by Philip Hii

Aaron Shearer is one of the most highly respected guitar teachers today. His work with the guitar spans more than a half century, and his six-volume series, Classic Guitar Technique, has been in use throughout the world for over thirty years.

Together with Sophocles Papas, Mr. Shearer started the first degree program for the guitar in America at American University in Washington, D.C. He also started similar programs at Catholic University, and the Peabody Conservatory of Music where he taught for sixteen years. Since 1981 Mr. Shearer has directed the guitar program at the North Carolina School of the Arts in Winston-Salem.

The success of Aaron Shearer's teaching is underscored by the considerable number of concert guitarists he has produced, including Manuel Barrueco and David Tannenbaum. The first two volumes of his latest work on guitar instruction, Learning the Classic Guitar, have recently been released by Mel Bay Publications, Inc. The first part of the projected four-part series deals with technique; the second part, with reading and memorizing music. In this article, Mr. Shearer talks with forum editor Philip Hii about his teaching philosophy and approach.

What prompted you to write your new books?

I have been and continue to be very concerned about the general level of guitar instruction. I've taught on the conservatory level for almost three decades, and I've found that applicants who come for auditions -- both undergraduate and graduate -- are generally not prepared to study on those levels. For instance, such basic things as seating and positioning, which everyone agrees are extremely important, are generally approached without any clear aim of what needs to be accomplished, much less a procedure for establishing the most effective positions.

This situation pervades all areas of guitar study. Few students are getting clear direction in technique, reading music, memorization, interpretation, and performance development. Of course, a handful of extremely gifted students sometimes manage to play quite well without having a clear direction. But they invariably work much harder than necessary, wasting valuable time and effort which they might have more rewardingly spent progressing to higher and higher levels of playing.

Clearly this situation needs to be addressed, and I hope my new books will serve as a catalyst toward a better understanding of our problems and how to deal with them.

Do you advocate a more standardized approach to teaching the guitar?

My answer depends on how you ask that question. Am I saying that all students should be taught in exactly the same way? No, not at all. I'm not advocating an assembly-line approach to teaching. Each student is unique, and teachers have to adapt their instruction to meet individual needs.

But let's rephrase your question: "Should all guitar students receive the same basic information?" My answer would be, "absolutely yes!" After all, an important part of a teacher's job is to evaluate information. Students can't do this; they don't have the experience to decide what works and what doesn't work. What's more, they shouldn't be wasting valuable time in trying to decide what to do. They have enough to do as it is, and they have a limited amount of time in which to do it.

Some will argue that if we give all students the same basic information, we might stifle their individuality.

I think that's an unfounded concern. Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven all studied basic harmony and counterpoint, yet that doesn't seem to have stifled their individuality.

Bear in mind that I'm talking about basic issues. All guitar students share the same basic aim: they want to be able to perform for others with accuracy, continuity, and confidence. And bear in mind that, physically and mentally, we all function in a similar way. So it stands to reason that every student should receive the same basic information.

There's nothing new or profound about this. Look at how we train scientists, doctors, lawyers, and so forth. Do we design an entirely different course of study for each individual student?

But music is a creative art. Don't we need to train musicians differently than, say, doctors or lawyers?

Let's not confuse the end with the means. Indeed, music is a creative art, and the creative qualities of a great performance are often mysterious and elusive. But what's mysterious about technique? What's mysterious about reading music? Memorization? Basic concepts of interpretation? Learning to perform for others? These are the means toward the goal of expressively performing music. The mystery, of course, is in what each student will intuitively achieve with these means.

In the introduction to Part 1: Technique: you wrote: "Many ideas in my approach challenge traditional methods and assumptions." Can you be more specific?

I assume that you're asking for specific examples of how my approach differs from traditional instruction. And of course, there are quite a few. For example, I introduce right hand finger alternation considerably later than most methods. Indeed, I don't begin right-hand training with the fingers at all; I find that students progress much more efficiently and securely by beginning with the thumb. Furthermore, I interpret the "economy of movement" idea in a way that more accurately reflects how the muscles actually function.

But my approach differs on a far more basic and important level. We need to recognize that our minds and bodies function in the same basic ways. Thus, if we're to teach the guitar -- or any other instrument -- most effectively, our instruction must be based on concepts of how we most efficiently learn and move. This is perhaps the most fundamental difference between my approach and traditional methods.

By the way, I should mention that even though I'm using it, the term "traditional methods" is actually a misnomer. As I pointed out in my answer to your first question, there's no common understanding of how to teach the guitar, so obviously there are no "traditional methods and assumptions" in guitar pedagogy. That, of course is part of the problem.

On page 2 you wrote, "Thus , by recognizing that performance is your goal, you'll carefully avoid forming any habit of thought or movement which you don't want to occur during a performance." Is this one of the essential concepts you're referring to?

Yes.

But isn't that common sense? Can't all music teachers justifiably say that they're teaching their students to perform?

Of course it's common sense. All teachers want their to teach their students to become confident performers. But how many of us actually achieve this? We have to be honest with ourselves. If a teacher isn't producing students who can perform with accuracy, continuity, and confidence, then that teacher is not teaching students to perform, regardless of his or her intentions. Good intentions aren't enough. We need to evaluate teaching by its results.

You frequently talk about habits in your book. How important are they in your approach?

They're paramount! In fact, my emphasis on the importance of habits is where I really depart from other methods. Every student must grow constantly aware of the overwhelming importance of habits in learning a musical instrument. During every minute of practice, you're inevitably forming habits of thought and movement that will determine how well you play. If you're confused and making errors as you practice, then your mind and body will acquire habits of confusion and error. It's that simple.

Unfortunately, few students are taught this. Some years ago, I was walking past a row of empty classrooms. Inside one classroom was a young violinist who was practicing Bach. He had a wonderfully rich and warm sound, so I paused outside the door to listen for a moment. But it wasn't long before I had to stop listening. He was repeating a section over and over again, making mistake after mistake. Although he wasn't aware of it, he was practicing making mistakes.

I'm not saying that he'll never learn to play Bach. In fact, he may eventually learn to play it very well. Through sheer hard work, exceptionally talented students can sometimes push through habits of confusion and error. But think of the time and effort wasted! And think how much farther they might have gone if they had studied in ways that build habits of accuracy, security, and confidence.

The fault wasn't in the student; the fault was in the way he was taught to practice. And this is the saddest part of our situation. We can't actually see the damage done to students by inadequate instruction, because we can never know what those students might have achieved with better instruction. When a particular student doesn't learn to play well, we simply assume that he or she doesn't have the knack. This is the invisible tragedy of music instruction.

By the way, I'd like to clear up a misconception implied by your question. You asked me how important are habits in my approach. My answer is that they're important in any approach. Forming habits is the whole point of practice; we repeat things until they become habitual. No one could play music if he had to consciously think about every last detail of movement and positioning. Forming secure habits is the foundation of learning to play a musical instrument. We can't afford to ignore this, regardless of what approach we use.

I'll like to ask you about some of the other concepts in your books. Can you briefly explain the Four Principles of Efficient Muscle Function and how you arrived at them?

Certainly. One common error in guitar instruction is the idea that students should base their technique on what "feels" right for them. This is simply wrong. To beginners, everything feels uncomfortable, so how can they accurately evaluate what they're doing? Furthermore, advanced players are often so accustomed to a poor position or technique that anything different, even an improvement, will just "feel" wrong. Finally, few students are ever taught to recognize unnecessary tension.

So initially, a student's "feelings" are an unreliable basis for learning technique. The Four Principles of Efficient Muscle Function give students a set of simple and objective standards for evaluating what they do.

In the chapter on developing right-hand speed you wrote about practicing finger sweeps while keeping the knuckle joints extended, emphasizing movement at the middle joints. How do you see the roles of the middle and knuckle joints in developing right-hand speed?

Right-hand speed depends on coordination, of which there are two essentials: the first is independence between the knuckle and middle joints of a single finger, and between the knuckle and middle joints of adjacent fingers; the second is control. Sweeps are used to develop independence more freely, without the tension-inducing level of careful control needed to sound strings. I emphasize moving from the middle joints during sweeps because those joints tend to move less freely than the knuckle joints. After achieving independence, control is introduced through sounding individual strings.

I first got the idea for sweeps from flamenco players. I noticed that they often have a great deal of right-hand speed, usually more than the average classic guitarist. The reason is that they use the rasgueado technique a great deal, and this develops the relatively weak extensor muscles. In the opposed-sweep exercises, I go a step farther, developing coordination between extensors and flexors simultaneously in an opposed movement; this is the movement which, if not highly coordinated, impedes right-hand speed and freedom in playing.

Can a remedial student effectively work through the books without a teacher?

Students who carefully work through my books on their own can learn a great deal. How much each student learns, of course, will depend on the student. But it's unquestionably far more efficient to work with a knowledgeable teacher. As happened long ago with other instruments, we're rapidly approaching the time when the standards of playing expected from a concert guitarist will be too high to be reached through self-instruction. And those standards will only continue to rise.

Is there a didactic reason for including only original music composed by you and Alan Hirsh in the second volume?

In my experience, it's very difficult to find traditional music that fits within a step-by-step approach. As much as possible, I want students to concentrate on specific aims during a study piece. Traditional studies generally give students too many different musical and technical problems to solve. So the decision to supply original music in my book naturally evolved from the requirements of my approach. Of course, I certainly encourage guitar teachers to supplement the pieces in my book with appropriate music from the standard repertoire.

I'd like to add that I think Alan Hirsh did a marvelous job. He somehow managed to write very attractive music, often using only the most basic of materials. Many of his pieces are little gems.

How do you feel about the current state of guitar-playing?

Viewed from the perspective of the last fifty years, I have to say that many wonderful things have happened. But, as my previous comments indicate, tremendous improvement is still needed. Guitar instruction has to improve, and I think it inevitably will. That's when things will really start to happen.

In fact, I'm more excited about the possible state of tomorrow's guitar playing. Of course, I may be wrong, but I suspect that the world of guitar is on the verge of an upswing in the general level of playing. I just hope I'll be around to see it. Maybe I'll be blessed with Segovia's longevity.

Which brings me to my next question: what are your feelings on Segovia and his legacy?

There's no way that I can begin to express what this man did for the classic guitar and for all of us who would pursue its study. His place in the history of the guitar is secure; there has never been anyone like him before, and there will never be anyone like him again. He introduced the guitar as a concert instrument on a scale unheard of before. He gave the guitar a new level of dignity. He also made us aware of the sheer beauty of sound which the guitar is capable of producing.

Certainly he had a profound influence on me. Without Segovia, it's unlikely that I would have pursued the guitar as my life's work.

Do you have any favorite guitarists?

That's a very difficult question. Often my answer depends on whom I've heard the evening before. And some concert guitarists are my former students, so naturally I can't be entirely objective.

Every guitarist has qualities which I enjoy. I don't like to categorize them.

What are your plans for the future?

I have no plans to retire, but I'll have to admit that, as the years go by, it becomes harder to resist spending more time hiking in the Blue Ridge Mountains.

But there's still more writing to be done. Part 3, which deals with interpretation and performance development, has been sent to my publisher. And Part 4, which will deal with advanced technique and music reading, is still waiting to be written.

I consider myself to be very fortunate. At age 71, I'm apparently blessed with excellent health, and I'm better informed about teaching the guitar than I've ever been. So I believe I have a great deal to share with my fellow guitarists everywhere. In fact, I feel that I'm fortunate to be living in this time of change and progress in the world of guitar, and I'm excited to be a part of it.