Research vs Instruction

Knowledge is better shared through direct instruction, that is, one person with experience in the subject will tell a less-experienced person what to do in order to achieve a similar experience. This understanding places the "teacher" in the position of "instructor".

Knowledge is better attained through research, that is, by relying on its logical and present existence, from which the more experienced person has learned in the past and continues to learn presently, and now passes such principles on to a less experienced person. This understanding places the role of a "teacher" more into a "mentoring" capacity.

An instructor will demand strict adherence to set standards. In the process, the instructed will acquire the skills - and possibly the fears - of the instructor. The result often is a disciplined professional, respectful to the instructor.

A mentor will allow the mentored to seek his/her own path and standards, teaching the principles that guide the proper creation of both. In the process, the mentored will acquire the principles - but not necessarily the experience - of the mentor. The result is a free thinker able to tread new avenues, independently of the mentor`s experience.

Are "instructed" musicians so bound by their discipline so as to be unable to fully trust their instincts?

Are "mentored" musicians so free to create their own path that they end up not being completely understood and valued by their peers?

Are "instructed" musicians truly disciplined?

Are "mentored" musicians truly imaginative?


Judging by its inherited philosophical approach, mentoring should be experienced after instruction, thus guaranteeing that the instructed will have the skills necessary for proper absortion of the mentoring benefits. Mentoring without prior instruction is, therefore, empty.

Due to its philosophical basis, mentoring should be present at the youngest age, so as to guarantee a proper design for the instruction that is to follow. Instruction without purpose, is therefore, questionable.

A duality approach seems reasonable. A decision needs to be made as to how far a person needs to be instructed, vs when does mentoring actually begin. Similarly, under what circumstances will the instructed arguments prevail (and they often do), vs how the benefits of mentoring have historically changed the courses of their fields.

Much as we have a duality of our own, present in our constant internal dialogue between diverging interpretations of right, wrong and grey areas, the internal success of the musician depends on an intelligent balance between instruction and mentoring. Too much of one or the other may lead to extreme conservatism or extreme self-righteousness. Either of which will render the artist incredible. And of course, without internal success, any external kudos will be short-lived.