Types of duetting

Participants identified various types of in-lesson ‘duetting’, which broaden understanding of duets in violin teaching, signifying activities additional to working on published duets from the violin repertoire and those within violin tutor books with individual pupils. The published materials they used included historic repertoire such as concerti for two violins by J. S. Bach, Spohr and Vivaldi; duos by Bartók, Bériot, Boccherini, Glière, Haydn, Kreutzer, Leclair, Mazas, Pleyel, Spohr, Stamitz; duets by L. Mozart, W. A. Mozart, Shostakovich, Viotti; sonatas for two violins by Leclair, Prokofiev; Bacewicz: Suite for two violins; Handel-Halvorsen: Passacaglia for two violins after George Frideric Handel’s Suite No. 7 in G minor for Harpsichord; Hermann: Accompaniments for second violin to Kreutzer’s etudes; Wieniawski: Etudes-caprices Op.18 for two violins and Handel’s Trio Sonata in E, Op. 2. The tutor book series materials comprised K. & D. Blackwell: Fiddle Time; Davey: Abracadabra; Huws Jones: Violin Star; Rolland: Young Strings in Action; Sándor, Járdányi & Szervánszky: Violin Tutor; Suzuki: Violin School. Additional violin duet books used by the participants included Applebaum: Beautiful music for two string instruments; Bull, Duckett & Osborne: Team Strings; Cohen: Real repertoire for violin duet; Coulthard: The best duet book ever; Duel: Duel; Holland: Divertimento duets; Huws Jones: Jigs, reels & hornpipes, The Celtic collection; Nelson: Tunes you know; Tambling: Tunes for two; Whistler & Hummel: Selected duets for violin. Further material included duets within sightreading publications such as Lumsden: Right at sight, and music arranged or composed by the teacher.

The duetting activities, detailed below, include doubling the pupil’s part, playing individual lines, playing harmony lines, improvising adapted piano parts on violin, further improvising activities, pre-composition, coaching duetting pupil pairs and using recordings and backing tracks. Aside from coaching peer pupil-pairs, all of these were student–teacher activities.

(a) Doubling the pupil’s part

In solo lessons, playing the same part as a student (in any repertoire or technical exercise) was deemed a duet activity by some teachers. This may comprise ‘a support mechanism’ (S5) for students at an early stage and could achieve a relatively fast process of learning through imitation, though this may be of limited value, as pupils are ‘not really learning to work it out for themselves’ (S5). While this could help an ‘introverted player [feel] more confident to play out more’ (S5), it might induce reticent playing: ‘if I play along, they hide away a little bit’, and ‘it can be quite hard to hear what’s happening’ (T11).

(b) Playing individual lines

Playing individual lines could constitute the teacher playing a tutor book violin accompaniment part to a melody played by the pupil and/or material specifically conceived as a duet composition. In this context, pupils ‘know that their line is different to yours, and therefore, they play out their line’ (T10); both teacher and pupil can hear each other (T7) ‘and it’s satisfying for [the pupil] to hear something quite complete’ (T11). Playing individual parts also allows pupils to ‘analyse what sounds they’re making compared to what sounds I’m making’ (T7). At beginner level and when playing violin accompaniment material, T13 positioned themselves in a ‘supporting role’, adapting rhythmically to errors made by pupils, whereas when playing material composed specifically as duets with a pupil, T13 emphasised the equality of both parts and would make fewer compromises to the integrity of their own part. Teachers would also use this opportunity to work on intonation, as detailed below.

(c) Harmony and intonation work

Another activity included the use of drones, playing along in thirds and sixths and an octave below the pupil. This was largely used for exploring ‘tonics and harmony’ (S15); the pupil could also be asked to play an octave below the teacher as an ‘aural challenge’, which might take them ‘out of their comfort zone’ (S8). Intonation work through duet activities was not only connected to harmonic awareness, helping pupils understand the function of notes such as leading notes and relational aspects of tuning intervals (for example, tuning them to open strings), but S3 also used duets to help pupils differentiate between the ‘jangliness’ of equal temperament and the ‘purity’ of just intonation, highlighting the importance of accurate left-hand finger placement, particularly with more advanced learners. S14 would also ‘venture away from piano tuning’ to ‘colour the intonation’. T16 tailored intonation duet work to pupil interests; this might utilise discussion of physics in relation to overtones and harmonics, linking these aspects to sound production. The quality of ‘ringing dead in tune’ (T9) and sympathetic resonance also endorsed the value of violin duet work in this regard rather than using a piano or backing track (T4).

(d) Improvising adapted piano parts on violin

Many of the teachers improvised material as a duet violin part while the pupil plays another part. S1 frequently improvises a ‘basso continuo’ to the pupil’s solo repertoire: ‘I can push them in a musical sense, but my attention isn’t drawn away from observing and listening to their playing because my input is minimal’. Adapting an existing piano part for violin enabled teachers to build pupils’ ensemble skills, to show the musical dialogue within a work, helping the pupil to ‘start seeing it as a piece of art in itself’ and conveying ‘a sense of the whole’ (T2). This could involve the teacher playing a piano part’s right-hand line or other passagework on their violin (T14) and could develop pupil independence: ‘if you’re playing a completely separate counter-melody or a bassline … they have to have that independence of holding their own against you, rather than just kind of following what you’re doing’ (T11), creating more of a ‘partnership’ (T11). This mode of duetting offers flexibility; the choice of which musical features to highlight, and may be viewed by teachers as a more efficient use of lesson time than stopping and starting backing tracks or disrupting their teaching by moving to the piano.

(e) Further improvising activities

Some teachers reported improvising additions to existing violin duet parts to make them more interesting; others would improvise violin accompaniments to basic material for beginner learners, not just to enhance the sound of a piece but also to show pupils that ‘you can fill things in’ (S7), thereby supporting awareness of improvisation from the beginner stages. In group violin teaching contexts S2 reported choosing a melody and inviting pupils to ‘decide how they want to arrange it’, which might include pupils improvising on specific notes of the scale as a duet accompaniment to the tune.

(f) Pre-composition

With beginner ensemble pupils T1 would ‘often write a second part to a tune that seems to really capture the imagination of a group of children just so we can perform it as an ensemble’. T3 also composed bespoke parts for group duets, accommodating disparities in skill level, noting that this could need careful class management taking account of pupil personalities and group dynamics, with sensitivity towards those who needed ‘stretching’ and those who may recognise they are not yet at the same level. S13 connected this approach to community string projects in which players could select a ‘mild, medium or spicy’ version of the music: ‘differentiating parts without it saying first, second and third violin’ (S13). This gave learners agency over the extent to which they wanted to push themselves and could also be applied in a two-part mild/spicy ensemble duet with two ‘teams’ of pupils.

(g) Coaching duetting pupils

Several teachers scheduled lessons to enable adjacent pupils to collaborate on duets, or brought together pupils with ‘a good social connection’ (S2); for some teachers, this was more of ‘a one-off kind of session’ (T7). S5 observed varied peer-working processes: leadership would depend on who was the ‘more dominant character in the pair’; a duo of introverted pupils might do more playing than discussion, and in general, their pupils appeared to prioritise tempo choices and accuracy rather than stylistic aspects. S1 noted that peer duets revealed personalities: ‘who’s the leader … who’s kind’; pupils need to ‘understand that it doesn’t get better if they start getting cross with the other person … they have to think about how to work with the other person’. S15 also recognised that ‘students may get frustrated by the lack of preparation from one student or the other’; they might also find it quite a ‘shock’ (S1) as unlike the teacher, a peer might not make micro-adjustments to adapt to their playing. These observations could amplify teachers’ understanding of their pupils, and potentially, by comparison, enhance pupils’ awareness of the flexibility, musicianship and playing skills of their teacher.

While S1 felt that there could be challenges if one pupil struggled more than the other, S2 suggested that this could enable a less able pupil to be inspired by their peer and to ‘raise their level’ and for both to enjoy their collaboration, which also offered a peer-teaching/mentoring opportunity for the more able pupil (S2, S15). Compared to playing duets with the teacher, peer work showed pupils taking ‘more responsibility for their own learning’ (T7); they might also become ‘much more creative and less self-conscious … all their inhibitions sort of dissolve when they just work together and start exploring the music together and have fun with it’ (S10). Peer duetting can also promote inclusivity through swapping parts, diminishing perceptions of superiority due to level or to the designation of ‘first’ or ‘second’ violin: ‘your part’s just as important as the other one’ (T16).

Teachers identified their role in the duo lesson as coaching, ‘trying to stand back as much as possible’ and offering ‘pearls of wisdom without interfering in the process’ (S1) to support pupil agency. In this context, they facilitated the development of paired pupils’ rehearsal, patience and listening skills and encouraged pupils to think about their musical/technical choices and reasons for these:

Despite the potential for expanding the duo to a larger ensemble context through the teacher adding a third violin part, only S15 mentioned this, concluding that it was not necessary. Teachers appear to prefer to observe and coach duetting pupils without their own additional playing involvement.

(h) Recordings and backing tracks

Teachers working in non-specialist contexts indicated that they also used duets through inviting the pupil to record both parts and play along to their recording at home; the teacher might also record one part and share this with the pupil and parents via WhatsApp: ‘having it on the phone is instant so it’s an easier resource to click’ (T1). Compared with any recorded parts supplied on CD with tutor books, pupils would be able to play more comfortably with a version recorded by the teacher at an appropriate tempo for them. During the COVID-19 pandemic, these teachers frequently recorded violin accompaniment parts from beginner tutor books and/or duet parts for beginner, intermediate and advanced level pupils to play along with during practice sessions and online lessons, encouraging pupils to ‘pair up their playing to the recording’ (T2) and enabling the teacher to evaluate the pupil’s playing with fewer disruptions caused by online technology, such as lag. T2 felt that this not only provided ‘structure’ to online lessons but also motivated younger pupils to continue learning.

For T4, the pandemic led to a significant change of teaching style: ‘I need as vibrant activities as possible as children lose interest so very quickly’ so ‘all of my teaching now uses backing tracks … I see that as a duet: they have to keep in time to the music, they have to count the beat, the bars in, and they have to hear a little harmony’. T14 likewise stated that ‘not every week will have duet playing, but they will have some form of performing with another track’; presumably the familiarity that could develop through using the backing track led T14 to feel that ‘if they’re playing with a recording that’s got the second violin part on … they’ll find it more difficult to play it wrong!’

Factors influencing the inclusion of duet activity

The above types of duetting arise due to varied factors including the institution/context and assessment of learning, teachers’ piano skills and the availability of a piano in the teaching space and expectations relating to the understanding of amateur and professional, all considered by teachers in relation to pupil age, ability and pupils’ opportunities for ensemble playing in other contexts. These appear to be supportive of the numerous values of duet playing as noted in the Introduction, including score- and sight-reading ability, rhythmic and pitch awareness, listening skills, gesture, confidence and enjoyment in music-making.

(a) Institutional and assessment factors

The teaching context influences duet pedagogy in several ways. Firstly, it emerged that the inclusion of chamber music activities in the specialist UK music schools may lead to those teachers prioritising other repertoire: ‘apart from the lesson [pupils] have three outlets in which they learn to play with others … chamber music and orchestra and a pianist that they work with’ (S5); pupils might only occasionally bring ensemble material to the violin lesson and teachers might not prioritise duets, knowing that ensemble skills are developed elsewhere, though S5 did describe occasionally playing a second violin part when coaching a pupil on a first violin quartet part during an individual lesson. The visibility of ensemble activities could depend on teachers’ involvement with them. T3, working for a music service, observed that the provision of a string orchestra enabled them to see pupils’ ensemble engagement and tailored their teaching accordingly, adding more duet work into lessons for those needing support in ensemble contexts.

Secondly, teachers’ use of duetting activities was also influenced by institutional priorities and expectations. Within specialist music schools, assessments were described as ‘quite prescribed … it has to be solo’ (S2); using duets was ‘not normal’ (S13), although two teachers did mention preparing pupils to perform duets in external local competitive music festival classes. Graded performance exams were infrequently used by these teachers due to the high level of their pupils, and most seemed unaware of recent developments in UK graded performance examination syllabi enabling duets to be assessed, though they recognised value in this: more rehearsal time with the teacher in lessons than if playing with a pianist; performing with a teacher or peer could make the experience more comfortable; tuning could be ‘more forgiving’ with another violin than with piano (S13).

Most of the teachers in non-specialist schools and working privately/for music hubs knew about the options for duets in UK graded performance examinations and also mentioned preparing pupils for GCSEFootnote ³ performance assessment using duet material. However, logistical factors were noted, such as the potential need for a piano accompanist as well as violin duet partner to attend graded exams; scheduling of exams preventing teachers’ attendance; the expense of buying extra music and habitual influences of selecting the same exam format and exam board. The enjoyment of and pedagogical values of the existing solo syllabus material could also preclude consideration of exam duet material.

(b) Teachers’ piano skills

Availability of a piano in teaching spaces and the ability of teachers to utilise it influenced pedagogical activities and approaches. Self-deprecating observations of their piano skills as non-existent, ‘chronic’ (T1), ‘I do not class myself as a pianist in any way’ (S15) as well as lack of a piano in teaching spaces meant that many teachers used the above types of duetting in order to convey technical, musical and analytic/structural elements, though those with ability and instrument might accustom pupils to playing with piano from the outset: T15 and T16 both enjoyed playing jazzy piano accompaniments to motivate pupils. T15, in fact, considered using the piano to be ‘easier’ for very young beginners who would ‘want to look at me and copy me’ if T15 was to accompany on violin. However, it was also observed that the piano could be a barrier: ‘because of the way lots of rooms are set up in schools they’ve got their back to the violinist and there’s actually very little interaction’ (T1). Teachers could also be too immersed in piano playing: ‘unless you’re a very, very good pianist who can play without looking at your hands or the music, you can’t be looking at the learner’ (T2). As S1 indicated, ‘on my familiar instrument … I have the freedom of mind to concentrate on what they’re doing, rather than being tucked away behind the piano, struggling’. T6 also observed that experienced music service colleagues considered that violin duet options for performance exams were partly introduced in recognition of the changing skill-set of teachers: piano accompaniment would have been a ‘real foundation’ whereas T6 felt that it is no longer an expectation or covered in string teaching training courses in the same way as in the past.

(c) Expectations: Amateur or professional?

The duet’s pedagogical usage may relate to perceptions of status of repertoire and of performance priorities, with expectations of the solo violinist accompanied by piano or orchestra being seen as the pinnacle of achievement and thus the ultimate aim of pedagogical training. As T11 noted, ‘it definitely feels like ‘soloist’ is the kind of gold star’, and ‘there probably is a bit of a culture of ‘you play duets as a learning point’ … and then you progress on and become a soloist’. Similarly, T10 observed that ‘it’s held up as the standard that if you are an instrumentalist, if you’re a violinist, that you perform with piano unless it’s unaccompanied, and maybe there’s a perception that duets aren’t viewed seriously’. These views may prevail, despite the ubiquity of the violin duet within all the major historical schools of violin playing (S10) and the recognised benefits to the development of chamber music skills. This perception extends into the specialist music school: S5 reported that ‘there is still quite an old-fashioned hierarchy within the kids’ minds – so it must be within the culture of the school – of what violin playing is important and what isn’t’. In that particular institutional context, concerti and virtuosic pieces were felt to be more significant than any other repertoire.

Other teachers acknowledged perceptions that duets could also be regarded as of less importance than other chamber ensembles: ‘the duet is a poor relative’ (S8) compared to the string quartet, despite the quartet operating as ‘kind of an extension of duets’ (S8). Therefore, it seems that although duets ‘represent a wider spectrum of music making … not just piano and another instrument’ (T14), the format could influence status: potentially not just of the repertoire but also, by extension, of the player.

This positioning of duets as a lesser genre further extends to resulting in potential perceptions of duets as music played by amateurs (Na, Reference NA2021; Paillan, Reference PAILLAN2021), reflected in S13’s semi-ironic comment: ‘professionals don’t do that kind of thing, they do really serious things that are really hard!’. While participants acknowledged an amateur-professional continuum, many were uncomfortable with these terms: ‘the idea of professional and amateur – these words should be just banished’ (S7). Teachers frequently indicated that if ‘amateur’ means doing something for the love of it, then this enjoyment should be viewed positively: ‘that sense of a hobby, playing things together … that sense of music and connection and the opportunity to do that should be celebrated’ (T7).

Recognising the importance of enjoyment in music-making, T12 emphasised that ‘music is something that needs to be accessible for everybody’ and therefore, it is vital to ask ‘what is music for?’ (T12). This teacher felt that ‘in the Western world we’ve got this idea that to do music properly you have to be professionally trained … and because we’ve got [performance] recordings, that creates an artificially high standard for everyone else’ (T12). This could create barriers to engagement; T12 felt that current Western music education frequently places ‘too much pressure on individuals .. we need to create vibrant group experiences, because most people will engage with music as a group activity’. T1 further considered that many people’s motivation to learn an instrument would be to ‘play socially’ but not necessarily to perform; duets might constitute material to play through for fun, with ‘no pressure’ and ‘no intention of performing it or perfecting it’ (T1), which aligns with T13’s observation that they would play duets with a friend but they would not play solo pieces to each other.

While T2 articulated a teaching philosophy in which their aims for pupils meant that ‘amateurism is the goal because it’s doing it for the love of it, and for the enjoyment and exploration of the repertoire’, T12 considered that a negative sense of amateurism could be present in pedagogical contexts in which pupils were uncommitted to practising or to high standards. Through reflection, T12 felt that teachers could consider ‘are we providing something that’s stimulating or the right level? And do we have standards suitable for what [pupils] are able to bring to it?’. Similarly, T16 indicated that ‘it’s amateurish if you don’t choose the repertoire properly’, and only approaching duets from the perspective of a single piece played for fun at the end of lessons would be ‘amateurish if it’s your entire teaching style and that’s all you do’; therefore, the pedagogical use of duets needs sustained consideration.

Repertoire was also viewed as having an impact on perceptions of amateurism. S14 identified some of the repertoire as ‘a bit jokey’ in style; ‘there’s not many really serious duos’. T3 wondered whether most of the repertoire was written for learners rather than professionals; these factors could influence perceptions towards situating duets within the amateur domain. However, examples of more complex duet repertoire were identified by some participants, though it was observed that the perceived high status of the double concerto format (such as J. S. Bach’s two-violin concerto) seemed to be inherently validated through having orchestral accompaniment.

T10 considered potential for ‘underlying prejudice’, as ‘classical music does hold up certain combinations of instruments as ‘serious’ music’; this could include sonatas for violin and piano, string quartets and piano trios: ‘these are the ensembles that perform ‘serious’ repertoire … maybe that influences more than we think’ (T10). T5 expanded further, defining ‘art music genres where we can say the important stuff in music, like the string quartet or the piano sonata’ plus larger orchestral formats, ‘and then there are the minor frivolities like duets and songs’. These might comprise ‘shorter pieces, quite simple, often quite jolly’ (T5); therefore, this could be associated with views of canonic traditions polarising music into categories of valid and important repertoire worthy of refined playing/performance, and other repertoire where ‘the music’s not worth getting up to this kind of standard’ (T5). Thus, there could be a perception that musicians may feel legitimately inclined to adopt a rather more casual approach to duets: ‘they’re just throw-away things that are just there for us to have a bit of fun with and then we get back to learning our serious sonata or string quartet or whatever’ (T5). T1’s observation that ‘when I’m doing duet work I’m less likely to give technical feedback than I would be in solo repertoire’ aligns with this viewpoint and potentially links to the pressures of the competing priorities in the lesson.

These views connected to aspects of performance. Firstly, the visibility of duets in performance contexts and classical music radio broadcasts was felt to be minimal (aside from the duo concerto format); even in relation to S14’s own festival programming, duets were ‘hardly ever’ included; S14 also referred to people not taking duets seriously as concert repertoire. T16 further emphasised that this lack of programming could translate to limited pedagogical inclusion of duets at an advanced level: ‘we’re not exposed to them in the professional world, there’s other repertoire that’s always played, other ensemble possibilities’. For T16, this reflected a frustrating relationship between the availability of repertoire and the extent of performance: ‘as repertoire, there’s a lot out there, but not many people play it, and that’s more of a problem, as opposed to playing duets is amateurish’.

A further factor relating to the programming of duet repertoire concerned the inherent sound limitations of two violins, recognised as potentially challenging for the listener: duets do ‘have that upper frequency thing, where you’re missing inner voices … you want to hear more variety in the structure of the harmony, and of course that’s a challenge for two violins to give that’ (S14). Likewise, T9 noted the absence of a lower bass part, which may limit attraction to composers. Nevertheless, T3 and T4 both generated income through playing violin duets at wedding receptions; T4 emphasised that this format could effectively ‘create emotion and story’ and concluded that ‘duet playing is not amateur by any means’.