There are two parts to this. First, the defined Level 5 here is not just having the ability to play-by-ear. It refers to those who can sight-read PLUS possessing the play-by-ear ability (dual skills). In other words, they are progressive in nature. Incidentally, and statistically speaking, there are indeed more who are able to sight-read than those who are able to play-by-ear, thus portraying the right pyramid structure.

Second, according to the Revised Bloom's Taxonomy, playing-by-ear is a higher -order thinking skill-set because while a computer can play out a piece of music when a MIDI score is fed onto it, it lacks the ability to play-by-ear (relative pitch, not absolute pitch because the former requires musicality while the latter does not). It is akin to newsreaders who can read a passage extremely well (with good diction and intonation) but are unable to speak well in the impromptu/off-the-cuff sense (when relating an incident).

I agree with Yong Meng. For those who can play by ear, most of the time it's pretty effortless (it's an innate talent which can be cultivated further I believe ), whereas playing by score often takes hard work and concentration (unless of course you can sight read effortlessly :)

Haha I'm conducting it FOC for my cluster schools of music teachers over three Thursday afternoons. As the intermediate level workshop I did for them was well received last year, they requested to go deeper into it. PM me if keen, thanks.

Agree with Albert. Full-time music teachers can't afford to sacrifice their source of income for leisure activities. Not taking part in these activities doesn't mean they are not genuinely interested in music education.

That said, leisure/social music-making does have its place in my life. That's why I have shifted a student to make space for the Pianover's Meetup every Sunday evening. However, other students may not be so accommodating. We all know that piano lessons are usually held at night or on weekends, which is (unfortunately) also the time that leisure and social activities take place.

A teacher who cancels lessons because of jamming sessions would not only lose income, but also come across as lacking commitment towards the student.

Now I see, thanks for sharing! Anyway a spin-off from this discussion is whether one believes in investments (aka "wasting time to gain time in the future"). While Corrine is willing to "sacrifice" a regular piano lesson slot for attending Pianovers Meetups, she is doing it because of her passion in music and believes in doing this as a form of leisure activity. However, to others, have they ever wondered, by attending Pianovers Meetups, it is actually an investment (though giving up a piano lesson) because through networking, etc., one can garner more piano teaching assignments in the long run? And also possibly learning from fellow piano tutors on how to teach certain aspects which are challenging?

Zensen, you do have a point there. Although I participate in Pianover Meetups primarily for leisure and personal growth, I do see it as a way of enhancing one's teaching as well. Thanks for the insights!

Do piano teachers generally have a more "academic" mindset when it comes to music vs those who have a more "performance-oriented" mindset? Just a thought. (I really appreciate everything my piano teachers taught me. :)

Yong Meng's article has rightly pointed out the downsides of exam-oriented learning (weak sight-reading, limited repertoire and loss of interest which was also mentioned by Theng Beng). But as Zensen said in the first comment, it ultimately boils down to the learner's objectives or purposes.

In defence of exams, these graded assessments are a tangible measure of one's progress, for the learner and for the parent. They are also a source of external motivation, which I believe, has its place alongside intrinsic motivation. Some kids may want to learn certain songs they like very much (e.g. from movies), but because they are unaware of the hard work and commitment needed to master the song, they may also give up eventually. Hence, being "forced" to learn something may not be as bad as it sounds.

The practical purposes would be, as Yong Meng mentioned, entry into MEP in schools or DSA, although an audition may also be held. Moreover, if a learner aspires to become a piano teacher, they would need to attain certification. A qualification from an established institution would enable employers to hire in a fair and objective way. If not, piano teachers would likely need to rely on personal connections or word-of-mouth recommendations.

I am currently try to 'influence' my eldest daughter who is 10years old to pickup piano. I think she got good height, fingers are Long enough and still flexible. She currently still prefer guitar over piano. I always believe piano is the fundamental basic of all musical instruments. Once you knew piano then you could pick up and learn other musical instruments.

Expressions or interpretations aside, pianists who can run fast passages skilfully (with precise notes and precise rhythm/duration) may perceive that they can play both fast pieces and slow music with similar precision/accuracy. But others who have difficulty playing fast passages can only play slower works. Thus their argument might be: A sports car can be faster than a regular car, but it can be as slow as a ergular car too, if it wants to be. But a regular car can never be as a fast as a sports car.

In fact we are dwelling into a topic that encroaches into social-politics. How do we comfort or encourage someone (who has the aspiration to be a doctor and has been working hard towards it throughout his life) who is janitor, because he failed to make it to becoming a doctor or any other white-collar professions? By the same token, we know of several instrumentalist-aspirants who have been learning to master the playing of piano for decades but they can never reach the technically-challenging levels required of most classical piano concertos. What should we be telling this person?

Verdi, as we know him, is one of the greatest composers, especially in writing Opera music. But did you know that he was very poor in playing the piano? But his music works are supreme! Which explains I don't agree with Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, which sees Musical Intelligence as one unique factor in mankind. My point here is: While someone is excellent as an instrumentalist but poor at composing, other are the opposite.

Zensen: In terms of performing ability, there are more objective methods to measure this. However, if we're talking about composing ability, like what you said, it's a different matter altogether. That is why, very few child prodigies grow up to become geniuses who change the world. Because while these prodigies are excellent at playing music or are very knowledgeable in whatever field they're in, they rarely produce anything original.

I am neither a concert pianist nor a composer, but I don't consider myself a failed musician because, my mission is to spread the lifelong love of piano music to others, and that's enough meaning and purpose for me.