Applied Music Teaching

The concept of apprenticeships has existed in history since the beginning of time when children were taught by their parents and eventually studied a craft or skill with a master. Identifying an interest or a talent is the first step followed by seeking out a teacher to help hone the skills and develop a young discipline into the next master. In movies we see great examples of this in Karate Kid, in Return of the Jedi, in Back to the Future, and in Rocky. During the Olympics we watched teacher after teacher remind students what to do and how to approach the event. We know many young builders working with master craftsmen to build houses, buildings, and entire communities. It is the teaching process and the benefits of individual learning cannot be overstated. One could argue that the classroom experience is but a shadow of the gain that could and does take place in individual instruction. While there is certainly something positive about collective experiences as well as community learning, every opportunity for one to one learning should applied due to its extensive gain.

This idea is especially true in music learning where a student seeks out a master musician to learn how to be a better musician with a measure of independence while reflecting the excellence of the teacher. Prior to the growth of the academy, young musicians found experienced musicians and sat at their feet learning how to be a performer, composer, leader. Dating back to the middle ages, Guilmant Machaut had students as did Giovanni Palestrina in the Renaissance. Johann S. Bach taught students throughout his illustrious career and we often read about Beethoven's harsh treatment of his students. With the growth of the acclaimed virtuoso, we find disciples of pianists, violinists, flautists, and many great singers beginning in the 18th century and growing rapidly into the 19th century.

The 20th century continued the idea of apprenticeships, professional training, and applied teaching in the academy. A precursory study of the teachers at the Paris Conservatory reveals a list strong in composition, theory, organ, piano and voice but slight in brass, woodwind, and percussion. A closer look, however, does reveal several teachers on various instruments but there is suspicion, albeit without evidence, that these teachers were both performers and teachers without full-time positions at the conservatory. Obviously respected as performers, students desired to learn from them through the Paris Conservatory system, and the Conservatory obliged by providing individualized instruction for the students.

This is a solid educational ideal and one that has withstood the test of time as an educational system. Individualized instruction is strong and is an essential part of becoming a master at a given task. Becoming a performing musician must include individualized instruction as a part of the training as a way to emulate a master while defining one's own style and expression. Students benefit from the careful attention and teachers generally enjoy the opportunity to send a discipline into the world of musical performance.

But a closer look at the economic problems of such a design begins to crumble in the face of reality. Studying with an individual is economically troubling for an institution concerned about efficiency, salaries, benefits, and mass production. Because the heritage of music training involves a heavy set of courses in applied music, institutions find themselves in a predicament of employing teachers working with very few students over the course of a semester. Compared to large classrooms of 30, 60, 90 or, in some cases, hundreds of students, applied individualized instruction in music is very costly. While the gain is in the level of instruction and the opportunity to reach students in ways that large classes cannot, at the same time, there is no questioning the economic burden that individualized instruction places on an institution.

Schools often rely on adjunct instruction to off-set the costs associated with applied teaching usually resulting in less loyalty to the school and potential resentment by the teacher. Admittedly, often adjunct teachers are currently "practitioners" in the field of music performance and can provide teaching insights that are current and relevant, which ironically contributes to the rise of adjunct instruction. Quality instruction (and its antithesis) is true regardless of the employment status of the teacher. That said, full-time faculty, accreditation issues aside, fulfill greater roles in the life of a university than do part-time faculty due to committee work, service to the institution, and research. Now we arrive at the opportunity--is it entirely fair to an institution to compensate a full-time wage to an instructor who teaches very few students during the course of a semester? If not, how do we maintain the tradition and integrity of the applied teaching experience while presenting an economically viable instructional model?

It will require a new model of teaching and one that will probably need to include technology, group instruction, reduced face to face time, altered performance expectations, and significant motivation of the student. It may also require rethinking the requirements for individual achievement as related to different degree programs. Web resources continue to multiply and not to take advantage of public domain sheet music, video instruction, curriculum lists, repertoire ideas, and nearly unlimited teaching techniques is to ignore a vibrant world of music education. Other possibilities include video conferencing, recorded files, and chat rooms. Applied teachers may need to consider ways to teach more students during the course of a week or two weeks without adding hours to the teaching time. Students will need to glean more and apply the lessons diligently, being thoroughly prepared for each lesson and benefit from the limited time or collective experience. These ideas and more will need to be embraced by institutions and individual teachers if the applied lesson is to remain as a teaching concept over time.

Those students demonstrating a need for individual instruction may need to pay more for that privilege or teachers may need to understand the institutional economic challenge of individualized instruction. Although nobody wishes to see a decline in quality of instruction nor quality of performance, there is little doubt that the historical model of one teacher for 12 to 18 students per semester is unsustainable for most schools carefully examining revenues and expenses. The institutions that demonstrate financial savings while increasing quality instruction will be the ones with the competitive edge. Such a concept will require taking a risk, carefully assessing the results, and maintaining the enthusiasm for teaching and learning.