The relevance of the project and of its findings is potentially wide-ranging and will contribute to the ongoing debates about one-to-one studio teaching in conservatories. A number of studies (e.g. Burwell, Carey, & Bennett, 2017; Carey, Harrison, & Dwyer, 2017; Carey & Grant, 2014, 2015, 2016) have summarised the challenges that face the field of music-performance education based exclusively on one-to-one tuition. According to these studies, reliance on this kind of model has several issues related to power (e.g. student dependence and submissiveness and teacher dominance), which in turn might have adverse effects on student learning (e.g. inhibited growth of autonomy). The potential isolation of teachers within the confines of their own studios might prevent their engagement with colleagues, the general pedagogy, and the institutions they are part of. The existence of concrete institutional settings might cause teachers to become defensive and reluctant to share and update their teaching practices and, by extension, could become an obstacle to larger-scale change (Burwell et al., 2017). Students also frequently view curricula as being hierarchical and lacking in integration. Despite these criticisms, however, one-to-one teaching is largely acknowledged as being crucial in the development of emerging high-level musicians-as-artists with distinct artistic voices (Association of European Conservatories [AEC], 2010). The AEC (2010, p. 8) also acknowledges that instrumental/vocal teaching is ‘a field with much fragmented and scattered specialist knowledge that would benefit from more sharing and reflection on an international level’. It is imperative for higher music-education institutions to invest in increasing teaching competence at all levels, since current graduates, as future teachers themselves, will be preparing students for these same institutions. While the reflective nature of teaching calls for engaging in dialogue with various specialists, the demand for professional development opportunities ‘seems to be much greater than supply’ (AEC, 2010, p. 25).

The value and purpose of individual tuition have both changed in recent decades; a need has emerged to push the boundaries of traditional understanding. The literature indicates that main-instrument tuition is under-theorised. A few relevant questions include the following. What are the best ways to conceptualise main-instrument tuition? What skills does such tuition stimulate? How do students learn? How does this learning relate to other contexts of learning? What skills do teachers require? (AEC, 2010; Creech & Gaunt, 2012).

One-to-one teaching allows for highly personalised learning with the potential for transformative learning, although, as Creech and Gaunt (2012, p. 707) argue, ‘for the potential of transformational learning to be realised, a shift is required from the traditional master-apprentice model in instrumental teaching, toward a more facilitative model where teachers and students collaborate, reflect, and problem-solve together’. The authors use the term ‘transformational learning’ in a somewhat broad sense to refer to a mode of learning that yields a change in learners’ perspectives about what they are learning. This learning occurs through challenging assumptions and exploring knowledge and understandings (and how they pertain to practice) through reflection, which ideally will result in the integration of these new perspectives into the learner’s life.

But several obstacles currently prevent a shift towards a more facilitative model. The isolated nature of studio tuition is one of the main obstacles, which has implications both for student learning and for the development of staff competence. This situation is largely brought about by historical assumptions about instrumental teachers within the traditional master-apprentice paradigm, where a teacher might be viewed as an all-knowing guru who has a complete grasp of the total scope of how to play (and teach playing) an instrument. This view appears to have limitations, however, as illustrated by the following quote.

The masters … too often lack access to the communities of practice that might help them to develop their engagement – with pedagogy, with one another, and with the institution to which they contribute. If they sometimes seem reluctant, defensive, or even secretive about sharing their practices, the sources of identity formation that have been available to them – exclusive or excluded, peripheral or marginal – are often embedded in concrete institutional settings, and the cultural implications that come with them. (Burwell et al., 2017, p. 16)

Reporting on her research on conservatory teaching, Gaunt (2008) notes that many of her informants ‘were isolated as teachers, with few mechanisms of support, or opportunities for professional discussion or development in place … the majority reported having difficulties with individual students and displayed a thirst to learn and develop skills’ (p. 238). For students, Gaunt (2008) argues that the intensity and exclusive nature of the teacher-student relationship is often at odds with ‘facilitating student autonomy and self-confidence in learning’ (p. 215). Gaunt notes that ‘the ways in which this relationship seemed to be creating potential challenges in learning suggest as well that more needs to be done in terms of reducing the isolation of one-to-one tuition’ (2010, p. 203; emphasis added).

Playing an instrument at a high level is a complex endeavour with a large number of skills to be acquired, which are then integrated into a coherent whole as a performance (Hallam & Bautista, 2012). But performance is more than a collection of skills – it constitutes a complex interplay of skills, habits, beliefs, preferences, and personal abilities – and, like any human activity, it is embodied. As Gallagher (2005, p. 3) notes, ‘The human body, and the way it structures human experience, also shapes the human experience of the self, and perhaps the very possibility of developing a sense of self’.

Instrumental pedagogy is thus an endeavour of immense complexity, where the complexity of performing is compounded by the pedagogical aspect. Tradition weighs in heavily in regard to how certain things are to be taught, and instruction is mostly based on teachers’ own experience rather than evidence-based principles (Clark, Lisboa, & Williamon, 2014). For example, as Gaunt (2004, p. 326) notes, ‘Watson and Hixon (1985) drew attention to the disjunction between what singers think they do in terms of anatomy and physiology of breathing, and what they actually do’. Gaunt (2004, p. 326) further notes that Fuks and Sundberg (1999) identified ‘the value of scientific research to fill the gaps left by individual observation, and to challenge some common practices amongst musicians that are based on obsolete hypotheses which remain credible only through their being upheld through many generations’ (emphasis added). Scientific research should not be consumed blindly, however, as different fields rely on a wide array of epistemological and metaphysical positions that might be incompatible. Maintaining awareness and a critical eye on how the research is used is thus of great importance.

In illustrating the complexity of the discipline, commentators seem to agree that the various aspects of the discipline of music performance are intricately interrelated. Gaunt (2007) mentions the interrelatedness of breathing and posture and of breathing and musical interpretation. Shoebridge, Shields, and Webster (2017) propose a framework that integrates the bodily aspect of performance, and they hint at the body’s role beyond merely being healthy and as such getting out of the way of a good performance. Their emphasis on ‘optimal posture’ might be problematic, however, in the sense that such a view implies a normative stance; in discussing breathing, for example, Gaunt (2004, p. 325) indicates that a normative stance ‘could easily be counterproductive, promoting mental and physical locking rather than opening up increasing possibilities’.

As various commentators have pointed out, because of a mixture of the complexity of the discipline and various historical factors, music performance currently lacks a shared interdisciplinary foundation. Collaboration seems to be difficult to accomplish due to lack of shared understandings and discourses, which likely contributes to the problem of studio isolation.

Gaunt (2004, p. 327) sees action research as a way forward to exploring ‘instrumental teaching and learning in higher education from an insider’s perspective’. Contributing to the body of disciplinary knowledge in music performance in a way that will take the intricacies of the discipline into account is imperative for the field to maintain practical relevance.

While accruing many practice hours and mastering efficient practicing strategies are important goals for instrumental students (Jørgensen & Lehmann, 2012), these things cover just a small part of the complexity of the discipline outlined above. James (2003) argues that traditional training does not prepare musicians to manage the demands of their profession.

Recently, exploration and self-discovery emerged in the literature as important aspects of practicing, a view that expands the notion of practicing beyond merely learning a skill or the music to be performed (Clark et al., 2014; Carlsen, 2015; Johansen, 2018). The teachers in Gaunt’s (2008) study aimed ‘to provide students with a general vocational toolbox, including technical, musical and professional skills’ (p. 238). Independence and resilience, alongside musical skills, are often seen as important factors to sustain motivation and to aid in the transition to a professional career (Creech, 2014; Hallam, 2014). Many practitioners of the discipline view the idea of ‘becoming your own teacher’ as an important teaching goal (Eastop, 2001; Gaunt, 2008).

Because teaching and learning increasingly rely on reflective practices, the ways in which metaphors and conceptual tools are embedded in discourses are important considerations. Metaphors and conceptual tools mediate understandings among the participants of communities of practice and act as vehicles for the transmission of knowledge (Nerland, 2007). Deliberate versus explorational practice (Ericsson, Krampe, & Tesch-Römer, 1993; Johansen, 2018) represents one set of such metaphors, although one-to-one instrumental tuition is abundant with metaphors related to all aspects of music making, thus helping to build the ‘learning environment through shared experience’ (Wolfe, 2018, p. 11). Actively developing and sharing languages based on shared experiences might provide ways out of isolation and could contribute to a more fertile dialogue about the foundations of the discipline.

Finally, health and well-being are often thought of as important aspects of musicians’ development. While many approaches have been undertaken in various international settings, these approaches seem prone to viewing health and well-being as separate from practice and performance (Farruque & Watson, 2014). Because music performance has consuming intellectual and emotional demands (Ericsson & Chamess, 1994), practitioners are often reluctant to try out new approaches (Clark et al., 2014). Farruque and Watson (2014, p. 328) thus call for more integrated approaches in which the disciplinary boundaries would be blurred:

It has been our experience that the students are responsive to [approaches to health and well-being] if the relevance to performance is made clear.… The long-term goal of such courses should be that the healthy practices which optimise performance and limit the risk of injury become so integrated into practical music teaching that they are barely perceived as embodying a separate discipline.