Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Commercial Music Studio at Shopping Center and their boss

This sounds quite evil. But. The private teacher field, while containing credentialed, highly skilled professional teachers also contains a large number of the opposite.

It might actually be safer to go to the strip mall studio and be assured of mediocre rather than bad teaching? The studio teacher is probably more exposed to fellow musicians than a private individual who has never been observed teaching other than by his students.

If the business model works, eventually at least some of the strip mall studios might be able to recruit the top teachers.

Kevin, I read your site with interest. I did NOT go to the sections first that were pointed out, because that was out of context --- "who's the writer" comes first.

The first thing I wanted to see is what you represent as a teacher. I am learning about teaching, and I have experiences both as a parent of a now-adult child who went on into a top music program after being a late starter, and as an adult student some time after that. I have some definite thoughts because of those experiences.

What you write about teaching reveals someone who wants to give students the tools of musicianship. You are not promising instant success, and you're not pushing the "music study will help your kids get good grades in school" angle. So as someone who would take music lessons in order to play music well, that attracts me. In fact, when my child asked for music lessons, he expressed it as "I want to learn to do this well."

The name "Fresh Start" reflects very well what happens if someone has had careless teaching for several years, is in a rut, and has to start from scratch so that they finally have a leg to stand on. It's a really good name.

Your ideas are comprehensible to people who know about music studies, and one gets that you know what you are talking about and have a lot to offer. But it is rambly. Well, how does a private teacher teach? He is in the presence of the student and what the student does, carrying his own knowledge, and the lesson unfolds from that. This mindset does not transfer well to paper, where a specific picture gets locked into words. This part may need some fleshing out.

No problem with italics at my end.

About "talent" - I believe that talent is potential, some innate thing, which requires (good) guidance and (good) study, to realize its potential. It also has its own advantages AND disadvantages. Tiger Woods may have shown "something special" but then he was also guided, and worked at it. Didn't he respond similar to some musician who said, "Madam, you too can become great like me. All you have to do is sit down at the piano and work diligently 8 hours a day for the next 20 years." (Beethoven?)

The type of institution that caters to a mentality and is in visible places: many of us have encountered them. It's a difficult, diplomacy-ridden thing to address.

There is a flaw in logic, or in assumptions somewhere in there.

You seem to be thinking that the fact of an institution will prevent poor teaching from being quite as poor, because of some influence the institution has on the teacher. I don't think that teachers observe other teachers, and I don't think that all owners of these ventures know about music - it's a business venture. If there is any kind of pressure on teachers, then it's from a business angle, such as:

- sell the place's books, and use only those books, regardless of what is best suited for the student
- compete on the basis of going through grades as fast as possible because that is what impresses the unwashed masses

I'm sure there are others. Both my/my child's first teacher and our accompanist began as refugees beginning in such a place, and both managed to found their own studios after a couple of years. The "school" had these cutesy monthly newsletters, sounding "educational" with some bit of wisdom, like to bow to the audience before performing. The recital we attended clearly showed the agenda. The students were playing impressive fireworks kinds of pieces, did not show that they had any kind of good grounding. The general impression was that they were zipping through the grades to impress parents with how "fast" they could go, and the fireworks gave more bragging rights. In contrast, our teacher and the accompanist who was also a piano teacher, had more simple pieces that were played well, and were well prepared. As I got to know these teachers better, I learned that the pressure was to go fast, impress, and teach as many students as possible back to back.

Conclusion from that experience: not only did this institution NOT cause mediocre teachers to teach better, it also undermined attempts to teach well.

Thinking is too strong a word. Hoping is probably closer! And the hope is that teaching more publicly might (but only might) result in more accountability than the highly individualistic completely private teaching that is more common.



In this case perhaps your logic is wrong. Didn't those teachers produce exactly what their employer desired? You and I would make different choices for what should be taught. We wouldn't focus on flashy fireworks. But in the example you gave, the requirement was flashy fireworks, and the teachers succeeded. They were skillful at producing the wrong things, and if led by a different boss might be skillful at producing the right things.

Contrast that to a poor private teacher, who can produce neither flashy fireworks nor sound fundamentals. They wouldn't last in the commercial studio.

But again, it's just a hope; not claiming it actually works that way anywhere.

You serious?

This is not just an Irvine problem. It's a problem in other parts of the world as well. As far as I know, similar things are going on in China.

You basically have an owner, maybe an investor, with some money and opens up a "music school." Then, he hires a bunch of contractors as "teachers." He then goes on to recruit clients, however aggressively or menacingly, with little or no regards to ethics.

In order to stay in business, the owner has to take a cut of the tuition. This cut can be as small as 33% and as high as 75%. Meanwhile, most of the studios in the location are tiny, with horrible sound leak and poorly-maintained instruments. Other tactics (such as hiring teachers in need of a work visa, various non-compete clauses) can be used to stay in business.

It is a business, after all, and not an institution of learning. I'm just describing a vague tip of the iceberg, but suffice it to say that the livelihood of many private teachers is at stake here.

I am with Malkin

Good ANZ

As my students are growing, my landlord ask me why not to expand? He wanted me to branch out and rent more rooms from him. I simply tell him that I can't afford the rent of another room. He said: Just hire another teacher to teach for you! (You are right, this is the businessman talking here, my landlord) I tell him that I am sure I am a good teacher, but I am not sure I am a good businessman.

I am just simply do not have time to supervise another teacher making sure that he is providing the same quality of service as I am.

The purpose of lessons is to TEACH SKILLS in doing MUSIC. No, they did NOT succeed. At that time I had never had lessons and my child had only ad lessons for 3 months so I didn't know anything yet. Nonetheless, I could hear clearly that the playing was "fast and sloppy and uncontrolled" in many of the cases. Their foundations were ruined and some future teacher would have to fix a mess! Which, btw, is what Kevin's article was about.

You're also forgetting your own point, which I was addressing, namely that the influence of the schools would cause poor teachers to improve their teaching. But this pressures good teachers to lower their standards, and it misleads beginner teachers in regards to what teaching and priorities actually are - worsening the situation all round.

They were also not "skilful". They were muddling through.

[quote=keystring
You're also forgetting your own point, which I was addressing, namely that the influence of the schools would cause poor teachers to improve their teaching. [/quote]

Or be weeded out, which is more likely.

But for new teachers to learn their craft faster and more thoroughly, by being in a group setting with access to fellow professionals, and observation by the boss, whose long term profit depended on hiring and keeping talent.

You've convinced me your example was a failure. And I know of others. My brother signed a contract to teach at a similar music school, without reading the fine print, then couldn't get disentangled when it turned out bad. He was at the time a professional working jazz musician and could have been an asset to a real school, but it turned out to be a quick bucks scheme.

Don't you think there's a potential for these academies to work, if done right? Must piano teaching be a solitary profession, hidden away in basements in our neighborhoods?

No, but the person in charge must have good ethics. That has been the greater problem.

yes...I'm starting to see that the problem is the fact that it is on my own studio website, making it easy for people to conclude that I'm just trying to trash a competing business. It also doesn't help that people here don't know me personally.

Let's see if I can try and clear this up. You're thinking of one definition of the word "commercial", for profit. I think in this case commercial is more for the commercialization of music instruction, where the main focus turns away from education and focuses on profit. Not only that, but also the focus on getting a large number of students, for better or worse.

I think these three definitions of commercial is what's implied here:

1. Of, relating to, or being goods, often unrefined, produced and distributed in large quantities for use by industry
2. being of an average or inferior quality <show-quality versus commercial cattle>
3. producing artistic work of low standards for quick market success

Cameron Tong runs a studio much like the second business model you worked for, in fact I'd say all the commercial music studios in Irvine are run as such. It's not named specifically because there's also another discussion here about commercial music studios in general, not just his.

Also, my review of Cameron Tong wasn't for his commercial music studio overall, there are decent teachers there for sure, it was for his personal lack of integrity as a business owner.

Hope this helps!

Now I understand. I thought you just trash him because he is your competitor, and I am afraid too, that is why I mentioned in the previous post that, hey, I am in Irvine too, but I do not view you as competitor.

..

Let's give this little Irvine, California teacher feud a rest. It's unseemly, and not in keeping with the goals of PW. Or else let's encourage Cameron Tong - whom we only know through the lens of his rival and former employee - to describe the merits of his school, which I read now has some 200 students.

A third choice is to broaden this discussion to embrace the structures of all small multi-teacher piano schools.

You seem to have missed quite a bit of content on this topic since your last post.

First, if you read the other responses here you would know that there is nothing "little" about this topic and that it's not just about a "feud" between two teachers but a whole discussion about commercial music studios in general.

Secondly, about Cameron Tong, it wasn't about the merits of his school; as I've pointed out already, there are great teachers there, it's about his dishonest business practices. Also, I would take the 200 students statement with a grain of salt having worked there myself and knowing that other "facts" in the article contain lies that another reviewer-not myself-pointed out on google reviews. Plus, if you read the other posts here about how commercial music studios around here lobby for students you would know that having some 200 hundred students merits nothing if only the marketing and lobbying tactics used.

I think the discussion on commercial music studios is a very real and worthwhile topic on piano world as it affects many private piano teachers.

I'm getting curious - what are these "dishonest business practices" people keep talking about?

Here are some quick examples:

1) Stealing students who are currently studying with another teacher or at another "music school"; this could be done in the form of offering sibling discounts and referral fees, even if the new client is already studying with another teacher!

2) Brainwashing parents by providing false information, including incorrect information on how to play piano

3) Bad-mouthing other teachers and music schools

4) Exploiting teachers who need work visas to stay in the US; exploiting younger teachers who don't have their own studio and/or teachers who can't teach out of their apartments

5) Signing up students for exams and competitions under a different teacher's name (In California, this is a serious problem, because administering CM test relies on teacher volunteers and hundreds of hours of manpower; some schools pay the MTAC teachers money to do the extra volunteer work, and then pass on the fees to the parents!!); also, the teachers can cheat on membership fees and/or bypass the requirement of proper qualifications, such as not having a college degree in music

6) Switching the students' teachers often, without prior notice to the parents, and sometimes without notifying the current teacher; this happens to both the worst students and the most talented ones

7) Making false and exaggerated promises, such as skipping exam levels and winning competitions

Kevin tried working for a commercial music school, and it didn't suit him. Now he is teaching in his own studio, at a higher hourly wage but of course with many other hidden costs.

Either way it's tough trying to support oneself teaching piano. I wish him good fortune. (I, too, like the name Fresh Start.)