Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Self taught piano player teaching non traditional methods due to need...

You posted while I was writing, Pete... so I want to clarify that my comment about Pianitis offering entertainment vs. empowerment is restricted to Pianitis's teaching approach as he describes it, and I am not implying here that all pop-based approaches are superficial or provide merely "leisure value." As you argue very persuasively, that is not at all necessarily the case.

It's sound 'well'.

Pete the bean,

I love pop and all styles, I teach social music before classical starts. Classical is presented in small snatches during lessons over a year or two before we get to doing serious classical study.

You are assuming that classical teachers are stick in the mud elitist and purist and the grand piano and the performance stage is the goal for my students.

My goal is that they are a capable musician to the extent that they want to travel the path.

Don't lay down, stand up, it's OK. I don't mind controversy and difference of opinions. Exchanging of ideas is always good. In the end, I will learn more about Pianitis and his method - it may be a remarkable godsend - however, I don't think it's enough to offer.

In hearing his audio, his voice, lyrics, and sound, rhythm are good - he must have incredible natural talents - because one does not acquire enough skill from 6 months of piano lessons to approach music like that and to sound like that.

He sounds professional, actually.

Pete the bean, I'm sure your lessons represent you, as does Pianitis. Mine represent me. In this way we are different. Many, many teachers far surpass me in performance ability, but in teaching, I've gotten to a highly proficient level. And, I think everyone should aspire to their own highest level of achievement.

"Education is more than preparation for life, it's life itself" by John Dewey.

Modify that to say "Music education is more than preparation for life, it's life itself." (Modified by Betty Patnude)

Betty

Pianitis:
In fact, I disagree. Perhaps you should reread your own posts. "Snobiness" does not only go one-way...

Again, this post will probably be ignored but meh...

If you really think that playing classical music is nothing but imitation than you don't know much about it....

We're all basing this discussion off Pianitis' inccorect premise that other than him, there exists only boring teachers with rulers, etc.... I still do not understand why....I started "traditional" piano lessons an year ago and I know how to improvise, I've composed my own music for contests and I also have a somewhat good ear. Chord progressions, melodies, these are all things I've learned as part of the curriculum, especially the theory...

I've said this a lot but still I get no response...

....by the way, I self-taught myself before I started taking lessons....

Monica, it's not that we would have people do something that's unrelated to music; rather, if someone wants to learn and wants to do so through chord training, without having to read, okay, that's fine. That's the joy of music.

But to have someone like Pianitis, who says he's only "noodled around" offer lessons that are rather highly priced, that's the problem. I don't think we teachers would have as much of a problem if this was a jazz pianist or even a rock pianist teaching what they knew. As long as they are professionals, have the experience, and the background to teach. Walk the walk, talk the talk.

Pianitis says he sells Clavinovas. If I were an adult beginner seeking lessons I would rather learn from a local musician than a Clavi salesman. Face it - when looking for a teacher, "piano salesman" doesn't come to mind. I would perhaps ask if he knew where I might acquire lessons to do what he is doing.

I haven't posted lately in this thread because I haven't felt like I'd be objective enough to write anything remotely approaching coherence, but that's the gist of why I'm upset. I have a student right now who is not interested in playing the piano. She's taking some lessons with me because she's in percussion at school and needed help with understanding scales and basic theory. We have graduated to learning piano the way Pianitis teaches it. Just last night, I taught her I-IV-V and we practiced finding it in almost every key imaginable. We listed about 10-12 songs that use the I-IV-V-V7 progression and she was excited to try it with a lot of things. But next week I plan to return to note reading so that she'll have the ability to read a lead sheet easily. This is the bonus that my education and the life I have spent in this discipline can offer.

The teacher always needs to be above and beyond the student. If Pianitis said he himself were taking lessons to better himself I think I'd have a lot less ire over what he's doing. But he's not even improving on what he's done. That is what teaching is about, to me. Demonstrating the skills, evoking a love of what we're doing, and constantly bettering oneself to be able to stay ahead of the student, to be able to face those obstacles and knock them down easily. Can Pianitis do this? If wants to charge that sum of money to teach, is he willing to lay some pride down and take lessons himself? Perhaps if he acted more like a teacher and less like a disgruntled adult with a chip on his shoulder, we'd welcome him more in the teachers' forum.

Edited to add: I wanted to put this postscript in before any criticism comes out. I do take my own advice. This previous Sunday was the first piano lesson I've had in about two years. I wanted lessons because I want to better myself, get a higher education. I went in there with a little bit of pride, and came out well and thoroughly humbled, embarrassed even. There is still so much to do, so much to learn and relearn. And I'm excited to share what I've learned - once I've gotten much better at it, of course - with my students. The price I am paying for these lessons is on par with what Pianitis is charging.

This is a continuation of what I feel about aspiring to be your best possible musician.

Quote by Nelson Mandela:

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate, our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that most frightens us.

We ask ourselves, who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and fabulous? Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small doesn't serve the world. There's nothing enlightened about shrinking so that other people won't feel insecure around you.

We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us, it is in everyone.

And as we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."

If I am 'purist' or 'elitist' because of my idealism, so be it. You should see me in every day clothes, I'm as human as the next person. It's my thinking about aspirations and intentions that gives lift to a higher realm within my being.

Betty

Minaku,

I couldn't have said it better myself!

I believe Pianitus (sp?) offers a novel approach to teaching piano for those out there who want to learn to play for their own pleasure ... after all the students are the customers, who pay, and are therefore right (to a certain extent). It almost feels to me, after reading the many many many posts on this topic, that there's an unofficial union out there and no one wants anyone to teach what's not officially sanctioned. This is understandable for those who have studied and practiced for many years, but capitalism (after all this is a music business) works by catering to what the market wants and willing to pay for.

I was one of those child students who gave up the piano because the traditional learning methods did not work for me. However I've come back as an adult and have a very strict teacher, but this now works for me as a much older adult, although this arrangement does try my nerves sometimes as mastering a classical piece takes a lot of patience and time. However, I would like to learn to play just for fun some popular songs, and would be willing to pay for it. So I say offer people what they want, be up front about what you're offering and capable of, and the rest will take care of itself.

Offtopic:

I'm a little surprised a moderator hasn't stepped in to say something, so I will.

I think you can have a highly productive, highly spirited 'civilized' debate without all the personal attacks being made here. Its great to have differing points of view, which allows new perspectives to be voiced and that benefits everyone.

If you disagree with an idea or point or view, respectfully, may I suggest you attack the idea and 'not' the person. Attacking the person will inevitably result in like and progressively escalating retaliation. Without self restraint and civility, we will soon be throwing food at one another, which will then likely result in the closure of this thread (so that everyone calms down).

Let's not degrade the quality of an otherwise civilized conversation.

Relax Ms. Patnude. I declare my income from that. Its hardly worth declaring but when you deal with the public you had better declare income received by them.

I do this because I ENJOY it. The money is secondary as it should be and usually is when people are doing what they love for it. I have done that all my life.In fact you could say I have not worked a day in my life since college. My customers "testimonials" will not be forthcoming. As you declared I have no need to advertise. Therefore "testimonials" are not necessary. Its very informal around here. Yes I do pay for my lights. I take checks cash and nothing sometimes. First lesson is always free and it goes well past a half hour as we get to know each other and they decide whether they want to continue or go for a more traditional method upon which I supply them a list of teachers.

I'm sorry there is so much bitterness regarding this. I expected some. I was really looking to share ideas and concepts with other like minded teachers but apparently they were driven off.

One more attempt to reason with Pianitis, and then I give up.

Pianitis,

I know that you will probably misread this post as you have done with most of the others in this thread, but I wanted to make sure (at least in the minds of everyone else) that this one point was clarified.

You said "Because thats the distinct impression I received after reading the posts of those vehemently opposed to the thought I should be paid to impart my knowledge."

I don't think that anyone ever said that you shouldn't get paid at all to impart your knowledge. Did you read my post correctly? I said "As for my opinion, to echo that of others, I think that it is fine that you are offering lessons (with full disclosure) to those that want them. I see that there is a market for these lessons. I realize that the rate you charge is based upon what the market will bear, and that this is just capitalism at work.............................

but I think that it really sucks that someone who is only partially qualified is charging as much (or in many cases, more) that those who are exceedingly qualified (IN ANY FIELD)."

I think it is perfectly fine for you to get paid to share what you know .. but I don't think that it is fair for anyone who is only partially qualified to charge as much as or more than someone who is exceedingly qualified (in playing as well as in teaching).


(there have been other examples of this type of situation, but here's mine : I groom a few dogs on the side, just because I like doing it and have a few friends who choose to bring their dogs to me. I am not a qualified professional, so I cannot offer quality that meets that of a qualified professional. For this reason, I charge less than the qualified professionals in my area. I think this is only fair.)

You are right. I know very little and have even less interest in classical music. What I have understood is it has to played as written in order to reflect the original artist;s intent. I could be wrong about that. Perhaps interpretation is where it's at even there.

BTW I believe Stereo types are gleaned from truth somewhere along the way. They are difficult to break. No one INVENTS a stereo type out of thin air. It is not my premise that traditional methods are boring or painful. It is my premise that many people simply do not want all the structure and just want to learn to play THEIR way in their time. I don't see many students until AFTER they have tried traditional way at one point in their lives. These are just not serious piano students. They would not last a month in any of the classes taught by some here. I know that without doubt.

Monica said: "I think the 6 pages of this thread are due to a false dichotomy: Some people see it as a choice between "traditional" lessons (however we define that) vs. Pianitis, where I see it as in actuality a choice between Pianitis's lessons or nothing. I get the impression that some of the people on this thread would rather people do nothing musically related than have them take Pianitis's lessons. That just plain boggles my mind."

Yes, I would agree with that.

Coaches of sports work on game plans and techniques. It's about winning - whether it's gymnastics, tennis, golf, swimming, track. It's also about representing the coaches coaching. There are high standards to be upheld. It's about grooming the athlete. A pianist is very much an athlete and the game plan is music.

What boggles my mind is that someone who is looking for piano students to share his method with would say: "These are just not serious piano students. They would not last a month in any of the classes taught by some here. I know that without doubt."

The whole idea behind piano lessons and teaching is that you would help the student acquire the skills that he needs to add to his already present natural talents.

Betty

Pianitis - in an earlier posting you wrote, quote:
-------------------------------------------------
Here is one of many songs I wrote and recorded right here at home..I'm not much of a singer or player but Joe and Joan Sixpack likes this stuff.

http://www.4shared.com/dir/4544986/ec16ba06/sharing.html
-------------------------------------------------
... end of quote

Well, after reading most of this thread, I FOUND AND LISTENED to your recording. I have this to say -

The melody line of this song is much more complex than I would have expected, based principally on your statements about your limited musical and keyboard training and understanding of music theory. The poetry of this song is also sophisticated. Also the vocal delivery has a decidedly Barry Manilow or Neil Diamond kind of flavor and quality. This is definitely not an amateur performance.

According to the credits on the website which has the recording on the "Advanced" tab, the following information is displayed

*************************************************
Everybody But You.mp3

Type of file: MPEG Audio Stream
Location: My 4shared
Size: 7839872

Download link: Go
Date uploaded: 2007-11-11
Times downloaded: 22
Last downloaded: 2007-11-13

Title: Everybody But You
Artist: Tom Bongiorno
Album: Song For You
Year: 2000
Track Number: 1
Genre: King Frog

Bit Rate: 320kbps
Sample Rate: 44100

Comments: 00000816 0000066B 00001EC0 000013A8 0001ADDE 0001ADDE 00007DA8 00007DC3 0001ADC7 000138AE
*************************************************

All this leads me to question whether we are getting an true picture of who you really are?

I hate to disagree - it seems quite amateur to my traditional ears. The percussion is quite clumsy. Good mike though.

The last two posts make my point beautifully.

Who's right? Who's wrong? Neither one universally.

I am an amateur to traditional ears, But perhaps not to less traditional ears. The point is I have been doing this kind of thing for many years. Will a student be able to write and record a song like that in 6 months. Of course not. Will he or she have the tools to be able to build upon to do that? Yes. The rest is up to them.

Besides I also teach midi sequencing, recording tips, and some tools of lyric writing. We have a home recording studio on a PC platform here as well. Choices they have. How many traditional teacher include those things privately?. A few will not even train a student who has a digital piano. Even though the graded action is more akin to a grand then a Spinet.

We do have a Baby Grand as well. They can play either, I give them the choice. Do you?

I think it is you who have been making assumptions. I have a few questions that remain unanswered. First and foremost, are you as a teacher constantly bettering yourself? If you are not, can you really call yourself a teacher? I see teachers as people who are always striving to get better at what they do, because that's part of the art and part of the discipline.

Second, the majority of my students do not have a piano on which to practice. The only piano they get to play on is the upright on which I teach. Most of them have 55 key keyboards. One or two may have an old piano at home that may be better suited to being firewood. When parents and adult students ask me what they should be looking for in a piano, I give them the pros and cons of both digital and acoustic. I do not have a bias against digital pianos UNLESS the student in question is looking to play intermediate-advanced classical music. Then, the piano must be an upright or a grand. I tell my students about decent pianos I've seen on craigslist or specials I've seen at the local piano dealer (PianoWorks, England Piano).

The grossly inaccurate assumptions you make really anger me, Pianitis, and honestly it's not even worth being baited for. I'm done feeding the troll.

But you see, that was precisely my analogy in my earlier post.

My niece pays for soccer coaches who work on game plans and techniques, at a very high level.

I play recreational soccer. Should I not play soccer at all because I don't aspire to play to the level my niece plays? Do you really think that recreational soccer players don't work on game plans and techniques? Do you really think that anyone who wants to play recreational soccer should only do so if they are willing to pay coaches with the qualifications my niece's coaches have?

I didn't happen to pay anyone for soccer workshops - my intramural team wasn't even *that* organized - but I did pay for ski racing workshops and training sessions. I was a *distinctly* recreational ski racer - I was already over 30, so no chance for the Olympics there . Do you really think I shouldn't have been ski racing, or paying for workshops? Or at least paying only professional prices for professional coaches, even tho I was having the time of my life racing recreationally every Monday evening (and Friday evening, and Sunday afternoons)?

One of my brothers races his sports car. Should he not race at all since he doesn't aspire to be Richard Petty? Should he not pay for workshops unless they're run by someone with Richard Petty's qualifications (and I have no idea how formal those might be - but he's won a lot of races)?

I just finished singing in the High Holy Days choir with some friends of mine. I have no formal voice training at all. Should I not have been allowed to do that? The choir director seemed extremely pleased to have me, and she has all the qualifications for being a vocal teacher that you have for piano.

Should we really just bar everyone from learning to make piano music unless they can take lessons from someone who is "qualified" in whatever way you think that means, which is what it means if no one can take lessons from Pianitis or others who do what he does, or even only learn by working it out entirely by themselves, or by being shown a few things for free by friends or others, which in fact in folk music people have been doing for eons.

Should we really allow no one to learn math except from people like me, who have degrees in math and education? I don't think so, do you?

You would really rather people do *nothing* musically unless they take lessons from someone "qualified" the way you define qualified?!? That's pretty mind-boggling to me. Music is probably pretty close to being something that is universally human, in every culture. I have zero problem with people who want to learn what you have to offer paying you whatever you charge to learn that from you. I have zero problem with people who want to learn what Pianitis has to offer learning it from him at whatever he charges. I have no problem sitting down with friends who want to learn how to play oom-pah piano for contra dances and showing them how to do it, for free.

As for the comment that people "don't know any better" than to take from Pianitis - well, my experience with adults who can't do 6th grade math is that the great majority of them are not stupid, and do a pretty good job of figuring out who can help them do what they need to do, and aren't scammed, at least not for very long. There may be a sucker born every minute, but as far as I can tell the great majority of adults aren't suckers the great majority of the time, and Pianitis has been pretty up front about what he offers.

Cathy

I'm really amazed at how long this thread is going on. Who is Pianitis hurting??

Not the piano teachers:
-- He's not undercutting their prices. He's taking (only or mostly) students who've given up on traditional lessons, or who refuse to traditional lessons because of stereotyping or lack of self-discipline.

Not his customers:
-- They're getting what they want. He's showing them how to make "cool sounding" music on their digital keyboards. Pianitis isn't mis-representing himself. Sure, his customers may pick up a few "bad habits", but any more than if they just noodled around on their keyboards by themselves? This training might even inspire them to learn more about playing on their own, or to pursue traditional piano education.

The only aspect of this that I question is that Pianitis is calling himself a "teacher," when in reality he's more a coach or trainer -- showing his customers how to do what he does on a keyboard. And that's a minor detail IMO.

So, who's getting hurt here?


FYI: I've taken traditional piano lessons for many years and play primarily classical music.

Mary

Pianitis..just some replies to your post:

....then it isn't quite appropriate to write those kinds of statements about it, is it?

Who decides exactly what an artist's intent was? Why are there so many recordings of the same pieces for sale? They should all sound the same, right?

Perhaps you do, but as someone who has been affected by stereotyping in the past, I find that a ridiculous statement.

Anyways, I don't think anyone here has a problem with the "vision" of teaching itself, it's rather the other parts of this story that they do not agree with. It seems that this fabricated "traditional vs. non traditional" line keeps being brought up but I don't recall a single person here arguing that scales, excercises, classical music, and formal study are the only way to learn piano.

On a side note, I really wish you would stop the condescending tone and realize that for some people, what you dismissively call "reading ink dots" is actually an emotional, substantial and deeply fulfilling thing, even if it is difficult to understand for others.....And there are actually many non-classical players (some who have posted in this thread defending you, in fact), who play newer music, also "reading ink dots", and I imagine they'd be upset by that kind of talk as well...