I would like to hear members thoughts about teaching. In other words, should teaching be free or should it come at a price?
Is it fair to put a price on your knowledge of a tradition that at some point had no dollar value, I.e. at what point did it become an asset?
I teach in my own home. I charge a nominal fee to cover lighting heating etc. I only take a limited number of pupils and I certainly don't do it for the money.
If you teach (I teach the harp) then I charge the going rate for my area and have a contract that outlines what each party should expect. I believe teaching shouldn't be free, because at the end of the day it's cost me years of experience.
My favourite analogy: if you gave a builder a pile of materials, would you expect them to build you a wall for nothing?
Informal teaching is a whole 'nother matter, and I wouldn't hold back from giving free advice and casual tuition, but not on a regular basis with one person, as that's just exploitation.
IMO, Time is any given person's most valuable asset. Each of us has only so much of it, and we don't know how much. The time a person spends learning to do anything is an investment...we here have chosen to invest our time in learning about, and how to play, a particular style of music. We could have spent that time doing other things...maybe frittering it away watching TV, maybe learning valuable trade skills. The time investment, and the fact that only a few people have this knowledge, are what make it a valuable asset. One-on-one lessons take time, and (I could be wrong here, as I've never taught) are pretty much a one-way street (as far as skill/knowledge go - personal satisfaction is a different matter). So, if you want to learn how to do something, you find someone who's a relative expert at it, and pay them for their time.
Paraphrased from another angle, a teacher is someone who's chosen to specialize in something, at the expense of not learning/doing other things...they provide one service to society, and do a very efficient job of it, and society compensates them by providing the things they need, but were to busy working on their specialization to provide for themselves.
There you are, celticturntable, two very similar answers! In terms of the dollar value, you could argue any skill originally had no dollar value, but some system of exchange is correct for a skill shared, whether it's monetary or something else - but for anything more than a one-off bit of advice and help, I think it's only fair to expect to pay (or be paid, depending on which side you're on). At least, until that great day when food, fuel and heating are also given away free!
Many musicians make at least part of their living through teaching. It is an honorable occupation worthy of compensation. How else are skills, aesthetics, and the tradition to be passed to further generations? I value the insights I've gotten from weekend workshops and classes I've taken at dance weeks from musicians much better than I am. I wouldn't have enjoyed a lifetime of making music if Sam Siuura hadn't had the patience to teach me how to play as a child and teenager.
Teaching involves more than just putting a price on your knowledge. It also involves skill in passing that knowledge on and patience with those who pick it up slowly. You need to have the love for what you teach, but also for who you teach.
My degrees in music didn't come cheap.
Yes I charge for teaching. I do it at a studio affiliated with a music store. They take care of the set-up/contactsscheduling (within my parameters)/fees, etc. I am paid for my time.
I also teach an adult student at my home, we've bartered lessons for 1/4 beef (all-natural, local). Working on another barter with a hairdresser.
I've done some adult education classes where I'm paid a nominal fee, and the adult students are able to take the class affordably.
I've also sat in with folks, passed along (alleged) wisdom, and other informal situations where I'm just a part of a group sharing knowledge and experience.
"at what point did it become an asset?" I've always had mixed feelings about teachers. I suppose the first person to invent / discover how to make pleasing sounds with a lump of wood could have said to his friends, 'I'll show you how to do it if you give me some of that food -- I'm famished here.' But I think it more likely that the discoveries were made by people messing around together, and showing each other new things. So who first decided, 'I'm going to start charging people now.' and what right did he have to do it? Personally, I would never charge anyone for showing them what I can. Indeed it has cost me a fair bit over the years in lost instruments, books, recordings etc., but I have gained more than I have lost.
I suppose the same principle applies to land. Who first took it upon himself to 'own' a bit of the planet, and sell it to someone else? It used to really annoy me when I was little that I couldn't walk along the beach to the river mouth because it was 'private property'. How can a river be private property?
So there are different motivators and/or thought to this.
I do understand Time=Money, and with time came knowledge. But in that time, how much was paid back into the system?
I.e. Has the past collective been reimbursed aside from fixed costs like rent/audio-visual/etc.. I do believe that individuals have a worth given their knowledge, but your own knowledge in question, how did it come to be? Is your mentor/teaching getting a portion. Does this make any sense...
Here is a sub question. SHould you charge if someone isnt learning. Therefore, does your time still hold the same value?
Why should teaching music be regarded as any different from teaching say computer skills, a foreign language, or indeed, someone to drive ? Teaching music is a job I love.
I don't understand your last sentence.
My intent for example, is to gather as much traditional knowledge whether is books/tapes/vinyl/cd/etc. and give it all away when I pass on. Then I have paid back the collective.
@Kenny, if a student isnt learning, do you continue to charge because your time is still worth money. Is there a responsibility there beyond gain... Meaning, that time=money isnt the entire gig...
Some teachers seem to be better than others. If you want a good teacher you first have to find one, secondly you'll usually have to pay.
I think it's absolutely fine to charge for teaching, everyone has to eat and teaching is a steady semi-reliable way to earn a crust out of traditional music and not be endlessly flitting around the glob being a whore to the gig.
I'd think there are very few people making a living out of this music who don't do some teaching to supplement playing gigs.
FWIW, I teach music for a living. I also teach for free a fair amount. In either case, I don't advertise, people find me out. They're the ones placing the value on my teaching abilities.
Its a personal project, from items passed on to me from respected musicians. Its my way to give back. A child with no financial means with an interest is more what I was thinking.
There are 2 sides to it Peter, If you say OK, teach the kid for free. so then you get 10 kids pleading poverty. but of course its the adults that pay. So now your spending all day teaching a bunch for free.... how do you earn your living if your a pro.? But the parents can still afford to go to the match, smoke and drink etc....
By them offering an exchange of energy they are recognising that what you have is of value to them. If it has no value to them, then why do they want you to teach.
Ok there will be exceptions, my dad wouldn't countenance music , I was meant to be a Lawyer, Colonel, Judge, Doctor, whatever, a musician!?! where's the future in that? No way would he support my music as a kid . I had to plead for a guitar for my 9th Birthday and it was strongly disproved of. So in my case I couldn't afford lessons apart from school, and then that was taken away, not a serious subject. Wont get to Oxford or Sandhurst with music! So if a student, or parent cant afford to pay, I teach anyhow. but dont FFS publicise the fact or theyll all want free lessons to leave a bit more drinking money in dads pocket.
I agree with there being a charge for lessons. Partly because of the whole time=money points that others have already raised. But also because I think it helps put a level of "serious" in the equation. Helps keep those who are teaching from having their time and effort abused by individuals who may not be that dedicated.
Because of the cost involved, I have had to make a decision that it is important enough to me to learn the instrument that I will invest both my money and my time. And because of the fee I am motivated to get my moneys worth. (It isn't cheap or easy as a parent of 3 kids to spend money on myself ongoing week to week and I've got to be certain that the gains are worth the cost. The level of those gains depends on me, not that teacher.)
Having the cost as one of the deciding factors is important. If there was no fee for lessons, I would not really be out anything if I didn't practice or put forth full effort. It wouldn't be a waste of my time... but it would be a waste of my teacher's time and knowledge. So, I think having to pay for lessons weeds out some of slackers. (Note, I said "Some"). Especially if the teacher is well known and sought after. Their time and effort should be respected and a fee helps guarantee that.
I teach two Comhaltas classes (about 20 students between the two), a fourth class at the local National School (about 25 kids), and a handful of private students most weeks. I suppose I should count my own, but like the cobbler's children . . . I guess they learn more by osmosis. I don't charge but then again I'm teaching in my community so the children learn local tunes which they play in local settings at local events. The music is as much theirs as mine, passed to me by my parents. grandparents, and great-grandparents, and in several cases my student's parents and grandparents. "Would you charge for pointing out the magpie in the tree?" as my father would say. Open someone's eyes or open their ears, it's all the same.
In the same vein no-one round here would charge for the loan of a tractor. Though my mother would charge for classical lessons and not charge for trad.
Easy for me, I don't need the money, but I know many a Comhaltas teacher who could do with the money but makes do with expenses for similar reasons. Don't think for a minute that I begrudge those that do charge, especially if it's they're trying to scratch a livelihood as a trad musician. Fair play to them, it's a hard road. Unlike piobagusfidil, I got to Oxford with music. A music exhibition, no grant, gigging and busking round Europe most vacations to make ends meet.
A possible problem with being a professional teacher and the competition/examination systems in general is that if students are persuaded that competition is 'it' so then thats what they want to be taught; competition style. and other perhaps more traditional styles that are not recognised by the adjudicators can die out. Pro Teachers, to earn their living have to comply or go hungry/find another source of income. If this goes on too long there is no tradition left that extends beyond competition style apart from a few stand-outs as pointed out re the GHB world. The same has also happened, Im told in other countries where the competition style is all thats left.
Its not confined to music, throughout the entire teaching world teachers are obliged to conform to the latest government dictate, teaching to pass exams/competitions, as opposed to teaching as the teacher would like to teach.
Amateurs on the other hand, do not have the financial pressures to conform too and are free to teach what they like, even though they might be put under pressure and bullied by others who have taken the dirty dollar to compromise their Art.
Now of course Im not pointing fingers, just raising issues that might be worthy of consideration.
@The Hurler on the Ditch -- I was fortunate to meet someone with your same approach many years ago. I was a beginning fiddle player and on the advice of some friends, took my fiddle with me on a trip to Ireland. The fellow I met was very involved in CCE in Sligo. Like you, he taught many children and young adults. And his own children, too. Anyway, he gave his time to me very generously, played tunes with me every day, invited me to come with him as he traveled around the county to various sessions, introduced me to other musicians, and shared his love and knowledge of the music. It was an amazing gift to receive. I have tried to pass this on in my own small way, teaching a few people to play and enjoying friendships with them over the years. I have also been fortunate not to need to money I could probably have gotten from teaching, but I don't begrudge anyone who makes their living at it. I have paid for lessons and workshops over the years and I always think of it as money well spent because I have learned something and because it supports someone making their living at carrying on traditional music.
Surely it's like cricketers in the Victorian era: there are gentlemen players (the amateurs) and the professionals (talented but paid for hoi poloi).
The gentlemen wouldn't lower themselves to even mention filthy lucre let alone let themselves be remunerated, that was for the riff raff, the professionals.
I am a gentleman player thank you.
No one owns the knowledge of how to build house. There is a body of knowledge, carried by the home builders of the world, and documented in some cases. Revolutionary techniques were discovered by individuals over time, and they became part of the communal knowledge. Surely, there are some proprietary advances in construction that are currently owned by people or organizations, but on the whole, "how to build a house" seems to me to exist in the same way "how to play Irish trad" exists.
It seems ridiculous to begrudge payment to someone who has acquired the skill to build houses. It seems equally ridiculous to me to begrudge payment to a teacher of any sort.
HOWEVER, it doesn't seem odd to me that a professional builder might volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, or the Peace Corps. Or, that they might help a neighbor or old friend build a deck free. Likewise, I'm not the least bit surprised that some trad players do some teaching for free.
I think the same set of analogies holds for most professions.
@ op: "...should teaching be free or should it come at a price?"
or alternatively, "should learning be free or should it come at a price?"
learning (this music) does not need to cost anything, it is quite possible to learn by ear, especially if you have a lot of musicians in your area you can listen to. If you don't, I guess the next tier up is the cost of buying recordings to learn from. I suppose the question really comes down to whether you think you need a teacher who will give you sheet music to learn from, or a teacher that you want to pay to listen to and hear what they have to say to you about how to hear and play the music. It's probably up to you - if you want to pay someone, you'll pay someone. If you want to learn by simply listening, the cost may be significantly less.
In the end you'll make your decision though on what you think you sound like and what sort of progress you are making.
It's the learner's choice, not the teacher's so much, as to cost.
< Personally, I would never charge anyone for showing them what I can. Indeed it has cost me a fair bit over the years in lost instruments, books, recordings etc., but I have gained more than I have lost.>
My Thought's entirely,, gam...
I have lost great Record's, book's like Northern Fiddler etc..And her indoors winging '' Who the hell are you bringing in now - lol.
But I still do it. Oh and < How can a river be private property? >
Try Walking up here without a Rod licence ; )
jim,,,
"learning (this music) does not need to cost anything, it is quite possible to learn by ear, especially if you have a lot of musicians in your area you can listen to."
It's quite possible to learn how to play the instrument to learn the tunes by yourself too, but in a lot of cases, it is advantageous to be taught how to play. There are two issues here. Instrument tuition by a teacher who is not going to teach the wrong technique for traditional music is preferrable if traditional music is the road you want to go down.
I have occasionally taught, when I do I don't charge, but I have a simple stipulation, don't call for the next lesson until you have this one down. if it's not worth their time to practice, no amount of money makes it worth my time to teach.
lol Jim, and here's me thinking your wife had wings. You mean she's not an angel?
I agree that you don't *need* a teacher to learn this music, although a good teacher can make life a lot easier by showing you the best -- meaning arrived at by trial and error over a long period -- way to hold your instrument, but even then he might be wrong. It's when the teachers teach you what they were taught by their teachers, rather than what they have learned for themselves, that it starts to go wrong. You just need to see the limp-wristed pinky-jabbing fiddlers to know they were taught that that's the right way to do it without any explanation as to why.
When I first got my uilleann pipes, I asked the maker his advice on how I should hold them, and his reply was 'any way you like'. A far cry from the Scottish 'do it this way or else' approach, and to me, far more helpful in the long run.
meuritt, that's a very good approach. Particularly as you say you're not charging, then that's a fair exchange that they put in the work before taking more of your time.
...thinking also about the love / money balance, perhaps I need to temper what I said earlier, because there are times when you really want to teach and you don't want monetary reward (I do this each week with a local school choir) - although I find it more difficult to think of an example where I'd take on something really thankless even if it paid well.
" It's when the teachers teach you what they were taught by their teachers, rather than what they have learned for themselves, that it starts to go wrong."
Amen.
And what's taught is always just a suggestion, a recommendation, not cast in concrete. Ultimately, what someone *learns* is up to them. A good teacher/mentor/coach just opens the door to your own potential.
Probably the best of all teaching is about someone else's achievement - and yes, I'd agree with Will, it's not up to you, or in your power, to achieve "for" other people - that's up to them, and up to you to set up the right environment (whether it's challenges, or just an encouraging atmosphere, or something else) that will help them put in the work. And...you still have to eat, unless you're just doing it as a hobby! So in terms of the OP, my answer's still "yes" - ideally both, certainly for love (if you have another source of income) but - for me - probably not "just" for money.
there is nothing
intrinsically bad about money (although that's open to philosopho/politico debate no doubt), it is more how it is used...certainly to demand something from someone for nothing is dodgy at most, possibly indelicate at least, but to engineer a situation where people have little or no money, but must pay exorbitant amounts for basic necessities is an argument for intrinsic evility. There must be a balance somewhere. Long may we have the freedom to choose...our price, our wage, or etc...
Yes, we could do with a teacher to show us the technicalities of an instrument...but in the end...we need to be able to listen...the earlier the better. I think.
There are many ways of opening the door, grasshopper!
Seriously, I agree with the idea that it's about inducing / drawing out etc... but it's not a passive thing. It's a very thoughtful mix of "push" and "pull". For my pupils the technicalities of learning the instrument are just a small part - there's also appreciating and being able to get your head around musical structures, being able / willing to "jam", to experiment...but I'm probably preaching to the converted here!
you probably are I'd say.
but once you have a competency in unconsciously knowing where those sounds are located on your instrument, beyond that, just immersing in some expert sounds and techniques can work of its own. Osmosis someone mentioned. Over and over again.
Grasshoppers know best.
Nothing wrong with making money doing what you love, although sometimes the act of turning it into commerce takes the fun out of it. Kind of like the way an interesting thread can get boring when it is pruned back...
Yeah the love/art/commerce/satisfaction thing can be complicated.
There was a time when I made my living teaching music and I’ve also taught a few people informally, but just as intensely, for free. Whether for pay or for free, I think it’s good to have some structure and clear expectations about the arrangement. In one of my early experiences, I failed to set those expectations and found myself taken for granted. For three years I instructed a friend for free in an ostensibly social situation. He was slow, but extremely eager, so I worked hard with him and didn’t begrudge the time. Eventually he became an accomplished player, which of course made me feel proud. Except that he now tells people that he was “self-taught.” [sigh, groan] I think because we had no “arrangement,” he was able to imagine that he learned just by osmosis, rather than being taught.
The short answer is if it isn't for love you shouldn't charge money. Bad music teachers are about earning money and nothing else. I can think of far too many small town piano teachers that fit that category (not all I hasten to add). Good teachers, whether paid or unpaid, love their subject and love passing it on. If they are being paid they don't watch the clock to the minute unless schedules demand it. And outside their paid teaching they will pass on their skills in free situations. I wouldn't attempt to teach ITM. I've no business trying. But I've taught lots of kinds of music on many instruments for 50 years. I've been paid for private lessons, paid as a school teacher, and paid for workshops. I've done free workshops, free private lessons (though not repeatedly with a student) and have voluntarily taught in school situations. I'm not holding myself out as something special. I think all who love their subject and the challenge of passing it on feel the same way.
As a student, I’ve never minded paying for lesson time. Just grateful that I had access to someone, whose playing inspired me, and who enjoyed sharing this music with others. And was very lucky to find someone, as cboody said, that doesn’t watch the clock to the minute (heh, or hour even) unless schedules demand it, and takes many opportunities to pass on tips or tunes, free of charge. (whiskey and gingersnaps go a long way to encourage this) I like having the set time each week to explore this music with someone, and the monetary compensation they get from me, will never be enough to put up with my endless questions and squeaky fiddling.
Nor do I begrudge well-known musicians who travel through our area, the fees they’ve charged for workshops and lessons. Most have been minimal in return for the time they spent, and it will hopefully allow them to continue to come to remote areas. Maybe in the old days, I’d have just killed and dressed a chicken or two for them in exchange for tunes. Personally, I’d rather write a check.
I saw a site for a music teacher once who basically charged more money the less you practiced. On the front page of the site, it basically said something like "Practicing 1-3 days/week= $45/hour lesson; Practicing 4-5 days=$40/hour; Practicing 6-7 days=$35/hour". Interesting approach that I don't think I've seen or heard of elsewhere. Guess the teacher is basically saying that it's more of a pain to teach people who don't practice, so there's going to be a cost for that pain. Guess he's also betting on honesty from his students.
My personal take? I know as a kid taking lessons I often apologized to my teachers when I hadn't practiced something because they had to review it week after week, so I can kind of see where the teacher I mentioned above is coming from. As a teacher myself it does get annoying after a while if a student clearly hasn't done their homework (musical or academic). I just don't know that the threat of paying more per hour would be motivation. Money does speak though.
I suppose love of the Music might motivate more esoteric players to share their experience for the sheer bliss of it. No fees necessary. Food, heat , roof, transport will appear because the Cosmic figure recognizes good works and the blessings of sharing.
Now let's get back to the real world.
Teachers are professionals and should also love what they do. They should be compensated accordingly.
If a person has a legacy from Old Money wealth, or has a huge governmental grant allowing them independence to exercise their altruism and can share the Bliss gratis, Godspeed and Blessings be upon him/her.
Fo rthe rest, if we expect someone to share their experience, talent and expertise with us they should be compensated.
This topic comes up so often that I am led to wonder if it's par for the course for professional music teachers to feel guilty or defensive about how they make a living. Which is a pity. For several years I took lessons from a marvellous teacher, and it was the best investment I ever made, to the point that I seriously can't my head around the hubris of even suggesting that my teacher had a moral duty to do something that he enjoyed for free. As for me, for years I worked at a job I hated, and stuck around only for the paycheque. I now have a well-paying job - teaching, at that, though not music - that I enjoy immensely, and have better things to do than wonder if it's fair to receive financial compensation for work that doesn't leave me miserable.
Referring to my past comment: "Has the past collective been reimbursed aside from fixed costs like rent/audio-visual/etc.. I do believe that individuals have a worth given their knowledge, but your own knowledge in question, how did it come to be? Is your mentor/teaching getting a portion. Does this make any sense..."
Assuming you had paid for your knowledge, I guess I dont see an issue, but if you acquired the art from others at no cost to you, then is it fair to charge. Its a matter of give and take for me; you can only take as much as you give. The give part doesnt consist of teaching in this case. Teachers at school paid for their education, educate students and create an increased economic base, therefore satisfying the cycle. It seem that for the most part withing this art, I see the good part happening.
"Is your mentor/teaching getting a portion. Does this make any sense...Assuming you had paid for your knowledge, I guess I dont see an issue, but if you acquired the art from others at no cost to you, then is it fair to charge..."
Celticturntable, I do math for a living, and those who know me will attest to my oft-misplaced pedantry of that form, but even I can't fathom keeping such detailed balance sheets on the knowledge I acquire. What if I took lessons I paid for, and learned 50% of what i know from there, but then every now and again - say 10% in the pub I got an idea for a variation or a bowing, which was free (less the cost of drinks, I guess)...but wait, then there were those many hours at the miserable old job when I should have been working but was instead turning over tunes in my head, which I guess I was getting paid FOR (but don't tell my former employer). I reckon in my case, factoring in that last bit I was paying for about 25% of my musical knowledge, so if I were to become a music teacher, should I charge 25% of market rates?
I don't mean to be glib, but I don't follow the logic of "I didn't pay person X for music, therefore I shouldn't charge person Y to learn it from me." (My parents looked after me for free as a child, so was I in the wrong charging the neighbourhood parents money for babysitting as a teenager lo these many years ago?)
@Tall, Dark, and Mysterious. The general msg is that I would expect some teachers to give back. It seems this is in fact happening. i had an experience with one at a point who never gave back and just took. Finally is caught up to him, and did nothing to sustain the tradition. Left piles of students who couldnt think for themselves and plunk. Its more of an awareness conversation than any specific attack...
Fair enough, but the situation you just described seems to arise from bad teaching and a lack of respect for/ knowledge of the music, not the fact that money changed hands.
One driven by easy money maybe? I think there is balance in everything we do. It's a gift, and it leaves me thinking that it shouldnt be exploited to a degree. All that to say, most would agree, but we live in capitalist societies, so we are forced to think differently about the actual issue.
I paid for the lessons I had with my early teachers in this music, including Kevin Burke, who emphasized not the money but the circle of musicians I was joining by getting tunes from him that he got from Bobby Casey and who Bobby got from Scully, and so on.
The money need not be the focus, even when it changes hands.
I used to teach public policy at a university. My salary then was double what I make now teaching private music lessons and workshops. It's not greed that drives my chosen job.
So...I think I'm coming around to think this was probably a really stupid question by the OP. Unless you know anyone who works at a school / university etc who works there for completely no money.
No, didn't think so.
What really gets my goat is that for some reason music is seen to be different and that it's OK even to consider that someone should provide a professional service for nothing - because to me it implies (as we live in a capitalist society and therefore are talking within that frame of reference) that music has no value.
Just thought I'd vent that. There. My spleen feels better.
Some musicians that don't need the money(maybe not life and career musicians) provide a free service to those that are less fortunate. If i noticed that a kid had great potential but couldn't afford it, i would try my best to help. Music has made a deep impact in my life. From isolating me from the drug trade that went around in my community, to opening my mind about other cultures. Maybe teaching for free isn't really about the idea of music being worthless, but more so priceless. Worth so much we can't put a price on it.
Also, One of my friends wanted to take piano lessons from me. I didn't want to charge him because i don't have a College degree. He insisted that he pay me. I agreed to charge him that same that i was charged, instead of charging him the same price the career musicians teach here, because they have degrees and i don't. It's really expensive here...
Its not uncommon for academics to retire and carry on in a library or corner of a lab, and do a few tutorials, because they enjoy it. I guess its mainly the ones with good pensions though.
There are lots of recreational activities where people teach for free, maybe as part of a general sense of sharing in the communty (e.g. loan of a tractor or as in AlBrown's last post). Maybe music is different because it *is* so often paid for with money. Google will show you loads of quotes with the phrase "pay the fiddler" (and "pay the [pied] piper" ...). In some contexts a dressed chicken or similar may have been appropriate, in others not so.
I see and hear about a lot of musicians, ranging from hobbyists to those who earn some side income from playing, to wealthy professionals, performing at benefit concerts and earning little or no money for themselves by doing so. They love music, they're lucky enough to be able to entertain people with their skills, they're giving back to the community. Artists, as a group, are bloody selfless with their talents. And yet, as Mark Harmer points out, the right of some of these people earn *any money at all* for transmitting their knowledge is routinely called into question.
Meanwhile, I don't remember the last time, if ever, I've seen any athletes put on a game and donate the any substantial portion of the profits to a worthy cause. And I doubt the football coach at the local college is ever asked if he thinks it's ok for him to be earning a paycheque for what he does.
What i don't like, is the idea that we should just perform for free, just because we love to. I mean, it's like this is what the requester is saying... "I want a musician to play for my event. It would be nice, and make me look good. But what about the cost? Hmm... I'm sure they want publicity. Not only that i'm sure they love performing. I'm basically doing them a favor! I just won't ask if they want to be paid, i'll let them ask me for the pay."
But may i say, there are some considerate folks out there. In the beginning of my piano career, i've recieved a significant amount of money from tips and donations.
"What i don't like, is the idea that we should just perform for free, just because we love to."
Some time ago I was asked to play at a friend's wedding - no money involved. I agreed - after all, I do love to play. A few weeks before the wedding, the bride presented me with a set list (6 tunes, in different genres; the transcription of one that she provided was in A-flat major), and told me to show up 2h before the ceremony to come up with arrangements and rehearse. At that point I said I was no longer interested. I love to play, but not on all terms! And the same goes for everything I enjoy doing.
I remember stumbling into McGanns pub in Doolin Co Clare the second year they were open...I got gig playing with Davie Spillane 7 day n night,,,,totally awesome....3 squares , free pints & a tenner a night(Late 70's?)
Tommy Peoples was around the area, n I remember asking for a lesson he said come over, but hew would not take payment
I remember walking from Doolin To Killfanora to get some "stuff" from him, he was horribly hung over, but let me in, we had a couple of brandy n ports, & we played some.tunes.
I was there for several years , & am glad to think I'm a friend of his
But I will take some small cash if someone likes the way I play
Rogerb
For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I would like to hear members thoughts about teaching. In other words, should teaching be free or should it come at a price?
Is it fair to put a price on your knowledge of a tradition that at some point had no dollar value, I.e. at what point did it become an asset?
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
The intent is not to pick apart any teachers, just the morality of the matter.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I've asked myself this question. I look foward to seeing the responses.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by fiddlelearner
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I teach in my own home. I charge a nominal fee to cover lighting heating etc. I only take a limited number of pupils and I certainly don't do it for the money.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Free Reed
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Ever been to Wisconsin?
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
If you teach (I teach the harp) then I charge the going rate for my area and have a contract that outlines what each party should expect. I believe teaching shouldn't be free, because at the end of the day it's cost me years of experience.
My favourite analogy: if you gave a builder a pile of materials, would you expect them to build you a wall for nothing?
Informal teaching is a whole 'nother matter, and I wouldn't hold back from giving free advice and casual tuition, but not on a regular basis with one person, as that's just exploitation.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
IMO, Time is any given person's most valuable asset. Each of us has only so much of it, and we don't know how much. The time a person spends learning to do anything is an investment...we here have chosen to invest our time in learning about, and how to play, a particular style of music. We could have spent that time doing other things...maybe frittering it away watching TV, maybe learning valuable trade skills. The time investment, and the fact that only a few people have this knowledge, are what make it a valuable asset. One-on-one lessons take time, and (I could be wrong here, as I've never taught) are pretty much a one-way street (as far as skill/knowledge go - personal satisfaction is a different matter). So, if you want to learn how to do something, you find someone who's a relative expert at it, and pay them for their time.
Paraphrased from another angle, a teacher is someone who's chosen to specialize in something, at the expense of not learning/doing other things...they provide one service to society, and do a very efficient job of it, and society compensates them by providing the things they need, but were to busy working on their specialization to provide for themselves.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by dereksmootz
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
There you are, celticturntable, two very similar answers! In terms of the dollar value, you could argue any skill originally had no dollar value, but some system of exchange is correct for a skill shared, whether it's monetary or something else - but for anything more than a one-off bit of advice and help, I think it's only fair to expect to pay (or be paid, depending on which side you're on). At least, until that great day when food, fuel and heating are also given away free!
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Many musicians make at least part of their living through teaching. It is an honorable occupation worthy of compensation. How else are skills, aesthetics, and the tradition to be passed to further generations? I value the insights I've gotten from weekend workshops and classes I've taken at dance weeks from musicians much better than I am. I wouldn't have enjoyed a lifetime of making music if Sam Siuura hadn't had the patience to teach me how to play as a child and teenager.
Teaching involves more than just putting a price on your knowledge. It also involves skill in passing that knowledge on and patience with those who pick it up slowly. You need to have the love for what you teach, but also for who you teach.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by fiddlentina
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
My degrees in music didn't come cheap.
Yes I charge for teaching. I do it at a studio affiliated with a music store. They take care of the set-up/contactsscheduling (within my parameters)/fees, etc. I am paid for my time.
I also teach an adult student at my home, we've bartered lessons for 1/4 beef (all-natural, local). Working on another barter with a hairdresser.
I've done some adult education classes where I'm paid a nominal fee, and the adult students are able to take the class affordably.
I've also sat in with folks, passed along (alleged) wisdom, and other informal situations where I'm just a part of a group sharing knowledge and experience.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Wyogal
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
True! It's partly love and partly money, then - but not ideally just one or the other.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Well Anyone I had took on to teach Fiddle to so far have been Good Friend's,
So I done it for Free -
jim,,,
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by FIDDLE4
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
"at what point did it become an asset?" I've always had mixed feelings about teachers. I suppose the first person to invent / discover how to make pleasing sounds with a lump of wood could have said to his friends, 'I'll show you how to do it if you give me some of that food -- I'm famished here.' But I think it more likely that the discoveries were made by people messing around together, and showing each other new things. So who first decided, 'I'm going to start charging people now.' and what right did he have to do it? Personally, I would never charge anyone for showing them what I can. Indeed it has cost me a fair bit over the years in lost instruments, books, recordings etc., but I have gained more than I have lost.
I suppose the same principle applies to land. Who first took it upon himself to 'own' a bit of the planet, and sell it to someone else? It used to really annoy me when I was little that I couldn't walk along the beach to the river mouth because it was 'private property'. How can a river be private property?
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by gam
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
So there are different motivators and/or thought to this.
I do understand Time=Money, and with time came knowledge. But in that time, how much was paid back into the system?
I.e. Has the past collective been reimbursed aside from fixed costs like rent/audio-visual/etc.. I do believe that individuals have a worth given their knowledge, but your own knowledge in question, how did it come to be? Is your mentor/teaching getting a portion. Does this make any sense...
Here is a sub question. SHould you charge if someone isnt learning. Therefore, does your time still hold the same value?
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Why should teaching music be regarded as any different from teaching say computer skills, a foreign language, or indeed, someone to drive ? Teaching music is a job I love.
I don't understand your last sentence.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Kenny
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
...referring to the original post.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Kenny
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
My intent for example, is to gather as much traditional knowledge whether is books/tapes/vinyl/cd/etc. and give it all away when I pass on. Then I have paid back the collective.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
@Kenny, if a student isnt learning, do you continue to charge because your time is still worth money. Is there a responsibility there beyond gain... Meaning, that time=money isnt the entire gig...
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Some teachers seem to be better than others. If you want a good teacher you first have to find one, secondly you'll usually have to pay.
I think it's absolutely fine to charge for teaching, everyone has to eat and teaching is a steady semi-reliable way to earn a crust out of traditional music and not be endlessly flitting around the glob being a whore to the gig.
I'd think there are very few people making a living out of this music who don't do some teaching to supplement playing gigs.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Solidmahog
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
FWIW, I teach music for a living. I also teach for free a fair amount. In either case, I don't advertise, people find me out. They're the ones placing the value on my teaching abilities.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Will Harmon
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Its a personal project, from items passed on to me from respected musicians. Its my way to give back. A child with no financial means with an interest is more what I was thinking.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
There are 2 sides to it Peter, If you say OK, teach the kid for free. so then you get 10 kids pleading poverty. but of course its the adults that pay. So now your spending all day teaching a bunch for free.... how do you earn your living if your a pro.? But the parents can still afford to go to the match, smoke and drink etc....
By them offering an exchange of energy they are recognising that what you have is of value to them. If it has no value to them, then why do they want you to teach.
Ok there will be exceptions, my dad wouldn't countenance music , I was meant to be a Lawyer, Colonel, Judge, Doctor, whatever, a musician!?! where's the future in that? No way would he support my music as a kid . I had to plead for a guitar for my 9th Birthday and it was strongly disproved of. So in my case I couldn't afford lessons apart from school, and then that was taken away, not a serious subject. Wont get to Oxford or Sandhurst with music! So if a student, or parent cant afford to pay, I teach anyhow. but dont FFS publicise the fact or theyll all want free lessons to leave a bit more drinking money in dads pocket.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by piobagusfidil
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
"dae" bist avae!
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Solidmahog
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I agree with there being a charge for lessons. Partly because of the whole time=money points that others have already raised. But also because I think it helps put a level of "serious" in the equation. Helps keep those who are teaching from having their time and effort abused by individuals who may not be that dedicated.
Because of the cost involved, I have had to make a decision that it is important enough to me to learn the instrument that I will invest both my money and my time. And because of the fee I am motivated to get my moneys worth. (It isn't cheap or easy as a parent of 3 kids to spend money on myself ongoing week to week and I've got to be certain that the gains are worth the cost. The level of those gains depends on me, not that teacher.)
Having the cost as one of the deciding factors is important. If there was no fee for lessons, I would not really be out anything if I didn't practice or put forth full effort. It wouldn't be a waste of my time... but it would be a waste of my teacher's time and knowledge. So, I think having to pay for lessons weeds out some of slackers. (Note, I said "Some"). Especially if the teacher is well known and sought after. Their time and effort should be respected and a fee helps guarantee that.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by frauschmittle
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I teach two Comhaltas classes (about 20 students between the two), a fourth class at the local National School (about 25 kids), and a handful of private students most weeks. I suppose I should count my own, but like the cobbler's children . . . I guess they learn more by osmosis. I don't charge but then again I'm teaching in my community so the children learn local tunes which they play in local settings at local events. The music is as much theirs as mine, passed to me by my parents. grandparents, and great-grandparents, and in several cases my student's parents and grandparents. "Would you charge for pointing out the magpie in the tree?" as my father would say. Open someone's eyes or open their ears, it's all the same.
In the same vein no-one round here would charge for the loan of a tractor. Though my mother would charge for classical lessons and not charge for trad.
Easy for me, I don't need the money, but I know many a Comhaltas teacher who could do with the money but makes do with expenses for similar reasons. Don't think for a minute that I begrudge those that do charge, especially if it's they're trying to scratch a livelihood as a trad musician. Fair play to them, it's a hard road. Unlike piobagusfidil, I got to Oxford with music. A music exhibition, no grant, gigging and busking round Europe most vacations to make ends meet.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by The Hurler on the Ditch
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
@The Hurler on the Ditch. Thanks for this...
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
That's a very generous attitude, Hurler - would that there be more like you..
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by the wounded hussar
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
A possible problem with being a professional teacher and the competition/examination systems in general is that if students are persuaded that competition is 'it' so then thats what they want to be taught; competition style. and other perhaps more traditional styles that are not recognised by the adjudicators can die out. Pro Teachers, to earn their living have to comply or go hungry/find another source of income. If this goes on too long there is no tradition left that extends beyond competition style apart from a few stand-outs as pointed out re the GHB world. The same has also happened, Im told in other countries where the competition style is all thats left.
Its not confined to music, throughout the entire teaching world teachers are obliged to conform to the latest government dictate, teaching to pass exams/competitions, as opposed to teaching as the teacher would like to teach.
Amateurs on the other hand, do not have the financial pressures to conform too and are free to teach what they like, even though they might be put under pressure and bullied by others who have taken the dirty dollar to compromise their Art.
Now of course Im not pointing fingers, just raising issues that might be worthy of consideration.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by piobagusfidil
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
@The Hurler on the Ditch -- I was fortunate to meet someone with your same approach many years ago. I was a beginning fiddle player and on the advice of some friends, took my fiddle with me on a trip to Ireland. The fellow I met was very involved in CCE in Sligo. Like you, he taught many children and young adults. And his own children, too. Anyway, he gave his time to me very generously, played tunes with me every day, invited me to come with him as he traveled around the county to various sessions, introduced me to other musicians, and shared his love and knowledge of the music. It was an amazing gift to receive. I have tried to pass this on in my own small way, teaching a few people to play and enjoying friendships with them over the years. I have also been fortunate not to need to money I could probably have gotten from teaching, but I don't begrudge anyone who makes their living at it. I have paid for lessons and workshops over the years and I always think of it as money well spent because I have learned something and because it supports someone making their living at carrying on traditional music.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by John Culhane
Gentlemen or hoi polloi?
Surely it's like cricketers in the Victorian era: there are gentlemen players (the amateurs) and the professionals (talented but paid for hoi poloi).
The gentlemen wouldn't lower themselves to even mention filthy lucre let alone let themselves be remunerated, that was for the riff raff, the professionals.
I am a gentleman player thank you.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by yhaalhouse
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
No one owns the knowledge of how to build house. There is a body of knowledge, carried by the home builders of the world, and documented in some cases. Revolutionary techniques were discovered by individuals over time, and they became part of the communal knowledge. Surely, there are some proprietary advances in construction that are currently owned by people or organizations, but on the whole, "how to build a house" seems to me to exist in the same way "how to play Irish trad" exists.
It seems ridiculous to begrudge payment to someone who has acquired the skill to build houses. It seems equally ridiculous to me to begrudge payment to a teacher of any sort.
HOWEVER, it doesn't seem odd to me that a professional builder might volunteer for Habitat for Humanity, or the Peace Corps. Or, that they might help a neighbor or old friend build a deck free. Likewise, I'm not the least bit surprised that some trad players do some teaching for free.
I think the same set of analogies holds for most professions.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by dereksmootz
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
@ op: "...should teaching be free or should it come at a price?"
or alternatively, "should learning be free or should it come at a price?"
learning (this music) does not need to cost anything, it is quite possible to learn by ear, especially if you have a lot of musicians in your area you can listen to. If you don't, I guess the next tier up is the cost of buying recordings to learn from. I suppose the question really comes down to whether you think you need a teacher who will give you sheet music to learn from, or a teacher that you want to pay to listen to and hear what they have to say to you about how to hear and play the music. It's probably up to you - if you want to pay someone, you'll pay someone. If you want to learn by simply listening, the cost may be significantly less.
In the end you'll make your decision though on what you think you sound like and what sort of progress you are making.
It's the learner's choice, not the teacher's so much, as to cost.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
< Personally, I would never charge anyone for showing them what I can. Indeed it has cost me a fair bit over the years in lost instruments, books, recordings etc., but I have gained more than I have lost.>
My Thought's entirely,, gam...
I have lost great Record's, book's like Northern Fiddler etc..And her indoors winging '' Who the hell are you bringing in now - lol.
But I still do it. Oh and < How can a river be private property? >
Try Walking up here without a Rod licence ; )
jim,,,
* Made by oor wee local weian's - lol.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6Q-LxFmDOA
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by FIDDLE4
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Sorry Gam -
I Meant the wife Whingeing or whining - lol
As they Do.. ; )
jim,,,
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by FIDDLE4
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
"learning (this music) does not need to cost anything, it is quite possible to learn by ear, especially if you have a lot of musicians in your area you can listen to."
It's quite possible to learn how to play the instrument to learn the tunes by yourself too, but in a lot of cases, it is advantageous to be taught how to play. There are two issues here. Instrument tuition by a teacher who is not going to teach the wrong technique for traditional music is preferrable if traditional music is the road you want to go down.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Weejie
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I have occasionally taught, when I do I don't charge, but I have a simple stipulation, don't call for the next lesson until you have this one down. if it's not worth their time to practice, no amount of money makes it worth my time to teach.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by meuritt
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
lol Jim, and here's me thinking your wife had wings. You mean she's not an angel?
I agree that you don't *need* a teacher to learn this music, although a good teacher can make life a lot easier by showing you the best -- meaning arrived at by trial and error over a long period -- way to hold your instrument, but even then he might be wrong. It's when the teachers teach you what they were taught by their teachers, rather than what they have learned for themselves, that it starts to go wrong. You just need to see the limp-wristed pinky-jabbing fiddlers to know they were taught that that's the right way to do it without any explanation as to why.
When I first got my uilleann pipes, I asked the maker his advice on how I should hold them, and his reply was 'any way you like'. A far cry from the Scottish 'do it this way or else' approach, and to me, far more helpful in the long run.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by gam
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
meuritt, that's a very good approach. Particularly as you say you're not charging, then that's a fair exchange that they put in the work before taking more of your time.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
...thinking also about the love / money balance, perhaps I need to temper what I said earlier, because there are times when you really want to teach and you don't want monetary reward (I do this each week with a local school choir) - although I find it more difficult to think of an example where I'd take on something really thankless even if it paid well.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
" It's when the teachers teach you what they were taught by their teachers, rather than what they have learned for themselves, that it starts to go wrong."
Amen.
And what's taught is always just a suggestion, a recommendation, not cast in concrete. Ultimately, what someone *learns* is up to them. A good teacher/mentor/coach just opens the door to your own potential.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Will Harmon
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Probably the best of all teaching is about someone else's achievement - and yes, I'd agree with Will, it's not up to you, or in your power, to achieve "for" other people - that's up to them, and up to you to set up the right environment (whether it's challenges, or just an encouraging atmosphere, or something else) that will help them put in the work. And...you still have to eat, unless you're just doing it as a hobby! So in terms of the OP, my answer's still "yes" - ideally both, certainly for love (if you have another source of income) but - for me - probably not "just" for money.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
"just opens the door"
Well said Will.
Educate has the same root as duct, deduce, induce, etc, and means 'to bring out' -- not 'to cram in'.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by gam
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
there is nothing
intrinsically bad about money (although that's open to philosopho/politico debate no doubt), it is more how it is used...certainly to demand something from someone for nothing is dodgy at most, possibly indelicate at least, but to engineer a situation where people have little or no money, but must pay exorbitant amounts for basic necessities is an argument for intrinsic evility. There must be a balance somewhere. Long may we have the freedom to choose...our price, our wage, or etc...
Yes, we could do with a teacher to show us the technicalities of an instrument...but in the end...we need to be able to listen...the earlier the better. I think.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
There are many ways of opening the door, grasshopper!
Seriously, I agree with the idea that it's about inducing / drawing out etc... but it's not a passive thing. It's a very thoughtful mix of "push" and "pull". For my pupils the technicalities of learning the instrument are just a small part - there's also appreciating and being able to get your head around musical structures, being able / willing to "jam", to experiment...but I'm probably preaching to the converted here!
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
you probably are I'd say.
but once you have a competency in unconsciously knowing where those sounds are located on your instrument, beyond that, just immersing in some expert sounds and techniques can work of its own. Osmosis someone mentioned. Over and over again.
Grasshoppers know best.
# Posted on May 25th 2011 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Nothing wrong with making money doing what you love, although sometimes the act of turning it into commerce takes the fun out of it. Kind of like the way an interesting thread can get boring when it is pruned back...
# Posted on May 26th 2011 by AlBrown
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Yeah the love/art/commerce/satisfaction thing can be complicated.
There was a time when I made my living teaching music and I’ve also taught a few people informally, but just as intensely, for free. Whether for pay or for free, I think it’s good to have some structure and clear expectations about the arrangement. In one of my early experiences, I failed to set those expectations and found myself taken for granted. For three years I instructed a friend for free in an ostensibly social situation. He was slow, but extremely eager, so I worked hard with him and didn’t begrudge the time. Eventually he became an accomplished player, which of course made me feel proud. Except that he now tells people that he was “self-taught.” [sigh, groan] I think because we had no “arrangement,” he was able to imagine that he learned just by osmosis, rather than being taught.
# Posted on May 26th 2011 by Bob himself
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
The short answer is if it isn't for love you shouldn't charge money. Bad music teachers are about earning money and nothing else. I can think of far too many small town piano teachers that fit that category (not all I hasten to add). Good teachers, whether paid or unpaid, love their subject and love passing it on. If they are being paid they don't watch the clock to the minute unless schedules demand it. And outside their paid teaching they will pass on their skills in free situations. I wouldn't attempt to teach ITM. I've no business trying. But I've taught lots of kinds of music on many instruments for 50 years. I've been paid for private lessons, paid as a school teacher, and paid for workshops. I've done free workshops, free private lessons (though not repeatedly with a student) and have voluntarily taught in school situations. I'm not holding myself out as something special. I think all who love their subject and the challenge of passing it on feel the same way.
# Posted on May 26th 2011 by cboody
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
As a student, I’ve never minded paying for lesson time. Just grateful that I had access to someone, whose playing inspired me, and who enjoyed sharing this music with others. And was very lucky to find someone, as cboody said, that doesn’t watch the clock to the minute (heh, or hour even) unless schedules demand it, and takes many opportunities to pass on tips or tunes, free of charge. (whiskey and gingersnaps go a long way to encourage this) I like having the set time each week to explore this music with someone, and the monetary compensation they get from me, will never be enough to put up with my endless questions and squeaky fiddling.
Nor do I begrudge well-known musicians who travel through our area, the fees they’ve charged for workshops and lessons. Most have been minimal in return for the time they spent, and it will hopefully allow them to continue to come to remote areas. Maybe in the old days, I’d have just killed and dressed a chicken or two for them in exchange for tunes. Personally, I’d rather write a check.
# Posted on May 26th 2011 by Ms. Ery
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I saw a site for a music teacher once who basically charged more money the less you practiced. On the front page of the site, it basically said something like "Practicing 1-3 days/week= $45/hour lesson; Practicing 4-5 days=$40/hour; Practicing 6-7 days=$35/hour". Interesting approach that I don't think I've seen or heard of elsewhere. Guess the teacher is basically saying that it's more of a pain to teach people who don't practice, so there's going to be a cost for that pain. Guess he's also betting on honesty from his students.
My personal take? I know as a kid taking lessons I often apologized to my teachers when I hadn't practiced something because they had to review it week after week, so I can kind of see where the teacher I mentioned above is coming from. As a teacher myself it does get annoying after a while if a student clearly hasn't done their homework (musical or academic). I just don't know that the threat of paying more per hour would be motivation. Money does speak though.
# Posted on May 26th 2011 by Jason G
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Now that idea I like...
# Posted on May 26th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I suppose love of the Music might motivate more esoteric players to share their experience for the sheer bliss of it. No fees necessary. Food, heat , roof, transport will appear because the Cosmic figure recognizes good works and the blessings of sharing.
Now let's get back to the real world.
Teachers are professionals and should also love what they do. They should be compensated accordingly.
If a person has a legacy from Old Money wealth, or has a huge governmental grant allowing them independence to exercise their altruism and can share the Bliss gratis, Godspeed and Blessings be upon him/her.
Fo rthe rest, if we expect someone to share their experience, talent and expertise with us they should be compensated.
# Posted on May 26th 2011 by zippydw
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
This topic comes up so often that I am led to wonder if it's par for the course for professional music teachers to feel guilty or defensive about how they make a living. Which is a pity. For several years I took lessons from a marvellous teacher, and it was the best investment I ever made, to the point that I seriously can't my head around the hubris of even suggesting that my teacher had a moral duty to do something that he enjoyed for free. As for me, for years I worked at a job I hated, and stuck around only for the paycheque. I now have a well-paying job - teaching, at that, though not music - that I enjoy immensely, and have better things to do than wonder if it's fair to receive financial compensation for work that doesn't leave me miserable.
# Posted on May 26th 2011 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Referring to my past comment: "Has the past collective been reimbursed aside from fixed costs like rent/audio-visual/etc.. I do believe that individuals have a worth given their knowledge, but your own knowledge in question, how did it come to be? Is your mentor/teaching getting a portion. Does this make any sense..."
Assuming you had paid for your knowledge, I guess I dont see an issue, but if you acquired the art from others at no cost to you, then is it fair to charge. Its a matter of give and take for me; you can only take as much as you give. The give part doesnt consist of teaching in this case. Teachers at school paid for their education, educate students and create an increased economic base, therefore satisfying the cycle. It seem that for the most part withing this art, I see the good part happening.
# Posted on May 26th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
"Is your mentor/teaching getting a portion. Does this make any sense...Assuming you had paid for your knowledge, I guess I dont see an issue, but if you acquired the art from others at no cost to you, then is it fair to charge..."
Celticturntable, I do math for a living, and those who know me will attest to my oft-misplaced pedantry of that form, but even I can't fathom keeping such detailed balance sheets on the knowledge I acquire. What if I took lessons I paid for, and learned 50% of what i know from there, but then every now and again - say 10% in the pub I got an idea for a variation or a bowing, which was free (less the cost of drinks, I guess)...but wait, then there were those many hours at the miserable old job when I should have been working but was instead turning over tunes in my head, which I guess I was getting paid FOR (but don't tell my former employer). I reckon in my case, factoring in that last bit I was paying for about 25% of my musical knowledge, so if I were to become a music teacher, should I charge 25% of market rates?
I don't mean to be glib, but I don't follow the logic of "I didn't pay person X for music, therefore I shouldn't charge person Y to learn it from me." (My parents looked after me for free as a child, so was I in the wrong charging the neighbourhood parents money for babysitting as a teenager lo these many years ago?)
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
@Tall, Dark, and Mysterious. The general msg is that I would expect some teachers to give back. It seems this is in fact happening. i had an experience with one at a point who never gave back and just took. Finally is caught up to him, and did nothing to sustain the tradition. Left piles of students who couldnt think for themselves and plunk. Its more of an awareness conversation than any specific attack...
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Fair enough, but the situation you just described seems to arise from bad teaching and a lack of respect for/ knowledge of the music, not the fact that money changed hands.
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
One driven by easy money maybe? I think there is balance in everything we do. It's a gift, and it leaves me thinking that it shouldnt be exploited to a degree. All that to say, most would agree, but we live in capitalist societies, so we are forced to think differently about the actual issue.
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by celticturntable
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Love! Life (metaphorically) is a blink of the eye. ;)
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by Ben Steen
... which brings up the question ~ 'Live for the moment, or the future?'
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by Ben Steen
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by AlBrown
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I paid for the lessons I had with my early teachers in this music, including Kevin Burke, who emphasized not the money but the circle of musicians I was joining by getting tunes from him that he got from Bobby Casey and who Bobby got from Scully, and so on.
The money need not be the focus, even when it changes hands.
I used to teach public policy at a university. My salary then was double what I make now teaching private music lessons and workshops. It's not greed that drives my chosen job.
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by Will Harmon
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
So...I think I'm coming around to think this was probably a really stupid question by the OP. Unless you know anyone who works at a school / university etc who works there for completely no money.
No, didn't think so.
What really gets my goat is that for some reason music is seen to be different and that it's OK even to consider that someone should provide a professional service for nothing - because to me it implies (as we live in a capitalist society and therefore are talking within that frame of reference) that music has no value.
Just thought I'd vent that. There. My spleen feels better.
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by Mark Harmer
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Some musicians that don't need the money(maybe not life and career musicians) provide a free service to those that are less fortunate. If i noticed that a kid had great potential but couldn't afford it, i would try my best to help. Music has made a deep impact in my life. From isolating me from the drug trade that went around in my community, to opening my mind about other cultures. Maybe teaching for free isn't really about the idea of music being worthless, but more so priceless. Worth so much we can't put a price on it.
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by fiddlelearner
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Also, One of my friends wanted to take piano lessons from me. I didn't want to charge him because i don't have a College degree. He insisted that he pay me. I agreed to charge him that same that i was charged, instead of charging him the same price the career musicians teach here, because they have degrees and i don't. It's really expensive here...
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by fiddlelearner
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
Its not uncommon for academics to retire and carry on in a library or corner of a lab, and do a few tutorials, because they enjoy it. I guess its mainly the ones with good pensions though.
There are lots of recreational activities where people teach for free, maybe as part of a general sense of sharing in the communty (e.g. loan of a tractor or as in AlBrown's last post). Maybe music is different because it *is* so often paid for with money. Google will show you loads of quotes with the phrase "pay the fiddler" (and "pay the [pied] piper" ...). In some contexts a dressed chicken or similar may have been appropriate, in others not so.
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by David50
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
That was mainly to Mark. The sentiment of fiddlelearner's post would cover many of those to help with sports etc.
# Posted on May 27th 2011 by David50
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I see and hear about a lot of musicians, ranging from hobbyists to those who earn some side income from playing, to wealthy professionals, performing at benefit concerts and earning little or no money for themselves by doing so. They love music, they're lucky enough to be able to entertain people with their skills, they're giving back to the community. Artists, as a group, are bloody selfless with their talents. And yet, as Mark Harmer points out, the right of some of these people earn *any money at all* for transmitting their knowledge is routinely called into question.
Meanwhile, I don't remember the last time, if ever, I've seen any athletes put on a game and donate the any substantial portion of the profits to a worthy cause. And I doubt the football coach at the local college is ever asked if he thinks it's ok for him to be earning a paycheque for what he does.
# Posted on May 28th 2011 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
What i don't like, is the idea that we should just perform for free, just because we love to. I mean, it's like this is what the requester is saying... "I want a musician to play for my event. It would be nice, and make me look good. But what about the cost? Hmm... I'm sure they want publicity. Not only that i'm sure they love performing. I'm basically doing them a favor! I just won't ask if they want to be paid, i'll let them ask me for the pay."
# Posted on May 28th 2011 by fiddlelearner
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
But may i say, there are some considerate folks out there. In the beginning of my piano career, i've recieved a significant amount of money from tips and donations.
# Posted on May 28th 2011 by fiddlelearner
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
"What i don't like, is the idea that we should just perform for free, just because we love to."
Some time ago I was asked to play at a friend's wedding - no money involved. I agreed - after all, I do love to play. A few weeks before the wedding, the bride presented me with a set list (6 tunes, in different genres; the transcription of one that she provided was in A-flat major), and told me to show up 2h before the ceremony to come up with arrangements and rehearse. At that point I said I was no longer interested. I love to play, but not on all terms! And the same goes for everything I enjoy doing.
# Posted on May 28th 2011 by Tall, Dark, and Mysterious
Re: For Love or Money, or a bit of both??
I remember stumbling into McGanns pub in Doolin Co Clare the second year they were open...I got gig playing with Davie Spillane 7 day n night,,,,totally awesome....3 squares , free pints & a tenner a night(Late 70's?)
Tommy Peoples was around the area, n I remember asking for a lesson he said come over, but hew would not take payment
I remember walking from Doolin To Killfanora to get some "stuff" from him, he was horribly hung over, but let me in, we had a couple of brandy n ports, & we played some.tunes.
I was there for several years , & am glad to think I'm a friend of his
But I will take some small cash if someone likes the way I play
Rogerb
# Posted on May 31st 2011 by Roger B