This research explores pedagogical creativity in instrumental and vocal teaching. While music instruction still largely relies on transmissive approaches—based on correction, demonstration, and prescription—the authors argue that creativity plays a crucial role in helping students overcome technical and expressive challenges. The aim of the study is to identify creative strategies implemented by teachers to promote a more active, reflective, and autonomous learning process.Theoretical frameworkThe research builds on the definition of creativity as the ability to produce a response that is both novel and appropriate to its context (Lubart et al., 2015). In this view, creative teaching means going beyond routine solutions to invent new ways of addressing pedagogical or artistic problems. Teaching is understood here as a problem-solving process (Mayer, 1989) that transforms an initial state (the student’s difficulties) into a desired state (musical mastery).An exploratory phase with a flute professor known for her innovative pedagogy revealed two main domains of teaching interventions: the Routine domain, encompassing transmissive strategies (correction, prescription, explanation, demonstration, etc.), and the Creativity domain, which includes five categories: anticipation, questioning, modeling, bypassing, and broadening.MethodologyThe observation grid derived from the exploratory phase was tested and validated by a research team using a recorded lesson, reaching a moderate-to-good inter-rater agreement (Cohen’s Kappa = 0.47). Twelve teachers were then observed in pre-professional contexts, across both classical and jazz programs. Each lesson was coded according to the defined categories and standardized to a 100-minute reference duration for comparison.The sample included teachers of various ages and levels of experience, yet no significant differences were found regarding gender, musical style, or teaching experience.ResultsFindings reveal a clear predominance of routine interventions, occurring on average four times more often than creative ones (200 vs. 50 per 100 minutes). Three main teacher profiles emerged:- Predominantly routine approach - directive, technically focused teachers who emphasize correction and demonstration.- Moderately routine approach - teachers integrating some interactive or reflective elements within a structured framework.- Balanced approach - teachers fostering interaction, experimentation, and reflective learning.The most frequent interventions were prescriptions/instructions (26 %), followed by explanations (17 %), demonstrations (15 %), and questioning (11 %). In contrast, modeling (0.7 %), bypassing (1.4 %), and broadening (2.4 %) were rare. Strong correlations appeared between transmissive categories such as correction, prescription, and demonstration, while questioning correlated positively with encouragement and explanation, suggesting a more open pedagogical stance among certain teachers.AnalysisTeachers in the first group (routine approach) were characterized by highly structured, model-oriented instruction that left little space for exploration. Those in the second group allowed some autonomy yet remained predominantly prescriptive. The teachers in the third group established a more experimental environment, inviting students to reflect, test, and construct their own solutions—thereby embodying the most creative practices, especially through anticipation, bypassing, and broadening strategies.DiscussionMost observed teachers still favored prescriptive approaches, confirming the pedagogical conservatism previously noted by Hallam (1998). However, the presence of creative strategies, even sporadically, demonstrates that transformation is possible. The five creative categories identified offer concrete tools for renewing teaching practice:Anticipation - helping students foresee difficulties and self-regulate their progress.Questioning - stimulating reflection and self-awareness.Modeling - making the teacher’s thought processes explicit to scaffold student reasoning.Bypassing - diverting attention from a technical obstacle to overcome it indirectly.Broadening - enriching interpretation through metaphors and extra-musical imagery.ConclusionThis research highlights the ongoing tension between routine and creativity in instrumental and vocal pedagogy. Creativity does not oppose structure; it complements it by fostering a more engaging, adaptive form of musical learning. Despite the prevalence of transmissive methods, encouraging signs of innovation are emerging among certain teachers.The authors stress the importance of pedagogical training in developing teachers’ own creative competence. Training programs should nurture reflective practice, cognitive modeling, and a willingness to take risks in teaching. Creativity cannot be decreed—it must be cultivated through conscious and professional engagement.Ultimately, the study argues that creativity should not be seen as an optional addition but as a core professional skill of music educators, serving students’ autonomy, motivation, and artistic fulfillment.