By |

Guest post by Dr Michael Low

This is, in part, a response to the article Should there be minimum qualifications for piano teachers.

Before I discuss some of the points made in that article, I would like to clarify the following:

● The intention of my response is not to point fingers as to who or what is right or wrong. All of us are entitled to our own opinion and the purpose of this article is to provide an alternate viewpoint.

● All of us are unique individuals, what works for one person (musically and otherwise) might not necessarily resonate with another. In an ideal world, we will learn to respect someone else’s opinion without the need to resort to some form of online slur of abuse. However, the world we live in is far from ideal.

● Everything in the article is based on my own experience as a human being, educator, musician and a pianist.

I must applaud the author of the article for being so articulate and standing up for what she believes in. The music industry and the world of piano teaching will always be indebted to teachers with Lorraine’s passion.

I agree that some form of panel or administrative board (notice I stopped short of calling them ‘third-party’ interlopers) might be useful not only to regulate the quality of piano teachers, but also to provide general information and guideline to aspiring piano teachers as to what good teaching might be. Ultimately, this does not guarantee that everyone who is examined and passed by the board will end up as good teachers (as Lorraine rightly pointed out later in her article). It is all very well being able to convince a panel of examiners or judges that you have the credentials to be a good teacher, but applying what you have studied in real life is an artform in itself, and one which takes a lifetime to perfect. I also see the benefit of CPD (Continuous Professional Development) for piano teachers, but I must admit that the best teachers that I know have often been musically curious (in a healthy way) and always considered themselves as students of the arts. In general, it is my opinion that being a good teacher has less to do with the qualification and more to do with being a relatable human being, as teaching is the transference of knowledge from one individual to another (and very often from one generation to another). Ultimately, teaching is a spiritual exercise which requires patience, empathy, integrity, dedication, and sometimes even humour – in short, all the qualities that make one a honourable human being. Though it may sound obvious, we often take it for granted that some form of qualification is the minimum requirement for all professions. Bad teaching is often attributed to teachers having little, or at times no qualifications or formal training, whereas an excellent student is often the product of certain highly qualified individuals.

While Lorraine asserts that, in her experience, the majority of poor students have been taught by unqualified teachers, I would like to suggest that there are many other reasons why a piano student might not have as solid of a musical foundation as one would like, some of which I will try and address below.

Firstly, no teacher is ever entire responsible for how a student develops, as I strongly believe that there also has to be a sense of accountability on the student’s part. As much as I enjoy the 1984 film Karate Kid, I have come to find Mr Miyagi’s famous line ‘No such thing [as a] bad student, only [a] bad teacher’ a little simplistic. This is because I pay all of my students the compliment of being responsible for their own decisions (musical or otherwise). Take a common musical occurrence: if (for whatever reason) you left your sheet music at home instead of bringing it to your lesson, then it is no fault of your parents. And if we are preparing for an external exam or performance, there will be musical consequences should you choose not to practise your scales and technical work properly. A teacher can do their best to help, facilitate, teach, even go as far as practicing with a student, but at the end of the day we cannot play for them. I recall meeting an excellent Singaporean piano teacher during my travels who told me that she was ‘embarrassed beyond words’ because one of her students had taken a rather spontaneous opportunity to play for a very famous piano teacher when she was on holiday in China. I might have read the situation incorrectly, but in this instance the teacher clearly felt that all her students are a reflection of her teaching and personal credentials. When I reassured this teacher that she is not ultimately responsible for everything her student plays, and given the circumstances it was very understandable, she looked at me as though I was speaking Wookie! As excellent as some piano teachers are, I sometimes wonder if their dedication and commitment (particularly in Asia) have more to do with the preservation of their own self-image and reputation. This makes sense from a business point of view, especially when you are making a living in a results-driven culture.

Secondly, I believe that the gaps in all our musical development often have more to do with the lack of interest (or even laziness) on the student’s part rather than lack of effort by the teacher. A sweeping statement perhaps, but I count my lucky piano stars that I was fortunate to have studied with some of the most sought-after piano teachers in the business. As different as all my teachers were, they were unanimous in believing that unless I studied more Bach and work on my sight-reading, I would never reach the musical heights of my fantasies. I sometimes wonder if things would have turned out differently if I had at that stage come across Maria Tipo’s recording of Bach’s Goldberg Variations or Grigory Sokolov’s performances of Rameau and Couperin … Unfortunately, I was young, hot-headed, and lacked any sort of emotional or musical patience. Why play contrapuntal music when I aspire to perform works with eight-note chords on every single beat of the bar? What I failed to notice was that contrapuntal musical lines exist within almost all chordal textures. And who needed sight-reading when I was able to learn new repertoire just as quickly through obsessive practising? I was wrong of course, and it was only years later when I become a teacher that I started addressing these musical gaps. To this day, I have never felt that the talented but wildly undisciplined Michael Low of twenty years ago was a reflection of any of my teachers.

Ultimately, it is up to the student what they want to get out of their piano lessons. As a teacher, would you turn down the lucrative proposition if a potential client offers to double or even triple your fees, only to let you know that they have absolutely no interest in learning how to read music notation? The same client’s ultimate aim is to play a few soundtracks from iconic Hollywood movies or well-known pop songs when hosting elaborate dinner parties. As a teacher, do you take on such a student in the hope that, while this is far from a ‘proper’ or ‘ideal’ way of teaching the piano, maybe the student will change their mind somewhere down the line and recognise the importance of reading music notation? Such an occurrence might be rare, but it is not entirely impossible, and I have experienced it. Or do you simply refuse to entertain such profanity? The situation becomes even more complicated when there is a new teacher trying to build their reputation. Does the new teacher turn down this very profitable musical venture and run the risk of losing out on future clients of the same social status? I cannot speak for everyone else, but when I started teaching I took on anyone who wanted to learn how to play the piano, partly for financial reasons, but most of all because I believe that I have to work hard in forging my musical reputation. I did everything (within reason) to assist my students when it comes to note-learning, even to the extent of spoon-feeding them. Looking back, I probably should have considered a less strenuous methodology when it comes to reading musical notation, but that was an important part of my journey as a music educator, and I certainly do not think any less of myself for the musical decisions that I have taken.

Photo by Juan Pablo Serrano Arenas on Pexels.com

The Piano Teacher’s Musical Blanket

Imagine going to bed with a blanket long enough only to cover three quarters of your body. If your pull the blanket over your chest, then your feet will be exposed; and when you cover the lower part of your body, your chest will be cold. Any student and piano teacher worth their musical salt will tell you that managing time is one of the most challenging factors during weekly lessons. In other words, one can never have enough of it. If you spend all your lesson working on technical studies and repertoire, you run the risk of neglecting other aspects of the student’s musical development such as sight-reading and aural. By spending a substantial time on the latter, you will find it hard to delve into the details and the emotional subtleties of musical interpretation. And because of this, I would argue that there will inevitably be gaps in any student’s musical and pianistic developments. It is very difficult for any teacher to address all the musical weaknesses in a student. Sometimes the teacher just isn’t experienced enough, but most of the time this is a logistical issue. By the same token, most teachers are not so bad that they cannot address any of the more glaring issues in a student’s playing.

I have never been keen to give my new students a ‘check list’ of things we need to do to improve their playing as I find that in doing so only creates tension and bad feelings especially when the student (for whatever reasons) feels attached and loyal to their previous teacher – I am speaking from experience as I have been on the receiving end of such a treatment during my student days. Rather find out what was done and what hasn’t been done so well and build on this. Just like any musical performance, if you look hard enough, you will always be able to find interpretive discrepancies. It is up to the individual how they move forward from here.

Again, this may be another unpopular opinion, but studying with highly qualified or sought-after teachers doesn’t necessarily mean that you will have all your musical and pianistic questions answered. This might sound like a simplistic statement, but highly qualified (and famous) teachers often have the musical gravitas to attract more advanced students. This of course makes complete sense – you are not going to study with one of the professors who teaches in a music conservatoire if you are just interested in playing Grade 3 level (nothing wrong with that of course, as all musical and pianistic goals are personal), and, conversely, you don’t seek help from a primary school piano teacher if you are studying the entire Liszt Transcendental Etudes (again, this is a generalisation – and perhaps a little tongue-in-cheek – because I have come across excellent piano teachers who have yet to have the opportunity to showcase their teaching credential at a tertiary institute). The dilemma lies at the highest level of teaching, where prestigious music schools are more interested in having famous performers than actual teachers on their teaching roster. I knew of a brilliant young pianist who won a scholarship to study with one of the twentieth century’s most prolific pianists in London, only to have a handful of lessons due to his teacher’s own personal commitments. And I am sure all of us are familiar with the story of Martha Argerich, who recalled only having four lessons (in eighteen months) when studying with Arturo Benedetti Michelangeli. Michelangeli asserted that he taught Argerich ‘in silence, and away from the piano.’

I would like to leave you with the following scene from John Avildsen’s 1984 film The Karate Kid. I am sure many of you are just as familiar with the movie’s plotline as I am: the teenage Daniel LaRusso and his mother Lucille move to Los Angeles and live in the same apartment block as the Japanese immigrant Mr Miyagi, who accepts Daniel as a karate student when he becomes the victim of bullying. What follows is a mentor/student relationship that encompasses not only, karate but life itself, as in the following exchange:

Miyagi (to Daniel): You remember lesson about balance?

Daniel (nods somewhat hesitantly): Yeah.

Miyagi: Lesson not just karate only. Lesson for whole life. Whole life have a balance, everything be better. Understand?

As piano teachers, it is our duty to teach our students the mechanics of how to play the instrument along with the basic of music such as rhythm, note-reading, musical notation, as well as interpretation and music appreciation. However, as much as we want all our students to succeed and become international prize-winners, it is worth remembering that, ultimately, every student is different and some are more interested than others. At the end of the day, it is not the teacher who does the playing or performing in practical exams. Just as it is left to Daniel LaRusso to find the balance in his life that ultimately propels him to become the karate champion, our students will ultimately have to walk through the musical door that we open for them, and that will be enough.

Michael Low, March 2023

Listen to Michael Low’s podcast with The Cross-Eyed Pianist

By |

Guest post by Lorraine Augustine

I am aware that this is a very contentious issue/question for many; however it is something I personally feel very strongly about and believe that it should be addressed and discussed widely within the profession.

To that effect, in preparation for my article, I posed the question on an online piano forum as to whether or not piano teachers ought to have achieved a minimum level of piano specific qualifications in teaching and/or performance before setting themselves up as piano teachers, and whether or not the profession should be regulated to ensure that teachers do have the minimum piano specific qualifications. 

The post drew some pretty strong reactions, and I must admit I was very surprised at the number of piano teachers who strongly disagreed with me. However, there were many who strongly agreed, one of whom is eminent concert pianist and Professor of Piano, Karl Lutchmayer, who has kindly agreed to share his thoughts and views for this article below: 

 “Would you send your child to a ‘paediatrician’ who only had an A level in biology? Of course not, and neither would you be able to because it is a regulated profession. Yet, anyone can set up as a private music teacher. As such, every year, professionally qualified music teachers take on students who have been poorly taught and have to put them through the utterly disappointing process of unlearning bad teaching. This may turn the student off music entirely, and occasionally, particularly at higher levels of study, the student has endured long-term psychological or physically damaged that will seriously undermine their future learning. Yet, as long as the first teacher has done nothing illegal there is no way to prevent them doing the same to hundreds of other students.

Such a situation would be intolerable in other forms of teaching. Various commentators point out that there are bad qualified teachers. This is certainly true, and only means that regulation should set the bar higher, particularly with CPD, than it is at the moment, it is not a reason to avoid regulation. Others point out the cost for teachers, but such regulation is required, for instance, for osteopaths who bear the cost as part of their costs. Would you really want osteopathy without regulation? If we are going to accept that bad teaching can cause both psychological and physical damage, then the lack of the requirement for a regulatory body is not only bizarre, it is a derogation of our duty of care as professionals educators..”

I wholeheartedly agree with Karl. Like many piano teachers I regularly inherit transfer students from other teachers, and whilst many have been well taught, and have strong foundations on which to build, at least an equal number have not. The majority of those students who come to me with poor technique, notes written in the score, no idea about phrasing, articulation, tone production, balance and voicing etc, have been taught by unqualified teachers. By this I mean people who have set themselves up as a teacher with a very minimum level of skills themselves, perhaps a playing level of below even grade 5 standard, and very little understanding of the instrument and its repertoire, nor of pedagogy or andragogy.

Sadly, many of these students will not have realised that their teacher does not have the necessary skills required in order to help them build the strong foundations they will need to be able to play the piano well, and by the time they transfer to a teacher who does they are already frustrated at not being able to play the repertoire which they are learning as they lack the technical and musical skills to do so, unfortunately many find the task of rebuilding those foundations too daunting and will give up. I find that incredibly sad as they will have started out with enthusiasm and joy for the piano.

To add to my concerns, I frequently see job advertisements stating ‘piano teachers required, no qualifications or experience necessary’ this is a very worrying situation and not only will lead to more poor teaching and the increased risk of physical injuries due to poor technique, but it seriously undermines our profession.

Every interview I have ever attended has required me to perform and to teach to a panel of highly qualified professionals, followed by rigorous questions on technique, repertoire, my entire teaching ethos and also questions on child protection/ safeguarding issues. This is in addition to evidencing my qualifications and experience, so for me this is answers the argument that others are raising about qualifications not guaranteeing good teaching, they don’t always, but evidencing them in some way, and a requirement to undergo CPD goes a long way towards doing so.

As Karl mentions, other professions require qualifications and have a system of ensuring that standards are upheld. For example, I have recently completed a Coaching course at Guildhall School of Music and Drama where I teach piano, the course is not specific to piano but I have a great interest in studying and in a wide range different educational approaches so I decided to delve deeper into the coaching approach. On completion of this course I received a certificate from GSMD, but to gain the Foundation level qualification I must now complete another 20 hours of coaching which I must record and send for assessment, then this will be submitted to the EMCC for accreditation, if I did not pass then I would need to complete further training and resubmit an application to gain my qualification. This qualification still does not mean that I would be a qualified Coach, the ‘coaching’ which I have experience of within my teaching does not count at all for this qualification, I must evidence that I am competent in order to call myself a Coach. This first course is just a start, I must then complete another course and another 100 hours of (non paid) coaching practice before I can give myself the title of coach. Do I think this is wrong or unfair, no absolutely not and I believe that a similar system would work well for piano teachers.

Another example is that I sing and have done so all my life – from madrigal groups to London theatre choirs and bands; I have been in many professional shows within these choirs but I would never attempt to teach singing lessons. I know how to use my own voice but I do not have the first clue of how to teach someone else to use theirs so it would be morally and professionally wrong of me to try and do so.

There are other professional issues which are really important to consider, one of which is that without professional status it would be more difficult to obtain public liability insurance and the enhanced DBS certificate along with the necessary child protection/safeguarding training that one should have if teaching children one to one in private practice. It will also not be possible to belong to a professional body such as the ISM as a professional member with private teacher status.

Finally, unfortunately because anyone can set themselves up as a piano teacher, it does lead to us being seen as having a lovely ‘hobby job.’ There is much discussion in the press and within music education in general of how music continues to be downgraded, how it is seen as unimportant and more as an add on hobby than a serious subject. By continuing to allow this situation of unqualified piano teachers setting up to continue are we not perpetuating this school of thought?

I am proud of my career and my hard-earned qualifications, I continue to study not only because I am passionate the piano and my lifelong journey with it as a player and teacher, but because I strongly believe that we owe it to our students to offer the very best teaching we can give them because the students, the music and the piano deserve no less.

This article first appeared on Lorraine Augustine’s blog

Lorraine Augustine is a Pianist, teacher and adjudicator based in Bedfordshire, with over 40 years’ experience of teaching and performing she teaches piano at the Guildhall School of Music and Drama in London and runs a busy private practice in Bedfordshire.

www.lorraine-augustinepiano.com