The purpose of my teaching

There is an element of laziness behind the idea that the sole purpose of a lesson should be that of transmitting concepts and skills.

Not only lazy, there is also something quite egotistical: I am teaching you this lesson to inform you of something I know, something I have mastered; but what about the contact between teacher and student? For me, that should always be the priority: what the time we share means; the time the quality of which is given by who we are.

I see you, my student, clearly; I am not lazy about truly understanding you; I learn how to communicate directly with you about your actions, about their consequences.

I had a teacher, when I was a high school student. He is the only teacher I have ever had in school who would questions his own knowledge and beliefs, who would say openly “I do not know”; who was interested in discussing matters with us, in hearing us out, even our most immature, controversial opinions. Because he knew that was the way to make them develop. Sure, it was risky. He would risk spending an entire lesson in a back and forth with a student. But we would all be listening, chipping in, involved.

And the massive problem we have with music education and young people appreciating and getting involved with classical music is: we do not want to be direct. To risk speaking through and with the people who are speaking and living now — and no, I am not talking about academics writing music in their ivory towers. It really does not matter if a 20 year old knows about that one Brahms Symphony or not. What does matter though, is how they think about concerts, how live music makes them feel; their contact with music.