need advice from music teachers or musicians

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG! I have an 8 yo who's finishing the third year of lessons and I am lucky when I can get half an hour of practice to happen!

Your kid will be fine. I have a 16 year old who has been taking lessons for 10 years, and almost never practices more than 45 mins a day. Usually closer to 30 mins. Your kid and mine will be competent casual pianists. The other kids are serious. There's room for them all!

If you're looking for tips on helping get your kid to practice, I was able to get more regular practice out of my son when I told him he just had to do 15 minutes with a goal of 30. It's the same thing I do for myself and exercise. I have to do 15 minutes on the treadmill, and once I'm there I typically do 30 - 45, but it makes it easier to get started if I know I'm just signing up for 15 minutes. My son could stop after 15 minutes if he wanted, and I'd consider that the day's practice. Typically, once he started, he did his whole practice.

Sorry for this tangent, OP. Sounds like you have some really dedicated kids!

My approach is "no xbox until you practice music for 30 minutes."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
1. Music teachers don't make a lot of money, unless they have stellar backgrounds and have played for highly selective orchestras or other groups, or in the case of piano, have studied under renowned teachers and won international competitions (also valid for orchestral instruments). Teachers usually have several music jobs, for example, teaching at Levine, maintaining a home studio and occasionally playing for certain groups or in the case of orchestral instruments, being a member of an orchestra and taking students on the side. The mediocre teacher can make $50/hr on lessons, the principal of a major orchestra $400/hr.

2. The USA does a piss-poor job at educating kids in music. Some European countries like France subsidize local conservatories for after-school music education, where the elementary school kids start off with the three pillars of Western classical music: solfege (music theory), choir and an instrumental lesson. Which leads to my second point: I hope your child has started music theory and has spent a little while in a choir (since they don't get to be in an orchestra, they need to learn those teamwork skills). Or that they are shortly planning to. This is why inexperienced French music teachers are better able to teach than inexperienced American ones. A great player does not equal a great teacher, there is some serious academic knowledge and culture involved. Or should be! I have not been impressed by the average music teacher here.

3. Next stop: music summer camps (serious ones are usually sleep-away. A good one is Interlochen) and possibly AP music options in high school, or better yet, competitions, travel and recordings.

4. Finally: degree in music from a 4 year college, or music conservatory (push for college if you want a second degree as back-up, or anticipate a change of heart). Gigs around the area or around the world. Possibly Master's in music education, or related. The University of Maryland and Peabody are local stalwarts for that. My children's Strathmore Children's Choir director is getting a PhD in choral conducting. They are coached by someone who has a PhD in Musical Arts in Voice. The junior piano accompanist has a Master's.

This is serious prep, OP. Your child should know what they are getting into. Whenever you're at a concert, read the musician bios. Stay informed, talk to people.
As for the genre question, if they want to branch out, sure. It's a minor detail compared to the work they will have to put in to achieve excellence in technique, expression, rhythm, music theory and overall music culture (buy them a history of classical music for Christmas).

NP
thank you for this. my 7 yo started piano recently and I am amazed at the lack of instruction in theory and solfeggio. i am an immigrant from Eastern Europe and these things were taken much more seriously. Apparently they don't plan to teach her any scales this year. I don't understand what kind of approach this is, it seems ridiculous.

[Anonymous]

NP. I’m curious what kids are playing in recitals who have been taking piano for five years. My 10yo DD is good at piano and takes it seriously, I thought, but I don’t know how she measures up against serious students. She certainly doesn’t practice for 1-3 hours a day, and she’s never done a competition (I guess her teacher isn’t into those?). She goes to school all day, has lessons of various kinds four days a week, wants to see friends occasionally, has homework some nights, and so on. Where is the two or three hours each day for practicing?

[Anonymous]

I think how much theory kids learn is dependent upon the specific teacher and program.

For pianists, theory is practically built into the nature of the instrument itself. Some basic piano method books have theory exercises as part of the books, as a result.

For Suzuki students, theory, music history (the great composers and their works etc.) and ear-training are often part of the group lesson.

But I agree that individual private instructors may not give students a good foundation in theory and ear-training. This is one of the things that the ABRSM / ACM exam systems do better.

However, I think it's ridiculous not to make a 7-year-old piano student play scales. Scales are foundational technique and most pianists do routine scales and chord progressions, even at the beginner level. I would really question the quality of a piano teacher that did not instruct a child to work on these fundamentals.

In terms of practice time: 30 minutes every day is about the minimum necessary to make not-a-waste-of-time progress on an instrument. To make decent progress, an hour a day is necessary. Serious students will be putting in 2 hours a day. Students aiming for a pre-professional path will practice 3 or 4 hours a day.

You get the time by making it a priority and being efficient with time -- and often by splitting up the practice time rather than doing it all at once. For instance, if you need 2 hours of time: 15 or 30 minutes before school, to run through scales and other exercises (muscles are most limber in the morning, and this can be a great way to wake up the brain and body, just like a morning run). Another 30 minutes immediately after getting back from school. And then an hour in the evening, snatched 15 minutes at a time if need be.

Basically, a 2-hour-a-day student is making the decision to focus on just one or two extracurriculars (with music as one of those), rather than a bunch of scattershot things -- i.e. not four lessons in four different things that all have to be worked on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think how much theory kids learn is dependent upon the specific teacher and program.

For pianists, theory is practically built into the nature of the instrument itself. Some basic piano method books have theory exercises as part of the books, as a result.

For Suzuki students, theory, music history (the great composers and their works etc.) and ear-training are often part of the group lesson.

But I agree that individual private instructors may not give students a good foundation in theory and ear-training. This is one of the things that the ABRSM / ACM exam systems do better.

However, I think it's ridiculous not to make a 7-year-old piano student play scales. Scales are foundational technique and most pianists do routine scales and chord progressions, even at the beginner level. I would really question the quality of a piano teacher that did not instruct a child to work on these fundamentals.

In terms of practice time: 30 minutes every day is about the minimum necessary to make not-a-waste-of-time progress on an instrument. To make decent progress, an hour a day is necessary. Serious students will be putting in 2 hours a day. Students aiming for a pre-professional path will practice 3 or 4 hours a day.

You get the time by making it a priority and being efficient with time -- and often by splitting up the practice time rather than doing it all at once. For instance, if you need 2 hours of time: 15 or 30 minutes before school, to run through scales and other exercises (muscles are most limber in the morning, and this can be a great way to wake up the brain and body, just like a morning run). Another 30 minutes immediately after getting back from school. And then an hour in the evening, snatched 15 minutes at a time if need be.

Basically, a 2-hour-a-day student is making the decision to focus on just one or two extracurriculars (with music as one of those), rather than a bunch of scattershot things -- i.e. not four lessons in four different things that all have to be worked on.

many good pints but no, theory is not built into the nature of piano. piano just makes the easier to understand theory which must taught unless you are a 1 in a million musical genius (and even then you need to learn relevant vocabulary).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think how much theory kids learn is dependent upon the specific teacher and program.

For pianists, theory is practically built into the nature of the instrument itself. Some basic piano method books have theory exercises as part of the books, as a result.

For Suzuki students, theory, music history (the great composers and their works etc.) and ear-training are often part of the group lesson.

But I agree that individual private instructors may not give students a good foundation in theory and ear-training. This is one of the things that the ABRSM / ACM exam systems do better.

However, I think it's ridiculous not to make a 7-year-old piano student play scales. Scales are foundational technique and most pianists do routine scales and chord progressions, even at the beginner level. I would really question the quality of a piano teacher that did not instruct a child to work on these fundamentals.

In terms of practice time: 30 minutes every day is about the minimum necessary to make not-a-waste-of-time progress on an instrument. To make decent progress, an hour a day is necessary. Serious students will be putting in 2 hours a day. Students aiming for a pre-professional path will practice 3 or 4 hours a day.

You get the time by making it a priority and being efficient with time -- and often by splitting up the practice time rather than doing it all at once. For instance, if you need 2 hours of time: 15 or 30 minutes before school, to run through scales and other exercises (muscles are most limber in the morning, and this can be a great way to wake up the brain and body, just like a morning run). Another 30 minutes immediately after getting back from school. And then an hour in the evening, snatched 15 minutes at a time if need be.

Basically, a 2-hour-a-day student is making the decision to focus on just one or two extracurriculars (with music as one of those), rather than a bunch of scattershot things -- i.e. not four lessons in four different things that all have to be worked on.

Are you a music teacher or a professional musician? Not being snarky, but I want to understand where you’re coming from.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think how much theory kids learn is dependent upon the specific teacher and program.

For pianists, theory is practically built into the nature of the instrument itself. Some basic piano method books have theory exercises as part of the books, as a result.

For Suzuki students, theory, music history (the great composers and their works etc.) and ear-training are often part of the group lesson.

But I agree that individual private instructors may not give students a good foundation in theory and ear-training. This is one of the things that the ABRSM / ACM exam systems do better.

However, I think it's ridiculous not to make a 7-year-old piano student play scales. Scales are foundational technique and most pianists do routine scales and chord progressions, even at the beginner level. I would really question the quality of a piano teacher that did not instruct a child to work on these fundamentals.

In terms of practice time: 30 minutes every day is about the minimum necessary to make not-a-waste-of-time progress on an instrument. To make decent progress, an hour a day is necessary. Serious students will be putting in 2 hours a day. Students aiming for a pre-professional path will practice 3 or 4 hours a day.

You get the time by making it a priority and being efficient with time -- and often by splitting up the practice time rather than doing it all at once. For instance, if you need 2 hours of time: 15 or 30 minutes before school, to run through scales and other exercises (muscles are most limber in the morning, and this can be a great way to wake up the brain and body, just like a morning run). Another 30 minutes immediately after getting back from school. And then an hour in the evening, snatched 15 minutes at a time if need be.

Basically, a 2-hour-a-day student is making the decision to focus on just one or two extracurriculars (with music as one of those), rather than a bunch of scattershot things -- i.e. not four lessons in four different things that all have to be worked on.

Are you a music teacher or a professional musician? Not being snarky, but I want to understand where you’re coming from.

NP. I’m not a music teacher, but I play 3 instruments and have been playing music since I was 5 (I’m 32). My sister went to Juilliard and has a PhD in musicology.

Anyway, I agree with everything PP is saying. Scales and chords are foundational. Everyone, from classical pianists to rock guitarists, need to know them. You’re doing a huge disservice by not making your kid practice scales.

I personally think every musician should know basic piano playing because it’s by far the best way to learn music theory that’s applicable to every Western musical instrument. Then people can pick other instruments, but piano should always be included.

[Anonymous]

PP 10:09 here, answering 13:13's question: I'm a professionally trained musician (including having taken Suzuki teacher training). But I chose another primary career (one that's far more lucrative). I still perform professionally, play for fun, and teach/coach on the side, though.

By the way, all serious musicians should learn to play the piano, even if it's not their primary instrument. In fact, at the college level, whether university or conservatory, music majors usually have to pass a basic piano proficiency exam (sometimes done in conjunction with the first year of music theory).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP 10:09 here, answering 13:13's question: I'm a professionally trained musician (including having taken Suzuki teacher training). But I chose another primary career (one that's far more lucrative). I still perform professionally, play for fun, and teach/coach on the side, though.

By the way, all serious musicians should learn to play the piano, even if it's not their primary instrument. In fact, at the college level, whether university or conservatory, music majors usually have to pass a basic piano proficiency exam (sometimes done in conjunction with the first year of music theory).

This is true, but doing secondary piano does not qualify someone to become a piano teacher. I have been in the DMV area for almost two decades now and it is quite shocking to see so many young students taking piano lessons from woodwind or even percussion major non-pianists who claim they have a "minor" in piano performance. There is so much involved from the start, from posture, to the way the fingers should work independently, to the way the wrist and shoulders should work. It's much more than repertoire/scales/genre of music. The teacher has to address these things and correct them from the very beginning during the lesson.
My neighbors/friends sometimes tell me to sit at their kids' piano lesson and the lesson is no more than the bare minimum of correcting the text. Just last month, a star student of a teacher with over 40 private students suddenly quit playing because her hands and arms were hurting after less than 10 minutes of playing. When resting and steroid injections did not help, her mom got in touch with me (I am not currently teaching piano) and wanted me to see what was going on. I could not believe when I saw her play. Everything has to be undone and if the only way for her to continue playing is to work on exercises only for at least 6 months. I asked the parents why they had chosen and stuck with this specific teacher for over 6 years. The answer was that she had a PHD in musicology, was able to teach all the woodwinds in addition to the piano, was very personable, looked and acted like a musician and rented expensive halls for the bi-annual student recitals ...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I’m curious what kids are playing in recitals who have been taking piano for five years. My 10yo DD is good at piano and takes it seriously, I thought, but I don’t know how she measures up against serious students. She certainly doesn’t practice for 1-3 hours a day, and she’s never done a competition (I guess her teacher isn’t into those?). She goes to school all day, has lessons of various kinds four days a week, wants to see friends occasionally, has homework some nights, and so on. Where is the two or three hours each day for practicing?

My 10 year old daughter has been taking piano for 3ish years. She practices 15-30 minutes a day and is pretty good (notwithstanding this minimal practice - PPs with 2-3 hours a day - WHOA!). At her recent recitals she has played Beautiful Blue Danube, Gypsy Rondo, Dorothy, Tarantelle - lots of pieces from the classic red book "My favorite solo album." However, we are now going to have her start playing more contemporary "fun" pieces (at least for a while). With classical piano . . . after mastering each piece, she would (of course) get assigned another beast of a piece and it was starting to become a real slog. She is not going to be a career musician by any stretch, and we are not a family that particularly enjoys/listens to classical music. My extended family has the open-mike/part-time band for fun/play in a high school band type musicians - and that is what I want her to be able to do if she chooses. So I had an epiphany - why slog through classical when she can (continue) to learn piano playing the things she likes to hear/sing/play. So far (a couple of months into this experiment) the teacher is going along with it . . . . Despacito, Havana, Stand by Me, Remember Me (Coco) . . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I took piano lessons from early childhood through early college, and still play. Personally, I think that if you have a good classical background, you don't really need to cover non-classical stuff in lessons because nearly any popular song you'd want to play would be easier than the harder classical stuff. Any kid with classical training could pick up the sheet music for Adele or John Legend and play it. Jazz/blues would be another matter- the rhythm is different - but it's a smaller genre, and your child could easily take Jazz piano in college. I agree that you'd want to be covering theory, but again, this could probably be done in college.

I agree with this poster.

My only other question is whether you can talk to the current teacher about diversifying a bit. I agree that it isn't worth working pop into your child's lesson unless it's for fun. They can probably already play anything they want to. But jazz would work out some different muscles. I think you should explore whether the current teacher can work that in. (I think this is what you were asking … should you switch teachers or not.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I took piano lessons from early childhood through early college, and still play. Personally, I think that if you have a good classical background, you don't really need to cover non-classical stuff in lessons because nearly any popular song you'd want to play would be easier than the harder classical stuff. Any kid with classical training could pick up the sheet music for Adele or John Legend and play it. Jazz/blues would be another matter- the rhythm is different - but it's a smaller genre, and your child could easily take Jazz piano in college. I agree that you'd want to be covering theory, but again, this could probably be done in college.

I agree with this poster.

My only other question is whether you can talk to the current teacher about diversifying a bit. I agree that it isn't worth working pop into your child's lesson unless it's for fun. They can probably already play anything they want to. But jazz would work out some different muscles. I think you should explore whether the current teacher can work that in. (I think this is what you were asking … should you switch teachers or not.)

NOT TRUE. This is not badminton vs. tennis vs. squash

By the way I am a classically trained concert pianist who can also improvise jazz and ragtime.

[Anonymous]

PP 11:09 is right. When I said "basic piano proficiency" (I'm the PP that 11:09 was replying to), I really meant "basic". That's roughly grade 3 to grade 5 piano at many universities. It's nowhere near enough to teach.

That said, quite a few music educators take classes that expose them to pretty much every orchestral instrument, piano, and voice, so that they can conduct chorus, band, and orchestra at a public school and give basic lessons in any of the instruments. Teaching those instruments well is an entirely separate matter.

Honestly, the playing skills of all teachers, regardless of whether the instrument being taught is their primary or secondary (or "exposure") instrument, vary wildly, as do their teaching skills.

Lots of kids get piano lessons for "exposure to music" rather than actual piano proficiency. Those parents want the experience of music, nice recital photos, and a teacher who is pleasant and easy to deal with. The results don't matter very much to them, especially if their kid is the 15-minutes-a-day-if-you're-lucky sort of practicer.

If your kid is serious about being good, get the best teacher you can afford.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP 11:09 is right. When I said "basic piano proficiency" (I'm the PP that 11:09 was replying to), I really meant "basic". That's roughly grade 3 to grade 5 piano at many universities. It's nowhere near enough to teach.

That said, quite a few music educators take classes that expose them to pretty much every orchestral instrument, piano, and voice, so that they can conduct chorus, band, and orchestra at a public school and give basic lessons in any of the instruments. Teaching those instruments well is an entirely separate matter.

Honestly, the playing skills of all teachers, regardless of whether the instrument being taught is their primary or secondary (or "exposure") instrument, vary wildly, as do their teaching skills.

Lots of kids get piano lessons for "exposure to music" rather than actual piano proficiency. Those parents want the experience of music, nice recital photos, and a teacher who is pleasant and easy to deal with. The results don't matter very much to them, especially if their kid is the 15-minutes-a-day-if-you're-lucky sort of practicer.

If your kid is serious about being good, get the best teacher you can afford.

NP here. I took 10 years of lessons and gave my senior recital, but I basically have no inherent musical ability *and* I was not very disciplined about practicing. Nonetheless I always learned my recital pieces well enough to play them cleanly. I have no idea why my parents kept paying for my lessons, but I can say that in retrospect the thing I value most about them was the music theory. My piano teacher was from Eastern Europe and started me off with pretty dense music theory...and she continued to expand on that throughout my education. My siblings both still sit down to the piano, but I really don't play anymore. Nonetheless I value the music theory which helps me understand and appreciate music as a listener. I'm really glad for the formal education.

[Anonymous]

Not a piano major, but majored in music education and ran my own studio for awhile. It sounds like you have a decent teacher if you are entering local competitions. I would talk to the twacher about the desire to branch out and see what their input is. I would also think about what a more intense/well-known teacher might get you. In middle school, when it became apparent that I was headed towards music as a profession, I switched to a well-known university professor for my lessons. She opened up doors for me that other teachers could not have. She had connections that got me going to master classes internationally. She provided advice for auditions that was tailored to the teachers at that school because she knew them. She knew which teachers were retiring (thus changing the studio and making me hesistant to apply to the school). I think it made a world of difference in my ultimate college selection and scholarship.

I also second attending an intensive summer music camp such as Interlochen. It gives you a taste of what living and breathing music (and competition) is 24-7. It also is fun to be around people who are passionate about music. It also provides opportunity to explore other opportunities such as jazz piano, composition, and accompanying.