I've been online, examining what is there, and I realize that I need to comment on the vast array of free lessons, videos, paid services, etc. designed for the Internet user. From this understanding, I have become aware that I've NEVER commented on the usefulness of any methodologies for learning the piano, despite having written two books and kept this weekly blog for the past few years. It's high time I did, from my perspective as a teacher of adult learners, an author, and a professional performer with several decades of real-world experience. Thus, this essay, which may prove controversial, since it will, likely, step on some toes. Note that I'm not naming names - if you want names (or my take on specific methods) email me separately.
Let me start this essay by saying that I am a disciple of what works. Theories of education, methodologies followed blindly, elaborate systems of study, mean little or nothing to me except as they accomplish goals. Additionally, any accomplishment should be real, not just in mind, and efforts to improve the system or method should be in the direction of getting goals accomplished more efficiently. "Goals" are the crux of the matter, and because they are, to determine "workability" you would first have to both state those goals clearly AND name WHOSE goals are we interested in making into reality. After 22 YEARS of asking adult piano students what their goals are and then working with those adults to make sure those goals do become a reality, I feel about 100% certain in stating succinctly THE goal of adult piano learners:
To enjoy playing on the piano music each adult enjoys.
DUH, you say, no surprise there. You would be wrong. The vast majority of the piano teaching world seems to revolve around the idea of teaching the student to enjoy the music that the piano teacher enjoys. Don't believe me? Do the same survey online I've just completed and see what conclusions you come to. Then simply ask 10 of your friends who had piano lessons as children why they quit.
The reason for this strangeness is children and the fact that the piano teaching world is still wrapped up in teaching the piano to children. Why would this be a problem for the adult who wants piano skill?
Consider for a minute this idea of teaching the child to enjoy the music the teacher presents. It makes sense in the case of the child. Children are almost always musically UNaware. Thus, the job of the piano instructor is much, much more than simply teaching how to play the piano. Instructors must teach the subject of MUSIC at the same time as teach the "instrument training" necessary to play it. The adult student needs no education in music. Adult piano learners have been listening carefully to music and enjoying its details and nuances all their lives. Now, what they wish to do is learn how to replicate the music they love on the piano and not spend a lifetime (that they no longer have) learning to do it. THIS is the source of workability in piano systems and methods - or the lack of it - for the adult piano student. Teaching an adult as if he/she were a child is not only unnecessary, it seldom works.
So what does NOT work? There seem to be two non-working approaches being presented at the moment. One system is too hard, takes too long, and often doesn't lead to the music the adult wishes to play. The other method represents an over-reaction to the first and promises everything with virtually no effort (except to pay the "teacher.") Somewhere in the middle is a "sweet spot" where proper effort pays off big for the adult learner. This is the spot I (and my students) believe I hit and which I have been describing in this Blog for the last few years.
The first, the harder system, is based, as I've said, on the teaching of children and in many cases is appropriate to them but not to adults. I got my first inkling of this right at the start of my career. I was teaching in a music store at the time and did some counter work when I didn't have students. One night a gentleman came in to look for adult oriented sheet music. He was an MD, a surgeon, from one of our best local hospitals. He had just come from his first piano lesson and was rather upset. His teacher had given him his first piano book. It was entitled "Teaching Little Fingers to Play." You can just imagine his reaction!
During the next two decades, I've heard countless similar stories from adults. I recall a few which stand out as examples:
- The retired lady who wanted to play gospel music. She took six months of lessons from a relative who gave her nothing but scale work. No gospel.
- The businessman who also got six months of scales before quitting and coming to me. In a few years, he was playing Billy Joel at the Billy Joel level, one of the best students I've ever had.
- The doctor who had years of formal classical training yet had never written a song, never learned to use chords, never arranged a pop piece. Yet, very soon, she was doing all of the above and in a variety of styles. A very competent pianist who confided that she had never even thought she could do these things, but was happily surprised that she could.
I have heard literally hundreds of stories of failures brought on by stuffy, stodgy, teaching systems, utilized by people who are not particularly creative themselves, and utterly unable to inspire even children. Perhaps you, yourself, had such a teacher. If so, it's no wonder you have doubts and reservations about your own abilities.
The final proof I have to offer you of the abject failure of this "system" ("philosophy" or whatever you wish to call it) is the lack of players in this society. Yes, technological advances have made it easier and easier to simply be a consumer of music. However, the desire to be a producer remains as high as ever. Why aren't there more music makers? I believe the answer is that becoming a producer has been made way too difficult, thus discouraging even children from doing what comes naturally. And why? Simply put, the core of the system is a fixation on the teaching of classical music at a professional level, something almost no one really either wants or can achieve. Enough failure and the average person decides playing the piano is not for them.
For confirmation, I turn to one of the great masters, the composer Robert Schumann who said one of the wisest things I've ever heard, "Strive to play easy pieces well and beautifully. It is better than to render difficult pieces only indifferently well." Such a goal is completely in accord with the goal of almost all adult students and can be achieved by almost all of them without devoting most of one's time and efforts to the piano. In other words, even with classical music, you might not be able to succeed at Beethoven's sonatas but you certainly can learn "Fur Elise" - that is, unless your instructor gives you the impression that such a thing is not worth doing.
Which brings us to the pendulum swing now in vogue, which is also NON workable. That approach is to offer every skill and enjoyment that frustrated piano student wants with little to no effort. You can find this all over the Internet these days, with "teachers" making ridiculous claims about their successes at teaching thousands with their "revolutionary" new methods. This method is false and results in failure. I'd like to describe why so those who have hopefully taken up these "new" approaches and still been unable to learn are encouraged that they were not to blame for their troubles. As these "new" approaches form the new thing, I'd like to deconstruct them extensively. As boring as the "Child/Classical" teaching approach is, at least it works if continued. This "new" approach doesn't even do that. Let me tell you why.
First, how "new" is this? Consider these quotes, taken from my extensive collection of sheet music, with punctuation from the original source:
"Shows how to supply a full, "swing" bass to ANY piece of piano music, thus enabling ANYONE to play at sight ALL the latest Popular Songs in professional style"
"Every lesson follows in order, teaches you "How to Play" in the shortest possible time the most modern arrangements of popular songs. You will learn in a short time how to improvise, harmonize, fill-in, to do breaks, runs, blues, etc in the same manner as is generally employed by the best modern professional orchestras or radio artists today."
"...is a marvel in the field of instruction...no other book like it. It's the greatest contribution to the advancement of modern piano playing ever published."
Wow. And double wow. You'd think with all these advancements that everybody who wanted to play piano would now play. But...here are the dates on these claims, in the same order as the claims: 1913, 1932, 1936. I rest my case. No revolution occurred for some strange reason. So much for both "newness" and the validity of these past approaches.
Another claim is that you (yes, YOU!!!!!) will be able to do anything a professional pianist can do, easily, in almost no real time. I love this claim, as it's so smug and smarmy. In addition to being highly insulting to professional pianists who apparently missed out and foolishly worked like dogs to perfect their craft, this "something for nothing" pitch insults YOU, and assumes you are immature enough to think it just might work. What's next? Brain surgery for dummies? Rocket science for rest of us? C'mon.
In my 22 years of professional teaching, I've taught over 2,000 adults and I have to tell you that the majority were VERY smart, VERY talented people. Doctors, engineers, scientists, accountants, more than half of my students were professional people. Many were business owners who frankly could have bought and sold me, my home, everything I owned many times over before dinner, some out of their petty cash drawer. Capable people. THEY could not learn these "trade secrets of the pros" overnight. So, unless you are the best pianist since Mozart you will have to take more than a few weeks to get good. And the chance you will get as good as someone who has devoted their whole live to the subject is almost non-existent. Sorry, but I couldn't learn YOUR profession overnight, could I, even if I wanted to - plus, you'd always be ahead of me, a late starter.
Besides, that's not really even your goal, is it? Plus, as a sensible adult, you plan on spending some time at the effort. Also, isn't the action of learning part of what makes it interesting and keeps your mind and body sharp?
There's more to decry, but this essay is running way too long as it is and I've made enough points - except for one: playing by ear.
There's more and more of this out there on the Internet. Learn to play by ear. Don't bother learning to read music. Translation: being illiterate is a GOOD thing. Being UNable to communicate via written symbols will somehow make your musical life better. Put that way, you can see how silly the claim is. Yeah, having a good music ear is a good thing. I have one and I value it and use it as necessary. But I ALSO can get the information I need via the written symbol. I have multiple ways of learning what I need to learn. I can tell you that, properly taught, reading music is no big deal to either adults or children. Improperly taught it is a nightmare and if improper teaching has happened to you, no wonder you are looking for a way around that barrier.
The bottom line, then, is this: your goals are just fine and can be achieved, but it will take some work done effectively and for a period of time. There is no free lunch, but you won't have to spend every waking hour to learn lunch, either. There is a middle ground and that's what were are all about here.