Nine students participated in the trial: four harpists, one horn player, one viola player, one pianist, one violinist and one oboe player. The viola, violin and piano students attended a two-hour large group session with the AT teacher involving all the students (not all of them turned up), and they received between 11 and 15
45-minute sessions of one-to-one tuition in AT. The others (one horn player, one oboe player and four harpists) participated in a large group session, received between 6 and 15 hours of one-to-one tuition in AT and attended AT instruction in class lessons as well. These lessons were timetabled and at the principal instrument teacher’s disposal. All or most of the students as well as the principal instrument teacher were present in these class lessons. In addition, a small number of horn and oboe students attended AT classes or small groups with their principal instrumental teacher present without receiving one-to-one AT lessons. The first group of nine make up the “trial group”, and it is they who have provided assessments of their experiences during the project.
The students were selected by the principal instrument teachers. There were no particular criteria for the selection. Two of the participants had some previous experience of AT as an elective subject at the NMH.
Three of the teachers also received AT lessons: horn, oboe and violin. They did so in order to gain some first-hand experience and to get a better insight into how the students can adopt AT practices.
The project began in January with teaching AT in a large group, followed by another seminar in February. General information about AT was provided, and the students demonstrated how they behave while playing and practising. The AT teacher offered guidance and drew the participants’ attention to their mannerisms and bad habits. One objective was to acquire an understanding of the principles behind this approach and to improve the students’ observation skills while also introducing a vocabulary for use in the one-to-one sessions. Basic information about anatomy was also provided. It was difficult to gather all the students due to timetable complications. After two seminars the project manager and AT teacher therefore concluded that the available time would be better spent on additional classes and small groups with AT teacher and principal instrument teacher present.
The one horn student receiving one-to-one lessons also participated in six classes and 10 small group sessions with the other horn students. During these sessions the students worked on topics raised by the AT teacher, e.g.: “How can non-constructive habits have an impact on factors such as breathing, support and the role of the back when preparing to play?” There were also questions posed by the students, such as “How do I make sure I have enough breath for long phrases?” The AT teacher would then link this to the students’ playing. The teaching emphasised student involvement through observation and interaction and focused on evaluating the effects of the measures on breathing, sound quality, embouchure etc. Half-way through the semester these sessions were supplemented with teaching in small groups, where 2–4 students would play excerpts from their regular “homework” and their fellow students provide feedback. The students also got involved in observing each other’s behaviours and habits, and relevant issues where raised on the spot. One recurring question was whether there was any change in the students’ playing.
The seven harp classes were initially conducted as thematic lessons, just like the horn classes. The harp students received a practical introduction to the importance and functions of the main joints during practice and performance. Again, changes were made half-way through the project, whereby a small group of students performed their “homework” and received feedback from their peers and AT teacher. One topic was the significance of the back on freedom of movement in the wrist and fingers, which in turn affects sound production. The students also worked without their instruments, for example by standing with their backs against the wall in order to increase awareness of their surroundings and become more conscious of direction (”upwards”, “downwards”, etc.) and concentration.
During three oboe classes, the students worked on issues such as breathing and articulation, especially during staccato play. The participants performed and observed each other to establish which factors affect the mouth and jaw, for example (useful and needless tensions in the neck and back), and what may be conducive to a freer jaw movement. The principal instrument teacher was an integral participant in the group.
All the groups received some form of interactive guidance from the AT teacher, where verbal information was complemented by hands-on experience. AT is not a form of treatment or therapeutic manipulation; rather it involves gentle touching to draw the person’s attention to important parts of the body.
The one-to-one AT lessons were always based on something the students had been working on during practice or issues they had discussed with their principal instrument teacher. The AT teacher would choose a topic if the students had no suggestions. For example “How do you get ready to play?” with the accompanying question: “Is there anything that prevents you from doing what you want to do?” During the classes, the students would first perform, and then the class would pick up on issues that emerged along the way. Extemporaneous issues dominated these classes, in the contextual setting with fellow students and a teacher. Their shared experiences determined the content of the classes.
Both individually and in the groups, the emphasis was on identifying unconstructive habits, labelling them, and applying AT principles in order to change them.
As mentioned previously, the one-to-one lessons for the principal instrument teachers were intended to give them practical experience of the principles of AT and prepare them for understanding the processes that their students would be going through. They therefore performed and received guidance in the same way as the students. Occasionally the first few minutes would be spent commenting on a student’s circumstances and development, but primarily these were “the teachers’ lessons”. When they needed to exchange views on a student, they did so via email or during brief meetings.