Choosing A Teacher For An Orchestral Instrument. Options

[Banjogirl]

I have always chosen teachers based on personal recommendations, and the type of qualifications they have doesn't really concern me, nor what they get up to apart from teaching. That's not to say I'm not interested in these things, just that I don't think they would be a deciding factor for me. There is no one definitive combination that makes a good teacher, because so much depends on the personalities and compatibility of teacher and student.

I think morton is referring to Associate and Fellowship diplomas? (F higher that A, with L in between)

The only criticism I can give of him is that his contrabassoon is always on display and DS is positively foaming at the mouth to get his hands on it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Bit of course - it is all part of his cunning plan!! I think I know who you are talking about too, in which case I concur with everything KTviola has said.

Advice: buy a very small car NOW, then you can argue you couldn't transport a contra.


Daughter2's bassoon teacher once casually remarked that something she had set up (bassoon octet at local music festival, maybe?) was part of her plan to take over the world. D'you know, I'm not sure she was joking? There's something of the megalomaniac about <at least some> bassoonists.

I promised son 3 a bari sax when he'd passed grade 6 but by the time he got there he'd lost interest. Result!

Our teachers have nearly always come via recommendation. They all have different qualifications and experience but all (bar the first - famous musician but useless teacher) have been excellent.

[miffy]

No! Natural players ought not to teach. They often can't tell what they are doing never mind help someone else. I would be a terrible oboe teacher.

No. This is a cop-out.
Excellent teachers are so, because they take time and great thought to analyse the playing of each individual pupil and the problems they have. And this is regardless of the problems they may oror may not have had themselves when learning.
I was a natural. I have worked very hard at my teaching and am a very good teacher. I have perfect pitch, but am excellent at teaching aural, even though I never had to think about them for myself.
As with anything, there are hardworking teachers and there are lazy teachers. Natural ability is a poor excuse for bad teaching.

[jacobvaneyck]

Why do all your posts revolve round community groups/amateur musicians or how qualified people are on paper but not in reality?

Are you insecure about your own ability by any chance?

[miffy]

Why do all your posts revolve round community groups/amateur musicians or how qualified people are on paper but not in reality?

Are you insecure about your own ability by any chance?

can't find a smiley for a zipped up mouth..
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

[jacobvaneyck]

Why do all your posts revolve round community groups/amateur musicians or how qualified people are on paper but not in reality?

Are you insecure about your own ability by any chance?

can't find a smiley for a zipped up mouth..
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

(IMG:http://www.msnhiddenemoticons.com/Library/extra_large/skyrock/default/zipped.jpg)

[miffy]

Why do all your posts revolve round community groups/amateur musicians or how qualified people are on paper but not in reality?

Are you insecure about your own ability by any chance?

can't find a smiley for a zipped up mouth..
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ph34r.gif)

(IMG:http://www.msnhiddenemoticons.com/Library/extra_large/skyrock/default/zipped.jpg)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rofl.gif)
Oh you clever boy, you! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[Dulcet]

I have always chosen teachers based on personal recommendations, and the type of qualifications they have doesn't really concern me, nor what they get up to apart from teaching. That's not to say I'm not interested in these things, just that I don't think they would be a deciding factor for me. There is no one definitive combination that makes a good teacher, because so much depends on the personalities and compatibility of teacher and student.

I think morton is referring to Associate and Fellowship diplomas? (F higher that A, with L in between)

The only criticism I can give of him is that his contrabassoon is always on display and DS is positively foaming at the mouth to get his hands on it! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Bit of course - it is all part of his cunning plan!! I think I know who you are talking about too, in which case I concur with everything KTviola has said.

Advice: buy a very small car NOW, then you can argue you couldn't transport a contra.


Daughter2's bassoon teacher once casually remarked that something she had set up (bassoon octet at local music festival, maybe?) was part of her plan to take over the world. D'you know, I'm not sure she was joking? There's something of the megalomaniac about <at least some> bassoonists.

FEAR THE BASSOONS!!!!

Actually the contra that a friend of mine used to play fitted perfectly into a mini clubman estate. It rattled about a bit in a Mk II Escort estate.

[Tequila]

In all honesty I wouldn't go with either of the two teachers you have outlined in the OP.

I'd hope that someone had taken up their instrument or continued with it to an advanced level because they were passionate about it. And that's the sort of person I'd want for my teacher in addition to them meeting certain other requirements.

At a beginner level the requirements are different to at a higher level.

To teach a beginner requires someone who can inspire, explain, coax and encourage as well as provide a secure basic technique. It also requires a degree of flexibility as not everyone will be able to take the same path towards proficiency. The teacher's playing standard is secondary to their ability to accurately convey the techniques required to play the instrument. (As a teacher I was taught that one did not have to be the next Picasso in order to teach art effectively and cultivate a child's natural talent.)

To teach an advanced player the teacher themselves needs to be more advanced and experienced in a variety of styles and playing settings. They need to be familiar with more advanced techniques and problems commonly encountered. They still need to be encouraging, good at explaining or demonstrating etc. For an advanced player I believe that the teacher's own playing ability and their ability to teach are each 50% contributors to their efficacy as a teacher.

What bits of paper my teacher/s has and whether they are recent or from 20, 30, 40+ years ago frankly doesn't bother me so long as they can do the job I'm paying them for.

[morton]

No! Natural players ought not to teach. They often can't tell what they are doing never mind help someone else. I would be a terrible oboe teacher.

No. This is a cop-out.
Excellent teachers are so, because they take time and great thought to analyse the playing of each individual pupil and the problems they have. And this is regardless of the problems they may oror may not have had themselves when learning.
I was a natural. I have worked very hard at my teaching and am a very good teacher. I have perfect pitch, but am excellent at teaching aural, even though I never had to think about them for myself.
As with anything, there are hardworking teachers and there are lazy teachers. Natural ability is a poor excuse for bad teaching.

I don't view this as a cop out. For one thing one of my teachers described it as a pronounced natural player. As with all things there are degrees. I never use intervals relying on hearing the note I want to play in my head.
If someone made a funny noise on a reed, I would have no idea what was causing it or what to do about it.
I wouldn't know if someone was making good progress, or not. I have no idea how long anyone might take to get to learn some aspect of playing. I would be unable to try any of my pupils reeds to see if they were working as I would blow them to bits as soon as I tried them. I can't make reeds for beginners for the same reason. I have no experience of what a beginner oboist sounds like, except one that can only get one long uncontrolled note and then I would not know if this was due to how they were playing or the reed.
This isn't necessarlly because I am a bad teacher. I would be quite happy to teach the horn again, but don't because I don't play it anymore and I believe that a teacher should be able to demonstrate in the lesson what they want the pupil to try to do.

[morton]

Why do all your posts revolve round community groups/amateur musicians or how qualified people are on paper but not in reality?

Are you insecure about your own ability by any chance?

All realy good players seem to feel insecure about their playing. That is what drives the need to practise. I often suspect that the people who don't feel insecure about their playing are actually never going to make good players. Also I have the most trouble with people who are very secure about their playing, and can't see what to do next, although often it is obvious to anyone who listens to them.

I am very interested in the people's assessment of qualifications in the music world.

What I think I am seeing is a fair bit of wishful thinking, not on my part. My interest is in encouraging adults to start instruments and to play for fun. At the same time I am interested in raising the standard of musical education available to adults. As I don't consider grade 8 as a high level of achievement for a musician, I would want the adult education to be delivered by someone with a much higher standard of musical education.

[lilly763]

No! Natural players ought not to teach. They often can't tell what they are doing never mind help someone else. I would be a terrible oboe teacher.

No. This is a cop-out.
Excellent teachers are so, because they take time and great thought to analyse the playing of each individual pupil and the problems they have. And this is regardless of the problems they may oror may not have had themselves when learning.
I was a natural. I have worked very hard at my teaching and am a very good teacher. I have perfect pitch, but am excellent at teaching aural, even though I never had to think about them for myself.
As with anything, there are hardworking teachers and there are lazy teachers. Natural ability is a poor excuse for bad teaching.

I don't view this as a cop out. For one thing one of my teachers described it as a pronounced natural player. As with all things there are degrees. I never use intervals relying on hearing the note I want to play in my head.
If someone made a funny noise on a reed, I would have no idea what was causing it or what to do about it.
I wouldn't know if someone was making good progress, or not. I have no idea how long anyone might take to get to learn some aspect of playing. I would be unable to try any of my pupils reeds to see if they were working as I would blow them to bits as soon as I tried them. I can't make reeds for beginners for the same reason. I have no experience of what a beginner oboist sounds like, except one that can only get one long uncontrolled note and then I would not know if this was due to how they were playing or the reed.
This isn't necessarlly because I am a bad teacher. I would be quite happy to teach the horn again, but don't because I don't play it anymore and I believe that a teacher should be able to demonstrate in the lesson what they want the pupil to try to do.

Right, exactly... so becoming a good teacher would involve (heaven forbid!) WORK for you. You would have to invest time into learning the things other people might have picked up just from the experience of gradually gaining proficiency. This doesn't mean that it's impossible at all!

Why do all your posts revolve round community groups/amateur musicians or how qualified people are on paper but not in reality?

Are you insecure about your own ability by any chance?

All realy good players seem to feel insecure about their playing. That is what drives the need to practise. I often suspect that the people who don't feel insecure about their playing are actually never going to make good players. Also I have the most trouble with people who are very secure about their playing, and can't see what to do next, although often it is obvious to anyone who listens to them.

I am very interested in the people's assessment of qualifications in the music world.

What I think I am seeing is a fair bit of wishful thinking, not on my part. My interest is in encouraging adults to start instruments and to play for fun. At the same time I am interested in raising the standard of musical education available to adults. As I don't consider grade 8 as a high level of achievement for a musician, I would want the adult education to be delivered by someone with a much higher standard of musical education.

It's not about just being insecure about your own playing for the sake of the music - with you it seems to be about how you and others are perceived. While the first type of "insecurity" can be beneficial as it drives improvement, the second is often unhealthy as it relies too much on factors beyond one's own control. The other thing that seems to be important to you is belittling grade 8/first level diplomas. I do wonder how this fits in with your agenda of making music fun for adults, since most adult starters are happy to achieve grade 8; undermining somebody's accomplishments in a particular field hasn't generally correlated to increased "fun" in said field within the course of my experience...

[morton]

No! Natural players ought not to teach. They often can't tell what they are doing never mind help someone else. I would be a terrible oboe teacher.

No. This is a cop-out.
Excellent teachers are so, because they take time and great thought to analyse the playing of each individual pupil and the problems they have. And this is regardless of the problems they may oror may not have had themselves when learning.
I was a natural. I have worked very hard at my teaching and am a very good teacher. I have perfect pitch, but am excellent at teaching aural, even though I never had to think about them for myself.
As with anything, there are hardworking teachers and there are lazy teachers. Natural ability is a poor excuse for bad teaching.

I don't view this as a cop out. For one thing one of my teachers described it as a pronounced natural player. As with all things there are degrees. I never use intervals relying on hearing the note I want to play in my head.
If someone made a funny noise on a reed, I would have no idea what was causing it or what to do about it.
I wouldn't know if someone was making good progress, or not. I have no idea how long anyone might take to get to learn some aspect of playing. I would be unable to try any of my pupils reeds to see if they were working as I would blow them to bits as soon as I tried them. I can't make reeds for beginners for the same reason. I have no experience of what a beginner oboist sounds like, except one that can only get one long uncontrolled note and then I would not know if this was due to how they were playing or the reed.
This isn't necessarlly because I am a bad teacher. I would be quite happy to teach the horn again, but don't because I don't play it anymore and I believe that a teacher should be able to demonstrate in the lesson what they want the pupil to try to do.

Right, exactly... so becoming a good teacher would involve (heaven forbid!) WORK for you. You would have to invest time into learning the things other people might have picked up just from the experience of gradually gaining proficiency. This doesn't mean that it's impossible at all!

Why do all your posts revolve round community groups/amateur musicians or how qualified people are on paper but not in reality?

Are you insecure about your own ability by any chance?

All realy good players seem to feel insecure about their playing. That is what drives the need to practise. I often suspect that the people who don't feel insecure about their playing are actually never going to make good players. Also I have the most trouble with people who are very secure about their playing, and can't see what to do next, although often it is obvious to anyone who listens to them.

I am very interested in the people's assessment of qualifications in the music world.

What I think I am seeing is a fair bit of wishful thinking, not on my part. My interest is in encouraging adults to start instruments and to play for fun. At the same time I am interested in raising the standard of musical education available to adults. As I don't consider grade 8 as a high level of achievement for a musician, I would want the adult education to be delivered by someone with a much higher standard of musical education.

It's not about just being insecure about your own playing for the sake of the music - with you it seems to be about how you and others are perceived. While the first type of "insecurity" can be beneficial as it drives improvement, the second is often unhealthy as it relies too much on factors beyond one's own control. The other thing that seems to be important to you is belittling grade 8/first level diplomas. I do wonder how this fits in with your agenda of making music fun for adults, since most adult starters are happy to achieve grade 8; undermining somebody's accomplishments in a particular field hasn't generally correlated to increased "fun" in said field within the course of my experience...

My agenda for playing for fun for adults means playing with other people. Passing grade 8 (any board) with distinction does not necessarily mean that you will be any good in an ensemble situation.

Ensemble playing is a completely different skill. In grade exams some people as I have found out from the answers on this forum rely on their pianist to cover up mistakes that thay make in rhythm. In an ensemble of amateur players, no one is going to help you out with your rhythm, you are on your own.

The first time through a new piece will be sight read by the whole ensemble. No one wants a chamber music session where they have to stop every two bars because one member of the group can't count. The only part of a grade exam that tests if you can count is the sight reading, so technically you could pass without being able to count accurately.

To play in an ensemble for fun means that there is no need for you to have passed any exams. So what does having passed grade 8 show that you can do? It shows that you can play scales from memory. It shows that you might be able to read grade 6 music at sight, however if you don't get full marks for this then obviously you aren't grade 6 standard in sight reading. It shows that you know something about the music that you are playing, all my musical friends know this whether they have taken exams or not. (Most concerts have programme notes about the pieces being played.) It shows that you can play some music with a pianist who is better than you are.

None of the above means that you can play in an ensemble. So why do grade 8? Well some people like to have milestones in their playing. That's fine. However grade 8 doesn't qualify you for anything. This is why I don't pay any attention to what grades/ diplomas people have taken, because in the general adult music making scheme of things they don't mean anything. They are only useful if people want to do recitals.
Not very many of the people I come into contact with want to do recitals, they wouldn't consider this as fun playing.

An amateur ensemble also doubles as club. Like a bowling club or a tennis club etc. It is a way of meeting new people, making new friends, getting out of the house, an intersting hobby. You don't need any exams to be good at any of these things.

I think then, that the only person who is interested in what exam someone has passed is in the case of young people their friends, and family, or in the case of an adult the person themselves. A grade 8 exam pass/ merit / disctinction for an adult is for the satisfaction of the candidate. The diplomas are the same.
On their own, none of these exams qualify anyone for anything. Further study is always needed.

[vectistim]

Ensemble playing is a completely different skill. In grade exams some people as I have found out from the answers on this forum rely on their pianist to cover up mistakes that thay make in rhythm. In an ensemble of amateur players, no one is going to help you out with your rhythm, you are on your own.

That 'covering up' is an important part of ensemble playing, eg: if you are sitting there for 12 bars rest and you have a cue marked in that some other part hasn't reached yet, unless they've given up completely, you may be better waiting until they get there, if the rest of the orchestra followed.

In an ensemble there are going to be note, rhythm and volume mistakes, and part of being in an ensemble is that when it wobbles a bit in those sorts of circumstances you should be trying to help steady the ship.

To play in an ensemble for fun means that there is no need for you to have passed any exams. So what does having passed grade 8 show that you can do? It shows that you can play scales from memory. It shows that you might be able to read grade 6 music at sight, however if you don't get full marks for this then obviously you aren't grade 6 standard in sight reading. It shows that you know something about the music that you are playing, all my musical friends know this whether they have taken exams or not. (Most concerts have programme notes about the pieces being played.) It shows that you can play some music with a pianist who is better than you are.

Having a grade 8 shows that you were able to satisfy the examiner that you met the requirements for grade 8 on the day of your exam. In the same way having an A-level maths shows that you satisfied the examiners in your exam for that.

You don't need to get full marks in a music grade exam, so why should full marks be required in the sight reading to demonstrate a capability of sight reading a grade 6 style piece of music?

So why do grade 8? Well some people like to have milestones in their playing. That's fine. However grade 8 doesn't qualify you for anything. This is why I don't pay any attention to what grades/ diplomas people have taken, because in the general adult music making scheme of things they don't mean anything. They are only useful if people want to do recitals.
Not very many of the people I come into contact with want to do recitals, they wouldn't consider this as fun playing.

As above a grade 8 shows you satisfied the examiners that you were of that standard for one particular half hour.
Why are they useful if people want to do recitals?

An amateur ensemble also doubles as club. Like a bowling club or a tennis club etc. It is a way of meeting new people, making new friends, getting out of the house, an intersting hobby. You don't need any exams to be good at any of these things.

People often like a benchmark, sports clubs can provide a handicap, so in music people can use a grade as a grading, and a specific target to aim at often helps with improving.

On their own, none of these exams qualify anyone for anything. Further study is always needed.

How is that different to anything else?

[morton]

No! Natural players ought not to teach. They often can't tell what they are doing never mind help someone else. I would be a terrible oboe teacher.

No. This is a cop-out.
Excellent teachers are so, because they take time and great thought to analyse the playing of each individual pupil and the problems they have. And this is regardless of the problems they may oror may not have had themselves when learning.
I was a natural. I have worked very hard at my teaching and am a very good teacher. I have perfect pitch, but am excellent at teaching aural, even though I never had to think about them for myself.
As with anything, there are hardworking teachers and there are lazy teachers. Natural ability is a poor excuse for bad teaching.

I don't view this as a cop out. For one thing one of my teachers described it as a pronounced natural player. As with all things there are degrees. I never use intervals relying on hearing the note I want to play in my head.
If someone made a funny noise on a reed, I would have no idea what was causing it or what to do about it.
I wouldn't know if someone was making good progress, or not. I have no idea how long anyone might take to get to learn some aspect of playing. I would be unable to try any of my pupils reeds to see if they were working as I would blow them to bits as soon as I tried them. I can't make reeds for beginners for the same reason. I have no experience of what a beginner oboist sounds like, except one that can only get one long uncontrolled note and then I would not know if this was due to how they were playing or the reed.
This isn't necessarlly because I am a bad teacher. I would be quite happy to teach the horn again, but don't because I don't play it anymore and I believe that a teacher should be able to demonstrate in the lesson what they want the pupil to try to do.

Right, exactly... so becoming a good teacher would involve (heaven forbid!) WORK for you. You would have to invest time into learning the things other people might have picked up just from the experience of gradually gaining proficiency. This doesn't mean that it's impossible at all!

I think we may have started to discuss different things here.
You are discussing how I could improve my non existant oboe teaching, and I am discussing how my lack of understanding about how to play the oboe, could impact on the future musical development of a pupil.

I take the resposibility of teaching someone (making an impact on their future musical development) very seriously. If I don't feel that,( even with a lot of research into what can go wrong when teaching someome something that I know very little about ) would be beneficial to a pupil, then I am not going to do it.

Why do all your posts revolve round community groups/amateur musicians or how qualified people are on paper but not in reality?

Are you insecure about your own ability by any chance?

All realy good players seem to feel insecure about their playing. That is what drives the need to practise. I often suspect that the people who don't feel insecure about their playing are actually never going to make good players. Also I have the most trouble with people who are very secure about their playing, and can't see what to do next, although often it is obvious to anyone who listens to them.

I am very interested in the people's assessment of qualifications in the music world.

What I think I am seeing is a fair bit of wishful thinking, not on my part. My interest is in encouraging adults to start instruments and to play for fun. At the same time I am interested in raising the standard of musical education available to adults. As I don't consider grade 8 as a high level of achievement for a musician, I would want the adult education to be delivered by someone with a much higher standard of musical education.

It's not about just being insecure about your own playing for the sake of the music - with you it seems to be about how you and others are perceived. While the first type of "insecurity" can be beneficial as it drives improvement, the second is often unhealthy as it relies too much on factors beyond one's own control. The other thing that seems to be important to you is belittling grade 8/first level diplomas. I do wonder how this fits in with your agenda of making music fun for adults, since most adult starters are happy to achieve grade 8; undermining somebody's accomplishments in a particular field hasn't generally correlated to increased "fun" in said field within the course of my experience...

[morton]

Ensemble playing is a completely different skill. In grade exams some people as I have found out from the answers on this forum rely on their pianist to cover up mistakes that thay make in rhythm. In an ensemble of amateur players, no one is going to help you out with your rhythm, you are on your own.

That 'covering up' is an important part of ensemble playing, eg: if you are sitting there for 12 bars rest and you have a cue marked in that some other part hasn't reached yet, unless they've given up completely, you may be better waiting until they get there, if the rest of the orchestra followed.

In an ensemble there are going to be note, rhythm and volume mistakes, and part of being in an ensemble is that when it wobbles a bit in those sorts of circumstances you should be trying to help steady the ship.

To play in an ensemble for fun means that there is no need for you to have passed any exams. So what does having passed grade 8 show that you can do? It shows that you can play scales from memory. It shows that you might be able to read grade 6 music at sight, however if you don't get full marks for this then obviously you aren't grade 6 standard in sight reading. It shows that you know something about the music that you are playing, all my musical friends know this whether they have taken exams or not. (Most concerts have programme notes about the pieces being played.) It shows that you can play some music with a pianist who is better than you are.

Having a grade 8 shows that you were able to satisfy the examiner that you met the requirements for grade 8 on the day of your exam. In the same way having an A-level maths shows that you satisfied the examiners in your exam for that.

You don't need to get full marks in a music grade exam, so why should full marks be required in the sight reading to demonstrate a capability of sight reading a grade 6 style piece of music?

So why do grade 8? Well some people like to have milestones in their playing. That's fine. However grade 8 doesn't qualify you for anything. This is why I don't pay any attention to what grades/ diplomas people have taken, because in the general adult music making scheme of things they don't mean anything. They are only useful if people want to do recitals.
Not very many of the people I come into contact with want to do recitals, they wouldn't consider this as fun playing.

As above a grade 8 shows you satisfied the examiners that you were of that standard for one particular half hour.
Why are they useful if people want to do recitals?

An amateur ensemble also doubles as club. Like a bowling club or a tennis club etc. It is a way of meeting new people, making new friends, getting out of the house, an intersting hobby. You don't need any exams to be good at any of these things.

People often like a benchmark, sports clubs can provide a handicap, so in music people can use a grade as a grading, and a specific target to aim at often helps with improving.

On their own, none of these exams qualify anyone for anything. Further study is always needed.

How is that different to anything else?

I don't think it is different to anything else, but if I suggest that people who are grade 8 standard do not know enough to teach their instrument, on this forum I get told that I don't know what I am talking about.
I asked at band practise what people thought about people teaching their instrument as soon as they had got grade 8. One person has grade 8 and knows that he doesn't know enough. Someone else who works in a school music department said that if they hear of anyone doing that they try to get them to stop. They said we tell them that grade 8 is the beginning of learning an instrument, not the end.

As for the recitals and the grade exams, it was the only thing that I could think of that resembled taking a grade exam.
Do you really get a handicap for tennis and bowls or is this only golf?