dynamics and ask them to tell me what should be done just by listening to the notes a few times.

Of course these things do not take the majority of the time in a lesson but they do come up every week.

Oh so many sinister ways to throw students into the deep end mwahahha

[Egghead]

How to "throw students in the deep end" is a long discussion. Ill be as to the point as i can though.

...

I also think this topic is interesting and wide enough to warrant its own thread. So here it is: https://www.pianoforum.net/smf/index.php/topic,7997.0.html

[lagin]

Lessons every day!  That would be sooo cool, but my parents would go broke!  I have a 2 hour lesson once a week plus an hour lesson just for studying history and a 30 minute lesson just for doing harmony (composing, analysing).  So three days a week I have some sort of lesson.  I wish I could do the actual piano lesson more often.  My whole last lesson was a "mock exam," and my next lesson will be going over the comments.  I want to go over them now though!   I guess it depends how much you would change, too.  My teacher charges $19.50 for 30 min (in which time we can cover like maybe one page...maybe).  This is Canadian $$.  Is this expensive?

[puma]

$19.50 Canadian per 1/2 hour, considering the exchange rate between the U.S. and Canada, is not only reasonable, but cheap.  Good deal!

[lagin]

Really?!  Wow, judging from exam and competition results of her students, she's like the second best in quite a large area!  Cool

[BoliverAllmon]

I know of people who charge 100 bucks an hour.