Traditional tuition in music performance has always been a combination of individual guidance and instrument classes / masterclasses. For some reason, tuition in small groups has been less common. But for a performer it is of course patently necessary to perform chamber music – not just solo and orchestral – in order to become a complete musician and artist. The question is therefore whether group tuition should also form part of the students’ training – a kind of academic equivalent to chamber music.

What can be achieved with this model? All tuition should aim to create dedicated and mindful musicians with a desire to convey their art; artists who understand and respect both their own style and distinctiveness and those of others. It is therefore important to give the students both room and encouragement to get to know and develop their own potential, while at the same time acknowledging and appreciating the potential of others. This will make them more aware of other perspectives and of the hugely diverse landscape they are part of in a different way than if they were left to their own devices. And this is where I think group tuition can be an important supplement to other forms of tuition.

On this project I began with the idea that the group had to be small – yet larger than two people. I wanted the group to be performer-led, whereby the students themselves took control and responsibility as much as possible. I hoped that throwing them in at the deep end would create a stimulus (as often happens in concerts). When there is no other way to go but forward, then your ideas, emotions and capabilities get a kind of “boost”; thoughts and insights you perhaps did not know you had in you find their way to the surface.

So the setting became thus: I asked three students whether they wanted to meet once a week for a 60-minute session in my office. Each of them was to perform (repertoire of their choice) and be coached by the other two – 20 minutes each. As their teacher, I would on this occasion act as an observer and become as little involved as possible.

I felt three students was the optimal figure. Two would not be dynamic enough, while four could easily mean that some of them are overshadowed by the others.

How far each student had progressed in their studies was of lesser importance to me. The main thing was to bring together personalities that would complement each other.

I also made a point of being present in the room to give the lesson a sense of focus and “seriousness” – similar to a public performance situation. At the same time I made it clear that I felt they had what it took to make the lessons meaningful and inspiring and that I would give them free reign to express themselves. The way I saw it, it was essential to show them this level of trust right from the start – otherwise they may have become concerned about always saying the “right” thing rather than what they actually thought. Equally important was the fact that I should never give the students the impression that I felt they were saying something wrong. My only involvement was on the rare occasions when I asked them to elaborate on issues that they had raised, or when I provided supplementary information.

Both the students and I kept diaries throughout the year, and project manager Ingrid Maria Hanken observed some of the lessons and conducted interviews with both the students and me.