Learners’ perspectives on music training in institutions of North India

Introduction

In order to contextualize and reflect upon the prevalent pedagogy being followed in teaching Hindustani music in the institutions of North India, this study aimed to explore and understand the learners’ perspectives on the prevalent pedagogy followed in institutions; learners’ learning preferences (e.g., one to one, one to many, etc.) and the importance of riāz to them; the dynamics of the teacher–student relationship; and contributing factors to creative music making.

During the medieval period (1200–1800AD), Indian music branched off into two main channels, following roughly the northern and southern parts of the country. The music of North India was called Hindustani sangeet (music) and that of South India was called Karnatak sangeet. Hindustani and Karnatak music differ in degree but not in kind. Karnatak music is generally more pure, precise and systematized than Hindustani music. Hindustani music enjoys the freedom of experiment, which is its greatest strength. In theme and in practice, it has a flexibility that is rare in Karnatak music. This research dealt with the Hindustani music tradition.

Hindustani music traditionally was orally transmitted through the institution of the guru–shishya paramparā (teacher–disciple tradition), a pedagogical method in which a master (guru) imparts his knowledge to a disciple (shishya) (Slawek, 1999, p. 457). However, pedagogy being used in teaching North Indian (Hindustani) music has evolved with changing social, political, and economic conditions in the past century. While deriving pedagogical models, consideration is given to the social identities of students and teachers, their philosophical and practical relationship, the structure of lessons, and the method of transmitting the core musical material such as technique, theory, and repertoire (Oppenheim, 2012).

A musician’s status and musical identity is “based on his musical heritage” and “depends on the name and identity of his guru” (Singh, 2004, p. 76). This reflects the Indian perception of identity as “something that is bestowed on the person from outside”, derived from “others belonging to the same clan, tribe, or caste” (Vaidyanathan, 1989, p. 153). Musicians’ social and musical identity, as well as development of musical skills, is dependent upon finding a respected guru who fulfills the necessary educational and social roles.

The fully initiated guru–shishya relationship is so close that it forms a unity, with the shishya losing “his old false identity” (Raina, 2002, p. 178) and identifying instead with his guru. In this sense “the shishya represents the guru” and “is a part of [the guru] as, in the same sense, the guru is part of him” (Neuman, 1980, p. 47). The bond is so strong that becoming a disciple ideally involves the shishya temporarily suspending even family ties (Neuman, 1980, p. 58). However, the guru–shishya tradition is a not a unilateral relationship. Both the guru and the shishya are empowered in choosing with whom to enter into this relationship. Much as there are expectations and obligations of the guru, there are equally culturally engrained responsibilities of the shishya.

The learning process in the guru–shishya tradition is a “method of discovery, where the student is told little or nothing at any one time and discovers through a process of protracted discipline the nature, and mystery of his art” (Menon, 1973, p. 2). Musically the guru is responsible for maintaining, developing, and transmitting a tradition and repertoire (Singh, 2004, p. 75). However, for the proper retention of orally transmitted material, a disciple is required to fulfill certain responsibilities. The first responsibility of the shishya is “to follow the instructions of his [guru] unquestioningly” (Raina, 2002, p. 177). It is also the responsibility of the shishya to absorb the teachings of the guru through dedicated practice, or riāz. The Arabic word riāz came into North Indian languages via Persian. Riāz is significant in that it is more than mere dedication to rigorous practice; it is “a preparation for an unattainable perfection” that “symbolizes a certain accomplishment of one’s inner development” (Neuman, 1980, p. 34).

Moreover, traditional teaching in Hindustani music is intended to develop independent creativity in the student so that they may make appropriate, yet personalized, interpretations of the rāga (melodic framework). A rāga is the combination of different notes contained in an octave, with varnas (melodic movement of notes) that pleases the listener (Bandopadhyay, 1977/1995, p. 55). However, “it is not the direct training itself but the open and genuine relationship between the guru and the shishya that characterizes and nurtures most of the creative thinking” (Bhat, 2009, p. 281). One of the distinguishing features of Hindustani music and its pedagogy is “that it gives the most elementary student a direct experience, however fleeting or slight, of true creativity … because a rāga can become a rāga only if it is self-created out of the rules and conditions prescribed for it” (Menon, 1973, p. 9).

Despite its primacy and efficacy, Oppenheim (2012) argues that certain problems were identified with the guru–shishya tradition, including the limited access to non-hereditary musicians, lack of standardization of musical material, lack of theoretical treatises, and the absence of critical reception of musical knowledge. The guru–shishya tradition was seen as non-scientific and unreliable because of its emphasis on devotion and trust instead of critical engagement of the student. Oppenheim further reasons that these concerns were at least partially influenced by the presence of the British and missionary educational institutions in India. Ironically, for Hindustani music to fulfill its nationalist function it was necessary that it conforms to British values of high culture or art-culture and British notions of cultural legitimacy as demonstrated by complexity, “scientific” basis, and authoritative institutions and texts.

Mass education and institutionalized training

Until the beginning of the 20th century, there were few alternatives to the guru–shishya tradition. Prior to this period, Hindustani music was a closed culture available primarily to hereditary musicians and sometimes to privileged “adopted” disciples of the guru. The dawn of 20th century witnessed an increasing interest in classical music from non-hereditary musicians, attempts to learn Hindustani music by non-Indian musicians, and the advent of institutional approaches to learning music. Therefore, reforms in Hindustani music and music education were the result of the changing concepts of identity and values of Indian culture in the context of the British colonial administration.

Major developments of the early 20th century included the creation and introduction of a notational system, renewed interest in the authority of theoretical treatises, synthesis of a modern theory of music and music classification based on contemporary trends in practice, standardization of musical material and teaching methodology, and attempts to make music and music education accessible to the broadest possible range of students. This agenda of reform and the resulting paradigm shift in Hindustani music—particularly in music education—was defended by two major figures, V. N. Bhatkhande and V. D. Paluskar, whose competitive but complementary attempts to reform Indian music brought about a new era in Hindustani music.

Notation, which was essentially absent in the guru–shishya system, was embraced by many early reformers of Hindustani music for a variety of reasons. Madhavrao Scindia of Gwalior, a ruler with ties to the British and interest in British culture, founded the Madhav Music College in the early 1900s, requiring his court musicians to utilize Indian notation for pedagogical use (Alter, 1999, p. 444). Notation served to advance the goal, shared by Bhatkhande and Paluskar, of creating a musically educated audience amongst the Indian middle class (Nayar, 1989, p. 68), and preserving the compositions of the great masters of Hindustani music for future generations. It allowed for standardization of pedagogical materials, and provided data for theoretical analysis of rāgas. Bhatkhande believed that in order for music to be nationalized, it “had to be institutionalized, centralized, and standardized” and “put into a national academy to which everyone could have access” (Bakhle, 2005, p. 98).

In addition, the greatest contributions of reformers like Bhatkhande and Paluskar were the creation of an educated audience for music and the establishment of music schools offering standardized teaching materials and graded examinations following strict curricula. The institutionalization of Hindustani music and resulting mass education altered the landscape of Indian pedagogy from the early 20th century onward. There were many approaches to institutionalized music education and many of the most successful institutions were established, directed, or philosophically guided by major figures in early-20th-century Hindustani music.

The Bengal Music School, established by Sourindro Mohun Tagore, and the Madhav Music College, established by Madhavrao Scindia (mentioned previously), were late-19th-century attempts to modernize Hindustani music by imitating Western educational models. Western education models advocate for a casual or informal relationship between teacher and students where students can ask questions and even challenge their teachers in order to clarify and exercise their knowledge and understanding of the subject. Western education is based on set curricula and relies upon written texts or notation and upon printed media to convey information. However, contemporary and present-day musicians often “regard the idealized traditional teaching system, featuring the master–disciple relationship, as the basic model from which music educators develop their teaching methods” (Alter, 1999, p. 442). The Marris College of Music, established in Lucknow in 1926, was initially named after the British Governor Sir William Sinclair Marris. It was later renamed Bhatkhande Hindustani Sangeet Mahavidyalaya (or Bhatkhande Music College; Kippen, 1988, p. 25). Music education in all of Bhatkhande’s schools was “structured on the basis of class instruction, established curricula, and final examinations” (Alter, 1999, p. 444). While the Bhatkhande Music College did produce some reputable performers, the “original idea was not to churn out professional musicians but rather to provide a basic education in music for all who desired it” (Kippen, 1988, p. 35). Though this sentiment is not widely attributed to Bhatkhande, Kippen argues that Bhatkhande “realized that, in order to attain the necessary performance skills to become a professional, a student would have to be trained further under a traditional, hereditary musician” (1988, p. 35). The success of the Marris College of Music certainly played a role in the rapid increase in the number of music schools in India from 1930 onwards (Alter, 1999, p. 444).

Second pillar in the institutionalization of Hindustani music was the Gandharva Mahavidyalaya, founded by V. D. Paluskar in 1901. Paluskar shared many of the goals of his contemporary Bhatkhande, but used significantly different techniques. Both sought to institutionalize and spread musical education around India, but, unlike Bhatkhande, Paluskar aimed to link music with Hindu religion and reinstate a modernized guru–shishya tradition (Bakhle, 2005, p. 138). Paluskar’s initial attempts to spread music maintained a “sternly paternalistic, traditional, and unambiguously Hindu religious pedagogy” (Bakhle, 2005, p. 150). By 1901 Paluskar had developed a “methodical curriculum for music training” that is “considered as the basis and a forerunner of [the] formal training method of classical music” (Bhat, 2009, pp. 71–72). Paluskar “set up a proper methodology for education and training in Hindustani music for people of all classes” (Bhat, 2009, pp. 71–72). All students were subject to Paluskar’s overtly Hindu nationalist agenda. Communal morning prayers, Hindu religious rituals, and devotional singing were institutionalized as a necessary part of the curriculum.

In an institutionalized system Hindustani music is realized by practice and performance; therefore, it is “learned almost entirely by imitation and very little through instruction alone” (Menon, 1973, p. 46). Through “slavish imitation of the teacher in the early stages of training” the student develops musical understanding, but “differences of voice and temperaments of the students begin to show through” (Menon, 1973, pp. 50–51) with time, leading to a unique musical interpretation. Imitation is one of the steps towards internalization of the grammar and rules of rāgas in Hindustani music. Imitation requires focused and careful listening which helps in assimilating the rāga (Bhat, 2009, p. 144). Successful imitation and assimilation are the prerequisites for innovation in which students begin to proceed beyond that which is shown by the teacher. Memorization is a second device in the internalization of Hindustani music. In the context of memorization a baṅdiśa (composition: a strictly defined relation of words, notes and rhythm) serves to bolster both repertoire and theoretical understanding through the recognition of baṅdiśa as a framework for the rāga. Strict imitation and rote memorization are successful pedagogical devices that do allow for the development of independent creativity.

The institutionalization, standardization, notation, and publication of Indian music sources “partially liberated the art transmission process from the one-to-one, personalized, guru–shishya relationship… [and] they freed it partially from aural transmission” (Raja, 2005, p. 79). However, there are some who argue that “both systems lack something because they take a singular approach”, with the guru–shishya tradition producing only performers and the institutions producing only academics (Atre, 2000, p. 122). There is a need to find the balance between these two extreme poles: the typical learning system and the monolithic system of institutionalization. Teachers need to adopt effective teaching methods to prepare the students in their classes to perform well.

More research is needed to explore the current pedagogy followed in institutions, to understand the student–teacher dyad, and to examine the process of music practice by considering the perceptions of its stakeholders. The perception of stakeholders is another important factor reflecting on teaching practice (Leung & Wong, 2005) and on good practices in the classroom (Morgan & Morris, 1999). Students may have different perspectives and expectations. Moreover, Crow (2008) argued that it is still worth asking, what exactly pupils are learning when they engage in music making and what pupils might “value” in a discourse that involves creativity.

Viewed against this backdrop, this study aimed to explore and understand learners’ perspectives on the prevalent pedagogy followed in institutions; learners’ learning preferences (e.g., one to one, one to many, etc.) and the importance of riāz to them; the dynamics of the teacher–student relationship; and contributing factors to creative music making.

Method

Results and discussions ¹

Concluding comments

This study explores the learners’ perspectives on the prevalent pedagogy being followed in an institutionalized setup in teaching Hindustani music; their preferences for learning (one to one, one to many, etc.) and the importance of riāz to them; the dynamics of the teacher–student relationship; and the factors contributing to their creative music making. Music students (from four music institutions) receiving training in Hindustani music at different academic career levels in an institutionalized setup, completed a survey on the abovementioned themes.

Results indicate that training across all the institutions starts with alaṃkāra practice though they follow different syllabi. Among the three aspects of music, teachers emphasized primarily swara followed by tāla and bhāva. Students reported that teachers generally followed the prescribed syllabus but some of them tried to manage the syllabus according to the potential of their students. At higher levels of training, teachers started giving training in their own style or in their guru’s style. Teachers explained in detail the intricacies and subtleties of rāga execution through demonstration. In the initial years of training, emphasis was mostly on imitation by the students. Students got very little chance to take their own initiative in making variations in a rāga’s content that varies across the institutes.

Time and place were reported as two determinants for a fruitful riāz. Students developed some preferences related to them. Gradually they discovered that a fixed place for practice is crucial, time may vary according to the mood. It is the psychological association with the time that goes with the mood of the rāga. The object of a rāga is to express a certain emotional mood and sentiment without any reference to time and season (Chakravarti, 1991). Whereas, it is essential to create a proper physical setting and mental environment conducive for the riāz (Upadhyay & Dalal, 2013). Therefore, musicians prefer a fixed place for riāz. During practice, students mostly concentrated on purity of notes and subsequently on inducing emotion in rāga. Gradually, they started following a procedure for riāz. Over the years, students developed preferences in terms of mode of music learning and method of music practice.

While listening to music, results indicate that students without much training were easily carried away with that music or musical rendering. Nevertheless, after several years of training they became able to analyze music critically. After certain years of training, teachers gave their students the chance to try out their self-created variations in rāga’s content. Moreover, students attempted to compose new music on their own either during their initial years or during final years of training. Findings suggest that at different career levels, students’ orientation to their teachers changed. Higher-level students were more open to their teachers’ critical evaluations and comments. Appreciation and encouragement from teachers further motivated them to take more initiatives that were creative.

Despite the fact that institutions do follow a rigid curriculum for music education, which is contrary to guru–shishya tradition, it appeared that institutionalized music training is not entirely exclusive of this typical learning system. It remains rooted in traditional culture, emphasizing the value of the teacher and music practice, and the importance of internalizing, understanding, interpreting and creating a musical object through performance (Oppenheim, 2012).

Globally, awareness has grown during the last three decades that actual learning occurs in contexts other than the classroom, namely formal, and non-formal or informal learning contexts. Formal learning contexts, traditional pedagogic environments, are where clarity of goals and procedures are clearly defined in advance and where learning results in certification or assessment, whereas informal learning contexts may be understood as a deliberate attempt to be immersed in intense situations of non-formal learning, therefore resulting in the creation of non-traditional social learning environments, combining interactive, non-linear and self-directed processes. The need has been felt to shift from teacher-dominated transmission of knowledge to constructivism—an approach to teaching where teachers and students “construct” and contextualize learning together (Golding, 2011). It has been argued that teachers need to consider ways to increase student ownership by being aware of different pedagogical models practiced around the world (McPhail, 2010).

In India, where the guru–shishya way of learning is a traditional approach rather a contemporary approach and whose reflections are evident in the institutionalized/formal teaching, it may be considered as a pedagogical model. A model in which a guru’s role is directive but at the same time it is interactive, rooted in negotiation. In other words a teacher helps a student to construct rather than to reproduce knowledge. Teachers provide tools so that students go for problem-solving and inquiry-based learning activities. It is considered that the guru–shishya relationship, based on the genuineness of the guru, and the respect, commitment, devotion and obedience of the student, is the best way for subtle or advanced knowledge to be conveyed. The student eventually masters the knowledge that the guru embodies (Choudhari, 2015).

What are reported in this paper are the students’ perceptions, but the reality of what teachers do was not investigated by this study. Future study might include a survey of teacher perceptions and/or observations of actual instructions in classrooms. Odena (2012) put a challenge to all those involved in music education: how current and future educators may develop their own pedagogy for creativity, taking into account their local needs and personal aspiration in an increasingly globalized world. More research is needed to explore student–teacher dyads in conservatoires from psychological and psychodynamic perspectives, in relation to their impact on learning, and personal and professional development (Gaunt, 2011).