>
>I don't think you can license the mastery of an art,
>but you can license based on the fact that the teacher
>has a specified amount of knowledge of the SCIENCE
>related to singing. That doesn't mean he or she is or
>is not a "good" teacher, but at least it sets some
>sort of standard. Any other standard would be
>subjective.
>
>Similarly, MDs are not licensed on all aspects of
>being a good doctor (bedside manner, business sense,
>etc.), but at least we know they have all attended
>medical school!
##
Difficult to talk about actual examples on a public board
and I agree about the problem of "rating", it's a bit like
accidentally finding a good car mechanic or finding from
sad experience that you've got a bomb on your hands.
The fact that they put themselves up as teachers doesn't
mean a thing and despite what Randy says, the starting
point for a potential student is only the qualifications the
teacher presents. Most teachers will boast of this and that
and to me that's a negative.
After the qualifications, real or imagined, comes word of
mouth. How many people do you know who will honestly
tell you what a fool they've been by staying with an
inadequate teacher for too long. They won't, they'd rather
say how wonderful he is, than admit their bad decision.
That only leaves observation of the performers, and the main
fact about that is that most good performers are a product of
several teachers and personal application. We're really left with
the attitude of a wandering minstrel. To stay or to go?
The questions.....!!!!!
How long should you stay with a particular teacher before
you move on?
How do you evaluate your progress?
Should loyalty be an issue?
How much blame should the student shoulder if he feels
that the price to progress ratio is not good enough?
:) Have you ever told a teacher that you think she charges
too much for what she can impart? Yair...I bet!!!! :)
|
|  |
