Klarinet Archive - Posting 000215.txt from 2002/06

From: "Dee D. Hays" <deehays@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] Teaching the 'students' of today
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2002 17:59:34 -0400

----- Original Message -----
From: <LeliaLoban@-----.com>
Subject: [kl] Teaching the 'students' of today

> Neil Leupold wrote,
> >The curriculum for a lifetime amateur vs. a budding
> >professional is (hopefully) different in any given
> >teacher's studio.
>
> Why?
>
> Clearly, the *business* curriculum will need to be different for an
aspiring
> professional, but that's an issue that only comes up near the end of
formal
> schooling, after the student is well established as someone who can start
> looking for paying work as a musician. Up to that point, what's the
> difference in the curriculum? Is it a difference in the music you assign?
> And how long do the students take lessons before you begin to
differentiate?
>
> Lelia

The budding professional should be pushed as hard and far as the teacher can
take them. When they reach that teacher's limit, they should be handed over
to a more advanced teacher. The teacher needs to emphazsize the importance
of practice shedules and so. Of course the teacher can't be a slave driver
or remove the fun but it does need to be a more serious, structured
approach. Theory should also be heavily incorporated.

The person who is aiming at lifetime amateur or indicates that they have no
interest in being a professional should be approached from the joy of music
outlook. If the student wants to work at a slower pace or different
repertoire or doesn't have the desire to practice two hours a day, that
should be considered ok. The student just needs to be enjoying the lesson
and making some improvement. Theory doesn't need as much attention.
Afterall you don't need to know what an augmented 7th chord is if you just
want to play in a community band.

Dee Hays
Michigan

---------------------------------------------------------------------