Maintaining and challenging conservative teaching and learning culture in conservatories: The need for holistic pedagogy in educational fields of tension

Abstract

When the need of transforming and remixing music education is illuminated, fields of tensions in relation to the traditional master–apprentice model of teaching often appear. Binaries have been constructed and critiqued in research to describe tensions at various music educational levels. Some studies have also asked for a holistic, “both/and” holding. In higher music education (HME), the need for new approaches in research to understand how teaching and learning is developing are asked for. As a contribution, the overall aim of the article is to illuminate to what extent traditional culture norms and structures are maintained and challenged at three European conservatories. The specific aim is to map possible fields of tension surrounding approaches to teaching and related learning. The analysis in this article partly builds on understandings of culture and institutions, and partly on theories of relational pedagogy. To get access to how leaders, teachers, and students experience participating in the teaching and learning of conservatory cultures, an interview study was planned. The transcriptions were treated by a thematic analysis model. The analysis explored three themes that represent fields of tension: teaching in relation to established cultural structures, to create or not create new learning trajectories, and collaboration or competition—the educational culture. The fields of tension found through the analysis concern relations between the traditional conserved conservatory teaching and new open and diverse thoughts about and actions within in HME teaching. It becomes obvious that creating new learning trajectories should be a common issue, involving students and teachers, as well as leaders of conservatories, and that competition should be supported by collaboration. A consequence of such a pedagogical approach would be that differences between programs for diverse instruments could be balanced, and that all involved could learn from each other, which demands flexibility between individual and collaborative learning activities.

Introduction

Recent research into higher music education (HME) has highlighted the need for further studies into how its cultures are constituted and experienced regarding maintenance and change in music education (Gaunt, 2017; Gaunt et al., 2021). Traditionally, the master–apprentice model has been considered a preferred approach for educating musicians, and has had a significant influence at the competence level (what is considered competence among teachers), the organizational level (how teaching is organized), and the relational level (how teachers and students relate to each other socially). As Gaunt et al. (2021) argue, there is a need for “systemic perspectives to make sense of contemporary complexities and enable appropriate change” (p. 3). It is crucial to explore how the master–apprentice model could be extended (Gaunt, 2017; López-Íñiguez et al., 2014) or intertwined with other pedagogical approaches (Carey et al., 2018; Coutts, 2019) in conservatories.

In this article, we focus on how teachers and students experience and talk about relations in HME. Scholars focusing on primary and secondary music education have asked for transformation (Jorgensen, 2003), for remixing ¹ from a closed toward an open pedagogical approach (Allsup, 2016), and for a “both/and” approach (Marsh et al., 2017) toward pedagogy. In the field of HME, relational binaries have been noticed and labeled as monologic versus dialogic (Holmgren, 2022), and authoritarian versus self-directed (Burwell, 2020). We are interested in experiences of such dualities and how they create fields of tension within teaching and learning situations in conservatory education, specifically focusing on classical training. We are aware that actions performed within conservatories interplay with and influence (musical) life outside educational institutions (Kingsbury, 1998). Recently, Bull (2019) illuminated how schooling in classical music contributes to conservation of societal classes, and Gaunt et al. (2021) as well as Westerlund and Gaunt (2021) drew attention to questions about how musicianship is related to societal awareness, social engagement, and lifelong employability. In addition, students have expressed the desire to contribute to societal change through, for example, increased possibilities to choose repertoire, to include extra-musical features, and to practice activism during (and through) their education (Coutts & Hill, 2022). The need for turn-taking and engagement (Burwell, 2019) as well as intertwined action and reflection in such activities, is seen as crucial (López-Íñiguez & Burnard, 2022).

We begin this investigation at the relational level. In line with Marsh et al. (2017) and Gaunt et al. (2021) we aim to explore a “both/and” approach to teaching and learning, where “open” and “closed,” monologic and dialogic, authoritarian and self-directed, and hegemonic and intercultural tensions are intertwined and performed in parallel. We explore relational pedagogy (Uljens & Kullenberg, 2020) combined with Allsup’s (2016) moral perspective on music education, where the presentation of musical content, encouragement of critical reflection, and common exploration are seen as equally important and intertwined tasks in music teaching. Whereas most studies concerning conservatory education have taken place in Western Europe and in North America (Gaunt et al., 2021) with a Western focus, our study presents a thorough analysis of working cultures in the classical music departments of three universities in Northern, Eastern, and Central Europe.

Aim of the study

The overall aim of this study is to illuminate to what extent traditional teaching and learning cultures are maintained and challenged in the stories of leaders, teachers, and students at three conservatories in Estonia, Finland, and Hungary. More specifically, we map possible fields of tension surrounding approaches to musical pedagogy at the three conservatories to discern cultural agreements in three national cultures of HME: ²

What experiences of approaches to teaching and learning are expressed by conservatory leaders, teachers, and students?

What fields of tension regarding approaches to teaching and related learning become visible?

Theory

Based on the research reviewed in the introduction, we argue that holistic theories are needed to understand ambiguities, or fields of tension, regarding education within teacher–student relationships in conservatory-based HME. Our interest here is what is conserved within conservatories, how traditions of the institutions are challenged, and how conservation and challenge are intertwined and performed in parallel. To grasp the both/and approach to teaching in conservatories, we adopt the theory of relational pedagogy as a starting point. In relational pedagogy, educational situations are defined as relational. Relationships between human beings, content, time, and space constitute these situations. During the first half of the 20th century, intersubjective philosophers, such as Arendt, Buber, Merleau-Ponty, and Levinas highlighted dialogue as central for human becoming. Their view of the world was intersubjective, as humans reached their full potential in meetings—both with each other and with things in the world—as active thinking subjects, willing to take on each other’s perspectives (Uljens, 2001). In educational research, a dialogue–philosophical turn is based in frustrations regarding educational paradoxes. One paradox is that of freedom. What makes pedagogical actions possible is that humans are free, while at the same time, pedagogical activities constitute prerequisites for freedom. These two strains of freedom are accepted and taken care of within dialogical philosophy. Transcendental freedom, on one hand, sees humans as active subjects with the potential to learn, developed through the cultivation of self-action, similar to Allsup’s (2016) “open” approach to teaching. Cultural freedom, on the other hand, is developed through the cultivating of specific subject-related competencies, which could be related to Allsup’s definition of a “closed” approach to teaching (Uljens, 2001; Uljens & Kullenberg, 2020). A dialogic approach seems to be crucial for a both/and conservatory education and demands conservatory teachers to create intersubjective situations for the teaching and learning of classical music.

A conservatory teacher commits to guiding each individual student toward agreed-upon goals and designing teaching situations aimed at developing knowledge formulated through curricula and presented in syllabuses. From a relational perspective, all human beings are seen as related to each other, in and to the world that surrounds them, which is always in flux (Uljens & Kullenberg, 2020). Each human being is seen as an active and thinking subject, in a state of continual becoming, in meetings with others in specific spatial, historical, and social situations, such as conservatory education (Almqvist, 2020). Hence, a music education situation can be defined as a context where students and teachers meet, express, and learn music and musicianship. From a relational perspective, educational content becomes meaningful in meetings with others’ experiences of the same: others who may be differently gendered or constructed as ethnically different. An “inner” perception of a musical aspect develops through the “outer” meeting with others’ perceptions (Kroksmark, 1987). A prerequisite for a real meeting is dialogue, which in turn demands mutual curiosity, respect, and awareness; or openness to assume the perspective of the other (Ferm, 2014). The teacher is responsible for what is happening and ensuring that the situation encourages development toward agreed-upon goals, to learn the intended lessons. What is expressed by each student is responded to in one way or another, depending on individual ideologies and values, traditions, local contexts, and interpreted steering documents, which influence processes of becoming and learning. The results of the current study are seen through this theoretical lens.

Within a music education context, Allsup (2016) offers theoretical concepts for a holistic relational view of pedagogy. He aims to go beyond “either/or” where explication and description of music is put on the one side, and imagination and exploring music on the other. He underlines the risk of taking responsibility only for aspects that teachers can point to, which “fits nicely with the discourses of accountability and standardization that shape current teaching practices” (p. 120). In his more holistic approach, Allsup also includes aspects of “wondering” and “wandering.” The moral task of the teacher becomes to present musical content, and also to invite the student to critically reflect upon and imagine alternative approaches and paths—what he calls a radical openness. Such openness implies that the students can find what they are looking for in the music education situation themselves. The student(s) and the teacher search for meaning together, a search that cannot be given to the student, nor be commanded by the teacher. Instead, it is created through muddling through, straying afield, seeking out, as well as refitting and repurposing. Such an approach demands the teacher (as well as the student) to be self-doubting and wondering, “. . . the confusions of being stuck, unstuck, and re-stuck” (p. 124). This holistic educational view is described as a potential moral undertaking. Accordingly, it becomes important to offer a variety of educational situations, as diversity and difference enlarge humans’ capacities to view the world in alternative ways. Allsup suggests that original ideas should break the reproduction of roles and discourses, teaching traditions and musical canons, prestige and rivalry that have been common in conservatories. Interactions with others, he continues, offer new developments: “a space of freedom, a place of potentiality without prerogative or guarantee of progress” (p. 127) where music is approached and heard in eternally new ways.

Method

To consider how leaders, teachers, and students experience culturally formed fields of tension surrounding approaches to musical pedagogy at conservatories, an interview study was planned as one step of a larger ethnographic study (Davies, 2008). The larger study includes fieldwork at three European conservatories where interviews, observations, and policy analysis are conducted both online and offline (Almqvist & Werner, 2022). Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the first step of the study was conducted online, including interviews with a limited number of participants. This material is used here to explore fields of tension regarding teaching and learning. Co-researchers employed at the three HME institutions organized contacts with colleagues and students willing to participate in the study. The online interviews were performed during september to december 2021, as mandated by the pandemic that prevented traveling to the three institutions for on-site interviews and observations. ³ The interviews were semi-structured and were contextualized as ethnographic (Davies, 2008, p. 123) within the larger study. The interviews also led to the collection of other material (e.g., written policy), but this article focuses on the experiences of the participants of the online interviews from 2021. Information letters were sent out beforehand, and participants were also orally informed about ethical considerations and data management plans before informed consent was recorded. The interviewees knew that participation was confidential, and that they could choose to withdraw from the study, or withdraw parts of their interviews, at any time without any reprisal. ⁴ The interview guides were composed collaboratively by the two researchers, covering the same areas of interest. Nine leaders and teachers—three in Estonia, Finland, and Hungary, respectively—trained in classical music (connected to varied departments and instruments) were interviewed by one of the authors: eight held leadership positions as heads of department or heads of studies in classical music; seven were active as teachers in classical music instruments. Three were women and six were men. To maintain confidentiality, this article does not reveal their instruments or departments. Eight students—three in Estonia and Finland, respectively, and two in Hungary—studying percussion and voice were interviewed by the other author. The students were enrolled at the master’s level, besides one, who was in the third year of bachelor studies. Two of the students finished their master’s studies the year the interviews took place. The group included both males and females.

Interviews lasted between 60 to 90 minutes, and were recorded and transcribed verbatim by a transcription company. The storing of audio as well as written material followed current rules and recommendations in Sweden (Swedish Research Council, 2017). The interview guides were thematic and semi-structured (Kvale & Brinkmann, 2009) and aimed to grasp aspects of conservatory culture. The themes included the background and goals of the participants, the atmosphere of the institution, teachers’ and students’ responsibilities and choices, repertoire and concerts, policy, internationalization, curricula, and connections to society.

To be able to develop, analyze, and interpret patterns of meaning related to approaches regarding teaching and learning in the interviews drawn upon here, we used a thematic analysis model (Braun & Clarke, 2021). In a reflexive manner, we followed the process of coding and thematizing with the field of tension in teaching and learning in mind. We initially analyzed “our own” materials, and gradually the analysis became cooperative. We started off by familiarizing ourselves with the material, read the transcripts several times, and then we marked statements that related to the aforementioned fields of tension, thereby conducting the initial coding. According to Savage (2000), qualitative coding is a process of reflection and a way of interacting with and thinking about research material that allows the researcher to simplify and focus on specific characteristics. In other words, we identified important sections of text in relation to educational tensions. Functional codes were used to capture the qualitative richness of the studied phenomenon (Boyatzis, 1998). We searched for themes that we shared between us and reviewed them in relation to the material. Gradually, the themes were named, in parallel with writing out how the themes were constituted in the material. In what follows, we describe the participants’ various experiences using exemplifying quotations (Lorelli et al., 2017). The participants are referred to as T/L (teacher/leader), PS (percussion student), or VS (voice student).

Themes of pedagogical fields of tension—Results of the analysis

This analysis explores three themes that represent fields of tension regarding the teaching and learning situations at the three HME institutions we investigated: teaching in relation to established cultural agreements, to create or not create new learning trajectories, and collaboration or competition—the educational culture. The fields of tension found throughout the analysis concern relationships involving the traditional master–apprentice approach as well as new, open, and diverse thoughts about and actions within HME teaching.

Teaching in relation to established cultural agreements

The students in our study experienced teachers’ approaches as varying between, on the one hand, promoting closeness and cultivation of specific subject-related competencies, and on the other hand, promoting openness and transcendence through cultivating self-activity. Methods in conservatory teaching practices seem to be understood by the students as both individual and shaped by generation or age, but not as driven by collegial agreements or pedagogical models.

Like, it depends on the teacher. My teacher is quite . . . she gives me a lot of space. I know that she is quite free with every level of student. (VS)

The teacher referred to above was seen as encouraging freedom. In contrast, closed approaches were exemplified by teachers who were very clear about what students should do, what pieces they should work with and how, what contexts to participate in, and what techniques to learn and perform. Some students perceived teachers as not being interested in their personal perspectives or goals. The lack of interest was understood by students to be grounded in the fact that their teachers are active performers, focused their own careers, and therefore not primarily focusing on the responsibility of having students.

The teaching and learning process was expected by most students to be more than just imitation, and a creative and engaged meeting was the ideal, signified by openness, and transcendence. However, there were also students who talked about the importance of the traditional master.

I do think that when we get to the bottom of things, it’s craft. It’s a craft, and we must have a master and a student. And that relationship isn’t something that can just be waved away because you don’t think that it’s as important. (VS)

From this student’s perspective, freedom can be risky: there is risk in not learning the craft from a senior musician. Yet other teachers are described as balancing transcendental freedom through cultivation of self-activity; as engaging, guiding or coaching, pushing in a friendly way, encouraging development, and giving space.

Yeah, well, for example, my current teacher is a very pedagogic person. And she coaches me a lot, in a way that a sports coach would coach a professional athlete. So that she makes long-term plans and explains them to me very clearly, and she not only tells me when I’ve done good, but she also encourages me in long-term plans. And it’s not just that “okay, well, you sang right now, this phrase was very good,” but also like, “okay, so now you have this problem, but I know you work hard, and these are the ways that we can solve this, and in a year, it will be completely different. I trust you with this.” (VS)

Some other students described their teachers as engaged and supportive, and at the same time, strict: “like, they push but not in a negative way” (PS). The students expressed how they could choose pieces of music, settings to participate in, and that they were trusted to take on responsibility, without losing their teacher’s interest. Percussion students described how they were encouraged to explore varied genres and styles, including improvisation and experimentation.

Some teachers were perceived as identifying students’ weaknesses beyond their music skills and coaching them accordingly: “and she is very encouraging in . . . Because I tend to be a people pleaser, and she has been also coaching me in saying no” (VS). But other interviewees said that they had to be reflexive and self-confident to handle their steering teachers.

You must be able not to listen to everything the teacher says. You really must. And if you don’t, then you might really get traumatized and tired, and even depressed. I know people who are in that place, and it’s really a shame, because I know that so much of it is teacher related. (VS)

All the interviewed teachers and leaders expressed concerns about their students reaching international levels of musicianship, and also about them finding jobs after graduating. How students should be aided in their development was, however, expressed differently, showing how different teachers related to established behaviors of teaching classical music. The older generation was described by some teachers and leaders as adhering to the conservative, closed approach to teaching.

Well, some of the, let’s say, a little bit older colleagues, they are maybe more still working in the way that used to be our role. That they don’t actively teach the students as much as we hope, what we are hoping to do more, the rest of us. [. . .] They just rehearse the piece. Play through. Maybe . . . hopefully they give at least some comments, but we’re [. . .] So playing the notes, and that’s it. (T/LF)

The traditional way of teaching was also sometimes associated with nationality in the interviews. Several interviewed teachers alluded to the Russian (T/LE, T/LF) or Eastern European (T/FH) style of teaching as authoritarian, while others argued that the style of teaching is more of a personal choice. Some challenged the steering approach through teaching practices that prioritized conversations and dialogues with students, and believed that students should be given higher levels of control over their own education in classical music and influenced less by teachers’ styles or a set repertoire. One teacher discussed the ideal of giving transcendental freedom to students:

What is still traditional [. . .] at the classical department is this too much teacher-centred teaching, so teachers telling what to do and students doing that. So somehow [we should be] giving much more responsibility to students on his or her own learning and guiding that more, coaching, helping, and leading that toward independent artistry. (T/LF)

This teacher acknowledged a teacher-centered master–apprentice model in use at their institution. This was elaborated on later in the same interview, and by other teachers, as expecting imitation of the teacher’s playing and focusing on giving negative critique as a way of cultivating cultural freedom. The interviewee disagreed with such teaching, giving an example of alternative modes of teaching and learning that are not teacher-centered, but offer cultivation of transcendental freedom:

And some teachers have group lessons. That’s very good, so students play for each other and give feedback to each other. (T/LF)

Discussing dialogue-oriented transcendental teaching as one way of improving the approaches to teaching and learning and students’ development of independent musicianship was, however, not the only way of describing how students could be encouraged by teaching. The teachers were described as dedicating themselves to the students in the institution based on the time teachers put into working with and caring for their students. This contrasts with students’ descriptions of disengaged teachers that emerged earlier in the analysis, and can be seen as another way of intertwining the two perspectives of freedom in pedagogy that challenge the master–apprentice model in conservatory culture.

Creating new learning trajectories

As students we have to realize it is our own path that we are going through. So, a teacher can teach us a lot of things, but we cannot wait for them to solve our life. (VS)

The responsibility for navigating the field of tension between established conservatory agreements, mainly based on master–apprentice frameworks, and “new possibilities” was placed on the students themselves, within the programs, according to how they perceived them. However, the interviews with teachers and leaders all point to a lack of shared pedagogical approaches at the three conservatories.

There were examples of students who followed the paths offered by teachers and trusted their teachers’ suggestions. There were other students who chose to change institutions, or teachers, which indicates that they were not satisfied. One student chose a bachelor’s program in another country to develop the self-esteem strong enough to handle the traditional teaching approach of their “home” conservatory as a master’s student. Long- and short-term exchanges between institutions were, according to the students, connected to the need for new inspiration and challenges; for example, when their technique could be improved through another teaching approach somewhere else. This implies a lack of consistent pedagogy that cultivates cultural freedom.

Besides displaying well-known gendered ideas about percussion, the significance of the teacher as a role model is accentuated by PSs, which makes clear the need for intertwinement of open and closed, transformative, and culturally freeing pedagogy. To be in an apprentice relationship with a specific teacher is one way that the students sought to create their paths through fields of tension. Either they chose a specific teacher that they “tried out” beforehand, or they changed teachers during their studies. The reasoning behind changes appeared to be poor relationships connected to teaching approach, lack of renewal in dialogue, and perceived generational differences. And also, an impetus to broaden experiences and skills were mentioned as reasons for working with several professors during one’s education.

When students navigated the tension between their own focus on their studies and what the tradition and their institution expected, the ambiguities of the individual versus the collective, technique versus musicality, and breadth versus depth became visible. For example, a foreign student was surprised when they discovered that the conservatory they came to study at mainly focused on orchestral playing and instrumental technique. The student chose to follow that established structure for a few years, as they saw that they developed new skills, but then decided to move elsewhere for a different teaching program. Another example of balancing a non-flexible focus was a singer who had developed both popular and classical singing competence.

Because my teacher was very old-fashioned. They almost thought that pop singing is somehow dangerous for your voice. And they were that old-fashioned. And they said to me that . . . when I asked him to get pop lessons also, they said to me that it’s not good to have different lessons at this point. And he encouraged me to take classical lessons for two or three years before pop lessons. But I didn’t listen to him. (VS)

Concerts and preparing concerts constitute another area where fields of tension were obvious in the material. The exam concert was, according to the students, an occasion where they had a chance to display themselves as musicians to an audience. They put in a lot of effort, both when it comes to the musical quality and how they designed the concert: “I just wouldn’t pick any piece, and I would have to like the piece” (PS). There seem to be strong habits, rules, and expectations, in line with cultivating cultural freedom, when it comes to the repertoire and musical constellations at exam concerts. The interviews showed various possibilities within existing frameworks that allowed for variation regarding composers, genres, and co-playing—choices that can be viewed as transcendent freedom. For example, when pieces were decided, one VS chose to use only female composers, and there were also examples of when the concert was divided into two parts, where the second part was designated for students’ choices.

Well, it’s a two-part exam. The first exam is that there are different genres, like baroque and modern music, lieder, and a national composer. Like, different genres. And then, that’s the A level concert, and then we have a master’s concert. Which is your artistic constellation of different repertoire that you are free to choose between (VS).

This shows how holistic dialogic pedagogy can be performed to prepare students for varied professional tasks. Then the problem illuminated by one of the interviewees would be diminished: “the problem comes when somebody wants to develop a career in freelance or in any other kind of alternative ways of being a musician” (PS). Finding one’s own way is emphasized by most of the students and it shows that they have to become agents in relation to the traditions within their HME institution. Others find the given paths comforting, for some time, or throughout their education.

Collaboration or competition—The educational culture

Viewing a collaborative and friendly atmosphere as an important aspect of conservatory education is a generational thing, according to the students. Their views were supported by some of the teachers, as seen above. Broadly speaking, students’ perceptions were that the more experienced conservatory teachers supported competitiveness and individuality, and the younger teachers argued for collaborative and social dynamics. Again, tensions between controlling, closed and transcendent, open pedagogy become visible. The teachers belonging to the “younger generation” discussed changing and adjusting approaches to teaching and learning within their institution to make the education meaningful. There was also a tendency that approaches toward collaborations and cooperation varied between instruments, where cooperation was seen as more natural and useful in composing and percussion than in piano or voice. In some programs, it was believed that students needed strong leaders, so as not to be left with the responsibility to create social settings they found meaningful by themselves.

The students talked about a “competitive individualistic” style remaining among teachers—mainly those from the “older generation.” They competed among each other, and through their students: “there’s like a rivalry between the teachers, not the students” (VS). The grading at exam concerts, for example, seemed to be an arena for competition between teachers. One of the students expressed experiences that the grading was not about their own performance, but about the status of the teachers (VS), which was underlined by other interviewees as well.

It was really judging, and people were put in their boxes, and they were told that they are good, and they are bad, and that kind of . . . And I can really see that kind of trauma in older singers and singing students. [. . .] I can feel that there is this kind of mocking and talking behind the back, in teachers. Like, teachers are very much judging themselves and talking badly about each other (VS).

Some teachers performed control through realizing themselves and their ideologies through their students. Even in the cases where the department in which the students were enrolled was described as friendly, other conservatories were mentioned as examples of the old generational approach, where competition was encouraged, and vice versa. Another example of how the “old generation” worked against collaboration was described by VSs who expressed that cooperation with other musicians was controlled by their teachers and focused on competition. One of them attended a chamber music course without asking the head of the voice department beforehand.

I went to different chamber music classes because I didn’t know about that, that it’s a rule. Yeah, because they are not written rules. Just everyone knows about them. And when the vocal . . . the head of the vocal department got notice about it, then it was a problem. But I said, “yeah, well, I already took this class and I like to work there so I hope it’s not a big problem so I can learn. That’s why I’m here.” (VS)

Such an approach seems to influence students’ views of themselves. “I didn’t feel like I was ready to work on my own with others, without my teacher,” one student expressed (VS). One of the teachers discussed the younger students and the more old-fashioned teachers in relation to diversity policy and gender equality work at the institution, and in this discussion, they linked the old-fashioned ideas to age.

There’s an ongoing project about this (diversity/equality) now, and we are discussing it because first we have to open the field for, say, the older generations to start understanding what the whole thing is about. (L/TF)

Associating generation and age with old-fashioned ways of thinking is a common trope in our interviews. When it comes to individuality and competition, versus cooperation and a supportive atmosphere, the older generation and the counter-voice of the younger generation construct a field of tension between maintaining and challenging traditional conservatory culture. Still, our interviews also raised examples of young VSs that behave competitively and are not supportive. Some talked behind each other’s backs, did not support each other in auditions, and did not visit each other’s concerts. With this behavior, they were described as creating an environment of competition and negativity—even though they were young. The idea that being supportive was a trait of the younger generation was also challenged in interviews with teachers and leaders. One talked about his (young) students and how they related to each other:

For example, they criticize their classmates very harshly. Like, “oh, are you still writing this crap? I mean, this is out of fashion now, why are you doing this? You are ridiculous.” You know, these kinds of comments. And it can hurt. [. . .] And then we have to stop them and sit down and explain to them that “live and let live,” you know. (T/L)

Importantly, the teacher was older and described the social environment of critique and competitiveness in conservatory education among young students as something he was trying to change. Later in the interview, the teacher discussed how he, in group sessions, tried to build a collaborative and supportive climate. These examples highlight that age or generation may not be the sole key to understanding the social climate of conservatory education. Still, most of the students believed that change toward collaboration and support was a trait of the younger generation.

We get along well, and we help each other out, of course, with the disagreements. Yeah, for example, if we need to recommend someone, like “I can’t do a gig” and they say, “maybe you can just recommend us someone who can actually come,” then I would definitely give some names of my friends. (PS)

This material shows that the percussion departments, on an overarching level, supported collaboration, in ensembles, orchestras, practice rooms, and transportation of instruments, while the voice departments were defined as individualistic by the students. Cooperation across departments must be organized by the students themselves, despite chamber music and orchestra projects where composition students could also be involved. Such events were few and far between, and some of the interviewees did not even consider them “serious” work.

Our studies are planned so we don’t meet so many other instrumental players. We meet only other singers. The only place that you can meet them is during lunch break. (VS)

It was mentioned by the students that the organization and localities of the conservatories were not encouraging communities beyond their vocal or instrumental departments. Other students described how they organized social and musical meetings themselves, mingling and playing with friends, and inviting them to play in exam concerts. They are convinced that if somebody really wants, they can establish networks—but if such contacts were organized by the conservatory, many more wonderful things could happen, where people can meet and musical ideas be spread and developed.

Maintaining and challenging conservatory teaching through holistic pedagogy

The questions this study aimed to answer were: what experiences with approaches to teaching and learning are expressed by conservatory leaders, teachers, and students? What fields of tension regarding approaches to teaching and related learning become visible? The results indicate that teaching approaches in these three conservatories are both maintaining and challenging conservative ideologies, and that some transforming (Jorgensen, 2003) and remixing (Allsup, 2016) processes have been initiated. The teaching and learning actions and activities showing tension between tradition and renewal were taking place in relation to established cultural agreements, enlightened through the question of creating or not creating new learning trajectories, and as the tension between collaboration and competition. The tensions are based on different views of how musicians are or should be educated, through closed cultivation toward cultural freedom, or through cultivating of self-activity and transcendental freedom. The results show that both approaches are needed and must be intertwined in teachers’ teaching repertoire. This requires extending the master–apprenticeship model, which could contribute to the cultivation of skilled, reflective, and open-minded musicians. To succeed, collegial discussions and reflections must be organized, where the “younger” counter-voice of equality, collaboration, and diversity meets the voice of the “masters” (Gies & Saetre, 2019). It would also be crucial to involve students in discussions, and for teachers to be curious about their experiences. As these results show that the challenge of traditional conservatory teaching is expressed louder in some instrumental departments and in some educational contexts, such discussions have to be organized across borders, so that different actors active within different traditions can challenge and learn from each other (cf. Minors et al., 2017; Schippers, 2010). Topics for discussion could be what holistic approaches really mean, and how Allsup’s (2016) radical openness could be created. Above all, institutions must work to organize education in ways that encourage students to meet, share, and reflect upon their experiences, goals, and dreams—across departmental, instrumental, and (not least) intersectional boundaries.

For some students, the teaching they received within HME did not encourage them to become themselves as musicians. Rather, they sought to create diverse learning trajectories for themselves outside of teaching. A both/and approach implies that this creation of learning trajectories should be a common interest of teachers and students. That would imply an ongoing conversation about learning outcomes and goals and what activities would encourage students’ development. It would be important to discuss what courses and activities take place within the department and at the conservatory that could be relevant in the creation of fruitful learning trajectories, and what activities outside the conservatory complete the journey toward skilled, reflective, and open-minded musicians (cf. López-Íñiguez & Burnard, 2022). Collaborative activities and competitive activities could be balanced in such discussions, both with students, teachers, and leaders. All involved could agree upon what is needed in each specific case (cf. Allsup, 2016; Burwell, 2019; Zhukov & Sætre, 2022).

A dialogical, relational, professional approach would transform the fields of tension noted in this study. A consequence of such an approach would be that differences between programs for diverse instruments could be balanced, so that all involved could learn from each other. This demands flexibility between individual and collaborative learning activities, which Allsup (2016) underlines as moving beyond “either-or.” In such an approach, teachers as well as students are self-doubting and wondering, continually seeking a variety of educational situations where the musical world is viewed in alternative ways, and where the reproduction of roles and discourses, teaching traditions and musical canons, and prestige and rivalry is challenged.