Cem (Musical Education Center) Courses

It depends

Since I don't know your situation, I can tell you that:

- 45 or 60 minutes a week, you achieve nothing or very little

- finding a good teacher is difficult or rather, there are many good ones but it doesn't mean they will be right for our goals. For example, if you were 40 years old, it wouldn't make any sense to have lessons like what often happens to a twelve-year-old. Most of the time, a good teacher does not evaluate the student's age nor, let alone, their goals (playing for pleasure, for example). In the end, as adults, one either stops or becomes self-taught.

The point is: who is the information for? Expectations?

I don't know these schools; in any case, I don't quite agree with what Rotore wrote. Finding a good teacher is indeed a very difficult task, but beware, let's never underestimate the importance of a master who can correct many vices. Vices are very difficult for a self-taught person to find and fix, and it doesn't take much to ruin oneself. 60 minutes a week for someone who wants to learn can be quite good, provided there is conscious and serious practice at home. The same 60 minutes a week are enough to highlight any vices and indicate to the student the exercises and precautions needed to resolve them. In essence, I believe that the Master must give directions and assign certain tasks to work on. But one must work well and seriously at home, following the master's instructions to grow. Working without a master can be dangerous. There is the risk of sitting at the piano incorrectly and developing numerous other problems that are harder to solve from one small problem (I have seen truly many).

As Rotore rightly says, one must always evaluate the objectives.

I believe, however, that one should study by acquiring a classical education. Music is one; only the "modes" of expression and execution change. What I mean is that knowledge of rhythm and appreciation of sound, as well as performance technique, are common to all modes. A good jazz player must be as well-versed as a classical musician and must "draw upon" a vast wealth of musical knowledge.

Everything comes with it. I recommend attending concerts and some "recitals" or end-of-course concerts from Masterclasses. Immersing oneself in the environment will encourage the exchange of ideas and knowledge of the Masters, among whom one's own will emerge.

The training period must be calm and free of anxiety regarding the achievement of the final goal. Many small first "steps" offer satisfaction if well-executed, with professionalism. Studying "for pleasure" vs. "seriously" requires the same amount of time. It is therefore worth studying an instrument professionally. Popular and/or collective music schools are most welcome. The results obtained with global methods are good and rapid, which are also boasted by some great Schools. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to take a step back and review something that prevents us from progressing. The compositions of the Great Masters remain an excellent School and truly prepare us to become Musicians. Of course, then, everything must contend with ability and talent. In fact, these last two great gifts are sometimes not enough. Great motivation and a spirit of sacrifice are required....In short...you see.....one cannot suggest "the best"!

Rotore wrote:

The point is: who is the information for? Expectations?

If the answer were directed at a self-taught person, I can say that the trouble is they won't really know where they stand, for better or for worse.

They can persevere for years in errors that take only a few weeks to correct, simply because they don't realize they are errors.

At the same time, they can be very good, instinctively good, in certain aspects, but not knowing how to formalize this "skill," they won't know how to apply it as much or as well as they could in contexts where it is not possible to rely solely on instinct.

Beyond technical issues, measuring oneself against a teacher (whether private or from a school matters only to a certain extent if one is at a basic level) is an opportunity to develop one's own capacity for self-criticism, the knowledge of one's own limits and also one's strengths, which ultimately makes study itself more effective.

Study that, even if you follow Pollini or some random person for one or two hours a week, for the rest of the week it is always "self-taught," in the sense that it's just you and the instrument.

Naturally, if someone thinks of limiting their study solely to lesson hours, without practicing on their own, they are better off changing hobbies.

Chopin wrote:

Beyond technical issues, measuring oneself against a master (whether private or of a certain school matters only to a certain extent if one is at a basic level) is an opportunity to develop one's own capacity for self-criticism, the knowledge of one's own limits and also one's strengths, which ultimately makes study properly speaking more effective.

Study that, even if it follows you for one hour, two hours a week with Pollini or some random person, for the rest of the week is always "self-taught", in the sense that when it comes to the instrument, it's just you.

Naturally, if one thinks of limiting study solely to lesson hours, without practicing alone, it is better to change hobbies.

Self-taught study means opening a music book and reading without having any knowledge of what is called a "Study Method" but, much more seriously, without any direction. Even after graduating, one thinks they are doing something well, then an experienced teacher arrives, looks at you and says: "But wouldn't it be better to do it like this?". And you realize you hadn't thought of it... Spending an hour with a Master means receiving guidelines on which to work. What is said in an hour by a master might also take months for the student to acquire; that is why STUDY (not strumming little tunes) at home will never be self-taught work. In the end, even Mozart had his master—in fact, he had more than one... And he was Mozart! Talents help and so does good will, but to study any branch of culture, one cannot start alone from the beginning and rediscover on their own what others have already demonstrated, because it takes a lifetime to do work that we could otherwise accomplish in a few months; one must also know and trust the advice of masters. It is then up to the student's intelligence to understand whether the method offered by the teacher has positive effects or not; in this second case, perhaps we were not lucky enough to find a good master and it is time to change them.

I always hope that one day someone will make a sort of geographical map of Italy with the first and last names of the teachers working in various cities. Names, surnames, and judgments, obviously...

This is truly a beautiful idea. The problem is that if the judgment were expressed through voting, I am sure there would be many teachers who would spend days upvoting themselves or finding ways to receive many votes just for publicity, and the ranking would be truly unserious. I believe that in the end, judgment is something that in village and town realities happens through word of mouth without the need to draw up a ranking on the internet.

thallo wrote:

i always hope that one day someone makes a sort of geographical map of Italy with the first and last names of the teachers working in various cities. Names, surnames, and judgments, obviously...

...the tax authorities are waiting for that, but however, knowing at least the teachers of a city who teach would be a great thing.

let's put it this way, instead of blunt judgments, let's have reasoned judgments. Like "this teacher uses these methods, humanly speaking it is like this and that, and to know more, contact me privately". For singing teachers, it would be wonderful; just understanding which technique so-and-so teaches would be a great help for wandering students.

Judgments, I believe, are not necessary. A Teacher can be right for someone, but also not perfectly for another. The important thing is knowing how to solve problems. Knowing how to transmit much knowledge and, above all, no more than one's own experiences. A good teacher, I believe, must develop great observation skills and know how to suggest ways to correct vices and errors. This, naturally, is not all. They must speak of Music! Infuse the Joy of Music. Know how to indicate the Author's style and how to "treat" them. Examples, listening, citations. In short, they must be of great richness for the Student. The Student will feel for themselves if the Teacher is right for them. They will desire to go to lessons and will leave with the impression of having learned much... even if during some lessons they played little. The "gestation" of knowledge is not realized by trying and re-trying, but by reflecting and "experimenting". I believe this.

well, let's say that your argument, pianoexpert, is generally agreeable but reflects a humanistic approach to music and teaching, something like "there is much to learn from everyone and especially from oneself"; in reality, in my experiences I have found, and continue to find, both in students and teachers, a very different idea: technique first and foremost, and in an orthodox way. I imagine this is a common sentiment even among pianists; some I know speak in these very terms, but obviously I have more experience with singing and singers. And in this field, the musicality of a teacher, their teachings in a broad sense, their humanity, or even just the choice of repertoire to use, are completely despised, ignored. A master is chosen for technique, for how high or low they can make you go. And from a certain point in one's educational path, masters are chosen and changed according to absurd convictions and technical affiliations. Those who study depth only want teachers who teach depth, those who study bel canto only want bel canto specialists, those who study voicecraft only want voicecraft, and so on.

I always feel embarrassed during discussions of vocal technique because, among singers, they are truly experienced as religious wars. But despite my noted iconoclasm (ahaha), I think there is something right about seeking technique before "music". My teacher often said that the problem with singers is having to build an instrument before using it and often, instead, one deludes oneself into thinking it's already ready and that one can immediately do what the head and heart dictate. It's a difficult fetish to destroy; I imagine it's the same among pianists.

Anyway, at the end of the day, I don't know—I've had good and bad teachers, I took what I could, and in effect, I don't know if, knowing beforehand what I was getting into, I would have changed path or teacher.

But anyway, the idea of a geographical list is unfeasible

In my experience, the bulk of teachers can be divided into two types:

1-the young girl fresh out of the conservatory who teaches in some music school for 30 euros an hour and gives half-hour lessons once a week

2-the old ones stuck in paleo-Christian methods

This is the state of the art. Then there are those described by pianoexpert, and to go to them you have to take out a mortgage. No one does anything for passion anymore, least of all the "masters".

Now, it is only right that a professional be paid, but when I hear talk of passion, instilling joy et cetera, or when masterclasses cost 1000 euros, perhaps it is more correct to speak of business

What you are saying is true, but let's also consider the matter from a teacher's point of view. Somehow they have to eat too. I am currently spending the 1000 euros on masterclasses myself. They are extremely interesting lessons with renowned concert pianists who teach you their tricks, and I guarantee you that discovering things they only discovered through years of experience and a huge series of concerts—discovering them like this on a silver platter without effort—is something priceless. Masterclasses are not like classic piano lessons; the work is of a completely different kind, at least for the masterclasses I have attended so far.

The discussion about pleasure in one's work, instilling joy and so on, etc., is something that, in my opinion, can be done with a model student. By model student, I mean a child/young person who carries out their work to the letter and spends no less than 3 hours a day studying to reach a goal, and who would find themselves forced to interrupt their studies in a moment of economic difficulty. To this type of person, if I were their teacher, I would say not to worry and to continue coming to lessons. The problem is that unfortunately most students of private teachers have little to do with this stereotype of student, and therefore in these cases, even the lesson from the teacher becomes heavy. Think of the teacher who every week finds themselves hearing the same mistakes because the student hasn't studied, doesn't progress with their studies, stays at the same point, and every lesson is the same old story... How is it possible to instill joy in what one does if on the other side there is no inclination toward studying the piano?

According to my negligible experience as a teacher (those few students I have had): everyone starts with the best intentions, believing that they can start playing from the very first lesson. Unfortunately, that is not the case at all. The early stages, as you all know, require teaching notes on the staff, durations, and the placement of such notes on the keyboard. One begins the first technical exercises to loosen the fingers and starts with solfège. The hopeful ideas of children who find themselves in a lesson convinced they will go home after the first one and start playing quickly fade away; despite the teacher's efforts to seek out preparatory piano repertoire that isn't too boring for the student, if the students belong to the PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, PSP, and company generation, they simply have never learned the spirit of sacrifice and soon find themselves abandoning study and the instrument. Rare gems, born with a dedication to the piano, occur once in a thousand, and those who actually finish their studies are perhaps one in a hundred thousand. Returning to the business discussion, these teachers also have to eat; they are already underpaid if they don't teach at a conservatory, and then with this Civello law, they received the final blow...

Unfortunately, I have the flaw of synthesizing my ideas too much and sometimes I am misunderstood.

To Thallo: Dearest, all my life I have heard people say "technique first, then..." I even believed it. I achieved the best results later, when I abandoned this idea. I come from the School of Carlo Zecchi and Casella, of Bajardi. Schools would not.... agree with this phrase. It is my firm conviction that Technique and Music are not distinct things. Music is in Technique and vice versa. I know it is a difficult argument to accept, but I am ready to prove it. For free. Of course, one must work on it with dedication. It would be interesting if someone wanted to give me an audition. I am near Rome (Castelli Romani), I play on a Steinway and I am available, in the name of the initiatives we have launched on this Site.

I am not a singer, but I have worked a lot with singers. I know, or rather "recognize," the correct technical setting... but I do not see it developing here only through exhausting vocalises either. It is true that the voice, like the hand, must be "trained." In techniques, there are aspects of mental skill and aspects of physical skill. This is right and obvious, but I have listened too many times to 50 minutes of vocalises and 5 minutes of singing. Likewise on the piano, I know Professors who force a student to spend two years on one page of Beethoven's Appassionata or deny them the possibility of completing a piece for a performance. It is true, my perspective may seem lenient and "humanitarian." In reality, it is just a different path. Certainly, I would not deny a student the execution of major and minor scales (perhaps speaking of "how" they should be performed and memorized) nor would I discourage some brilliant "study" by Czerny, Clementi, Chopin, Liszt.

Now, it is also true that teaching is becoming specialized. I recently heard a singer say: "I don't teach Music... I teach vocal technique".... I cannot understand. I believe that anyone who possesses "the way of doing things," and finds themselves teaching, must above all be a Musician. Many times I have found myself suggesting musical solutions, solutions that make the musical discourse clear and intelligible, and I simultaneously obtained from the Student an understanding of how they should realize that solution. ....Who knows if I managed to explain myself. In short, I absolutely do not want to disavow the utility of acquiring the "mechanism" (not Technique), in the case of the piano, as well as the training of the vocal organ (in the case of Singing), but I believe they should not prevail over the "Musical" or be sterilely relegated to the "preparatory"... before...

To Riccardo M: I do not think anyone does anything out of passion anymore. This site and this forum are a tiny example of it. We would be ruined. Music must not be "speculative." Money comes regardless. Besides, as Simone rightly says, "everyone has to eat." Regarding Masterclasses... they are welcome, but very often the time available is little and not much is said. Any of us has collected them on our curriculum; they are useful, but I believe the most profitable teaching comes from attending those whom you call "masters," that is, those who have gained an experience "with mastery" and can transmit it to us calmly over time. From each of them we can take something... not everything... and certainly not what they could not or did not want to experience firsthand.

Alright... I have been far too provocative and assertive.

Perhaps we are not talking about the same thing. If a "musician" has to give lessons "to make a living," it means they don't have enough talent to be a real musician. It's like someone who graduated in astrophysics and teaches math and physics in middle school; I don't think anyone here would call them an astrophysicist...

I am not talking about the 'Maestro' as you write it with the high-sounding capital M, but about the average maestro, the one who collects extra cash under the table after work. A whole different world

I believe that being a musician does not mean achieving public success. In the television era, public success is not decided by the musician; it is decided by the media, and I can cite as many examples as you want to support this thesis, although I do not like speaking ill of other people and I prefer to let the public's approval rating be measured through alternative channels (for example, YouTube) and certainly not by the drugged TV, which is always the last to speak. Being a musician means understanding the meaning of music to the core and knowing how to convey this understanding to other people through its interpretation. Not everyone who has finished their studies is capable of doing this; that is why not everyone is a musician. There are those who fail to achieve these results due to a lack of study, those due to a lack of talent, and I believe there are those who do not make it also due to a lack of character. In any case, pursuing a career as a musician (as you mean it: the concert artist) requires a great deal of courage even before talent. I know many musicians who have traveled the world with various orchestras; America, China... In the end, they turned to university to provide themselves with an alternative.

There is also a statistical approach to this problem, and I reason as follows:

There are almost 7 billion people in the world.

Of these 7 billion, allow me to think that at least 1 in 300 plays an instrument (the level does not matter, you will understand why later, and I assure you that the statistic is very low considering that in China, which is the country with the largest population and demographic density, 1 in 12 plays a musical instrument).

We can therefore state that 23 million people in the world play an instrument.

We can estimate—always to keep our estimates veeeery low—that of these, 1 in 100 plays the piano; therefore, there are about 230,000 pianists in the world.

Of these, do we want to say that at least 1 in 100 has talent?

Well, we should have 2,300 pianists who take turns appearing on TV and becoming famous.

From this, two problems arise in my view:

- The first, the one that always remains in my mind: "Why is it that even if there should be 2300 talented pianists out there, I almost always see garbage on TV (I am referring to those 6 - 10 pianists who should not only not be called musicians but not even pianists)."

- The second: "If they were to give notoriety to 2300 pianists who deserve the title of Musician, who would pay their salaries? We all know the state of the music world."

Thus, those who attempt the path of the concert artist and find the doors closed must turn to university if they are still young enough to endure more mountains of books; otherwise, they must teach the remaining 227,700 pianists who like the piano.

Those who find themselves forced to teach then have to deal with another important problem.

Choosing whether to teach in a conservatory or to teach as a private instructor.

The first path is a crapshoot, in the sense that even the conservatories do not know how to recruit new teachers. Recent graduates who want to continue and build a career within the conservatory are hired with one-year fixed-term contracts for so-called "pre-academic courses," but no public competition announcement for access to teaching in the conservatory has been released for years and years. Not to mention recommendations, even in this world... Well, let my mouth be shut.

For those who choose the path of private teaching, today it is worse than ever since the dear Dr. Bruno Civello dealt the final blow to private teachers. In my opinion, the real problem is not caused by the Civello law, which equates conservatories with universities (in fact, on one hand, one might say finally), but rather by the complete misinformation regarding this reform. Not everyone knows, in fact, that a student can continue to have a private teacher and take exams as long as they are enrolled in the conservatory. Just like in university, it is therefore possible to study with a private teacher and take exams as long as one is enrolled in that degree course.

In short, I hope the landscape is clearer to you, and I hope you understand why a Musician or a Maestro with a capital M is not named such by the career they have had or not, since it depends on factors that are most of the time uncontrollable and related to simple speculation by entities, record companies, and only lastly, audience.

I believe that many musicians would not think for a moment about choosing their own future if this decayed society gave them the right hope to face That choice!

Forgive me if I have been long-winded, but this is a subject very close to my heart.

Regards,

your argument is correct. However, I am talking about the bulk of private teachers, those who teach in some Yamaha school or similar, and to return to the examples in the Italian school... don't tell me that the number of motivated/motivating prepared teachers exceeds 20 percent, and why on earth should this percentage be different for piano "Maestros"?

Thallo had proposed the list; this will never be made, not for reasons related to tax evasion but because of the remaining 80 percent who would see their gifted extra income fade away. The usual Italian mentality of consociativismo that crushes value downwards

I quote Simone's intervention. It is as follows. A musician's life is extremely difficult. And... not many of those who know how... make it. And it is true that we must also honor emerging young musicians, who work very hard, try to appear on television, in square performances, alongside a star performer... in short, they try to make people learn their names by heart. The information system, the dissemination, and the way of becoming "visible" have totally changed. I agree regarding the absence of our State, which does not believe in Culture. It continues to cut funds and thinks that making Music is a pastime. Simone's analysis was detailed and I do not want to repeat myself. I only hope that enthusiasm is not lost and that those who realize they are worth something fight anyway to make their voice heard. Once I found myself in a "salon" where several pianists performed. Some were mediocre, others truly, truly good. Their modest teacher was very reserved and only after coffee did we discover that she was the one who had "followed" those talented young pianists. A sort of "interview" immediately broke out: "But do you know Caio? Do you know Tizio? With whom did he study?" She was a student of the Great Guido Agosti and had studied with Casella and other great names. To the final question: "...but excuse me, where do you teach?..." she replied "At my house". That evening she did not play; we do not know if she had been a concert artist and we do not know her life story. The fact is that she knew how to teach very well and the results as well as the things she said were witnesses to it. Perhaps she was not a professional (meaning she did not live solely on teaching and did not do it every day), but she was very professional (she knew how to do it). We must accept that not everyone can and/or succeeds in making it, and it is not certain that whoever "makes it" is "in their place". ....Fine... what I say will be obvious... but with these words I would like to instill courage in those who feel they have talent. (It is clear that my little story concerns only teaching and not concert performance)

As far as I know, people like Schoenberg gave lessons; I would say anything but failures as musicians.