Do large level gaps conflict with structured piano pedagogy?

[cynthia_zxx777]

I’ve been thinking about something lately and would really like to hear how teachers approach it in practice.

In most structured systems (RCM, ABRSM, etc.), there’s a pretty clear progression — not just in difficulty, but in how technique and musical understanding are supposed to develop step by step. For example, moving from something like Level 8 up to Level 10, and then eventually into diploma-level repertoire.
At the same time, in competitions, it doesn’t always seem to work that way. You sometimes see students at quite different levels playing in the same division — for instance, someone around Level 10 in a senior concerto category alongside students working at diploma level.

I’m curious how people think about this from a teaching perspective. Is it generally seen as fine for a student to reach ahead if they can manage the piece, or does that start to conflict with the idea of structured progression? And when competitions are involved, how do you balance long-term development with the push toward more advanced repertoire? Also, in your experience, do competition results tend to reflect those level differences, or do they operate more independently from graded systems?

Not thinking about any specific situation — just trying to understand how these two approaches fit together in real teaching.

[jonathannyc]

In most structured systems (RCM, ABRSM, etc.), there’s a pretty clear progression — not just in difficulty, but in how technique and musical understanding are supposed to develop step by step. For example, moving from something like Level 8 up to Level 10, and then eventually into diploma-level repertoire.
At the same time, in competitions, it doesn’t always seem to work that way. You sometimes see students at quite different levels playing in the same division — for instance, someone around Level 10 in a senior concerto category alongside students working at diploma level.

If pianists of noticeably different technical levels are competing within the same competition division, then the competition organizers are not being fair to the less qualified contestants; what they are doing is collecting substantial entrance fees to guarantee that they clear their expenses and pay themselves.

Is it generally seen as fine for a student to reach ahead if they can manage the piece, or does that start to conflict with the idea of structured progression?

It is more than fine, it is necessary for students who are intent on achieving a higher mastery to push beyond their current level. However, not every piece should be a traumatic struggle because that would be exhausting and then discouraging. A thoughtful progression should be set between highly challenging pieces and easier pieces.

And when competitions are involved, how do you balance long-term development with the push toward more advanced repertoire? Also, in your experience, do competition results tend to reflect those level differences, or do they operate more independently from graded systems?

Let's address this question - what is the student's purpose for entering a competition in the first place?

The obvious answers are: (1) to gain a sense of achievement (if one wins!), otherwise it can be chalked up to 'experience'.  (2) to advance a performing career, or at least a career as an experienced music teacher.
(3) because the teacher is pushing students to compete for the purpose of bringing prestige to that teacher's studio (but how does that benefit the student?).

Ultimately, what is the career point of entering a competition? Is it to build a career, or is it a strenuous hobby - a goal for the sake of a goal?

Gary Graffman, who died just last December, taught both Lang Lang and Yuja Wang, and discouraged both of them from entering competitions. Instead, he promoted them to conductors for high-profile performing engagements. As Jorge Bolet once said, "Do you have any idea what a conductor can do for a pianist's career?"

Obviously, winning the Tchaikowsky, Chopin, or Van Cliburn competitions can bring a great deal of exposure and concert dates (for a while). But that is not the best road for every career-oriented pianist.

https://www.bakerpianolessons.com/

[lostinidlewonder]

Since you mention pedagogy, this opens the discussion to much more than narrow views of piano education. We are not only dealing with conservatory students but also everyday people, each with unique goals, experiences, interests and learning needs.

In most structured systems (RCM, ABRSM, etc.), there’s a pretty clear progression — not just in difficulty, but in how technique and musical understanding are supposed to develop step by step.

I would push back on the idea of a "clear" progression. Exams provide a general level system, but there are gaps that are more obvious to some students than others. Few reach the upper levels while many stagnate or quit near the lower ones. Progression and skill development depend heavily on the teacher and student to break things down individually and scaffold the education effectively. For this reason I personally find teaching outside of exams far more effective than strictly following a syllabus.

By nature, exams cannot be the only pathway for a student, yet many teachers treat them as such, to the detriment of both the student and their own teaching. Some of my students genuinely want to pursue examinations, but that doesn’t mean all we do is exam work. A teacher can supplement exam study with other materials that fill gaps and synergize with the requirements. Sometimes even pausing exams for a period and revisiting them later is the most effective solution. We must carefully consider how much exam preparation should actually constitute the student’s overall learning journey.

Is it generally seen as fine for a student to reach ahead if they can manage the piece, or does that start to conflict with the idea of structured progression?

Learning harder works can either push a student forward or hinder progress. Attempting pieces sloppily or taking too long is inefficient. Often it’s better to learn several smaller pieces than one large piece, because smaller works build practice habits, reading skills, memory, and polishing more effectively etc.

And when competitions are involved, how do you balance long-term development with the push toward more advanced repertoire?

I don’t see competitions as central to most pianists and advanced repertoire isn’t a goal for everyone. Progression is important for all but constantly pushing harder to more difficulty can overwhelm students. Many feel demoralized after completing a piece only to face another challenging one immediately. Constantly raising the bar can reduce the joy of music and the personal connection students develop with it.

What kind of students are you working with? It sounds very traditionally stringent if it focuses on competitions and passing exams to the highest level. Modern piano education can be very different. It’s about musical enjoyment, thriving within a niche that excites the student, and keeping them engaged. Some traditional teachers might scoff at that, they may see students who don’t fit their system as untalented or lazy. But they miss the point of teaching, which is to sow the seed for a lifelong love of piano and allow the student to develop a meaningful, enduring relationship with music.

Those stubborn teachers who push students to quit are, to me, abhorrent. Over the years, I’ve met students who gave up piano entirely because of past negative experiences, some who will never touch it again, feeling like failures for not practicing enough, playing at a high enough level, or winning competitions. Teachers like that are useless. They are ego-driven, obsessed with high marks, top levels, and competition wins to stroke their own image, peddling an illusion of what good piano teaching is.

[cynthia_zxx777]

If pianists of noticeably different technical levels are competing within the same competition division, then the competition organizers are not being fair to the less qualified contestants; what they are doing is collecting substantial entrance fees to guarantee that they clear their expenses and pay themselves.

That’s a very interesting point, and I think it gets to the heart of the issue.

If divisions include students with very different technical backgrounds, it really raises the question of what the division is actually measuring: repertoire difficulty, developmental stage, or simply performance on that day.

I also agree that reaching ahead can be valuable when done thoughtfully. What I keep wondering is whether competition structures sometimes encourage students (or teachers) to move into repertoire categories earlier than is pedagogically ideal, simply because of competitive pressure.

What I keep wondering is how competitions should define fairness in these cases — should divisions be based more strictly on structured level systems, or is some overlap unavoidable in practice when repertoire and student development don’t always fit neatly into grading categories? Do you think competition divisions should be tied more closely to structured level systems, or is that unrealistic in practice?

[cynthia_zxx777]

I would push back on the idea of a "clear" progression. Exams provide a general level system, but there are gaps that are more obvious to some students than others. Few reach the upper levels while many stagnate or quit near the lower ones. Progression and skill development depend heavily on the teacher and student to break things down individually and scaffold the education effectively. For this reason I personally find teaching outside of exams far more effective than strictly following a syllabus.

That’s a fair point, and I agree that in real teaching practice progression is often much less linear than exam systems suggest.

I probably should have said “structured framework” rather than “clear progression,” since exam levels seem more like broad reference points than exact indicators of readiness.

What I still find challenging in competition settings, though, is how divisions should be designed when students come from such different training paths. If exam levels are only approximate benchmarks, what do you think is the fairest basis for grouping students in the same competition category?

[lostinidlewonder]

I probably should have said “structured framework” rather than “clear progression,” since exam levels seem more like broad reference points than exact indicators of readiness.

They are broad reference points for sure, but by their nature they don’t measure things like rate of learning, which is a critical part of what actually represents a student’s level.

If someone takes over a year (or more) to complete Grade 5 works, does that really reflect their level or does it reflect persistence and repetition? You can arrive at the same endpoint through very different processes: one student may learn efficiently with strong transfer of skills, while another may rely on heavy drilling with less flexibility outside that specific repertoire. Exams don’t really distinguish between those paths, and I’ve always felt that’s a significant blind spot

What I still find challenging in competition settings, though, is how divisions should be designed when students come from such different training paths. If exam levels are only approximate benchmarks, what do you think is the fairest basis for grouping students in the same competition category?

Personally I dislike competitions, and that is not coming from losing. I have won the vast majority I entered, and my students have generally had good success as well. My issue is more with the structure than the outcomes.

Using general grade levels is definitely a better baseline than age groupings, but even then it is imperfect. You inevitably get very strong students entering lower levels and dominating, which skews things.

In terms of fairness, competitions that require everyone to play the same one or two pieces are probably the most controlled and scientifically comparable. You are removing as many variables as possible, so it becomes a clearer measure of execution. That said, they are not particularly engaging musically and can be quite dull from an audience perspective.

Most competitions sit somewhere in the middle, either allowing free choice within a level or selecting from a prescribed list. That is more musically meaningful, but it introduces variability that makes direct comparison less precise.

Adjudication is another major factor. The stronger competitions tend to use at least three adjudicators, which helps balance subjectivity. With only one judge results can vary significantly depending on personal taste unless there is a very clear standout, so there is a much higher degree of variability.

I do think in the future AI will play a role in evaluation, particularly in areas like accuracy, consistency, and even certain aspects of tone production. I work fairly closely with AI in piano education and it is already clear it can provide a level of consistency that human judging cannot.

So overall, competitions are always going to be somewhat uneven especially outside of open categories. The fairest practical approach is probably a combination of grade based groupings, some control over repertoire, multiple adjudicators and how many events someone can enter, but even then differences in training background and learning processes mean perfect fairness is not really achievable.