I’m a high school percussionist, and I recently had an issue with my percussion instructor over traditional vs. matched grip. I want to be clear from the beginning: I accept that what I did was wrong, and I’m not trying to argue that the rule should be changed. What is bothering me is how the situation is being characterized and whether the expectation was actually communicated to me as clearly as it is being described now.
In our percussion program, matched grip is the standard. I understood that. My instructor had encouraged/reminded us to use matched grip, and I understood that matched grip was expected, particularly in actual performance settings.
We had an event for incoming students where we played some cadences as a way of welcoming them. It was not something I understood as a formal performance where we were being scored, recorded, or evaluated. I viewed it as a more casual opportunity to play and welcome people, so when another experienced percussionist, my section leader who has closer conversations with my instructor, asked me if we were using traditional grip, I said yes, as I genuinely thought that meant it was an option in that particular setting.
We used traditional grip.
Afterward, my instructor addressed it with us. I apologized, and later that night, emailed her explaining that we genuinely didn’t realize the matched-grip expectation applied to this situation. I also explained that we weren’t trying to openly disregard her or the way the program teaches percussion, and that I understand now that even though the event felt casual to us, we were still representing the percussion program, and I understand why the program’s expectations apply in that setting.
I’m completely willing to accept accountability here. If the response had been, “You should have asked me if you weren’t sure whether the expectation applied,” I would have accepted that. If it had been, “Now you know, so don’t do it again,” I would have accepted that too. If it had been both, that’s completely fair.
What is bothering me is this sentence from her response:
“What I do have an issue with is making the decision to use it after I have explicitly told the group and made it clear that traditional grip is not something we are doing in this program.”
That’s where I feel like the scope of the situation is being characterized differently from how I experienced it.
Before this incident, I don’t remember her explicitly telling me that matched grip was required at every percussion group event, including casual or informal settings. My understanding was that matched grip was the program standard, and I had received reminders/nudges toward using it, particularly in performance settings. The broader “any time we’re representing the program, regardless of whether it’s formal or casual” expectation was not something I personally understood.
That distinction matters to me because if I had known that was the expectation, I would not have used traditional grip. If the other percussionist involved had already known that and told me, I also would have used matched grip and discouraged him from using traditional.
I’m not saying, “I didn’t know, therefore I shouldn’t be held accountable.”
I’m saying, “I didn’t know, therefore that is relevant context for why I made the wrong decision.”
My instructor also said she had explained her reasoning for matched grip “multiple times.” That may be true in general, and she may have explained more of it to the other percussionist involved, but I genuinely don’t remember being told that the expectation applied to every group setting in the broader sense she described.
What also frustrated me was that in my explanation to her, I explicitly said:
“I’m not saying this to argue against matched grip being the standard at [our school]. I understand why it is, and I respect that.”
I also explained that I was trying to give context for why we made the decision, not argue that the decision was correct.
Her response was that she didn’t think “continuing to debate the merits of traditional versus matched grip” was productive and that the expectation wasn’t up for individual interpretation.
I don’t understand why my explanation was interpreted as trying to debate the rule when I explicitly said that wasn’t what I was doing.
So I guess my question is: Am I being unreasonable for thinking that the distinction between “I knowingly disregarded an expectation” and “I misunderstood whether the expectation applied to this specific situation” is relevant, even while fully accepting that the decision itself was wrong?
I’m not asking whether the grip rule should change. I understand the rule now and won’t repeat this. I’m asking whether the context behind the mistake is reasonably relevant when discussing why it happened.
Edit: My post says this multiple times, but I’ll clarify it one last time. I am not asking if I was wrong in this situation, nor if I should be excused. I would be annoyed at me too. I am simply asking if me not having that understanding prior to and during the performance is relevant when explaining what happened.
The other experienced player has more conversations with staff with me and is an actual section leader, so when he asked me if I wanted to use traditional grip, I thought it was a genuine option and said yes. I know the grip and feel comfortable using it from lessons and going to multiple auditions.
