<p>this was my second time doing prescreen tape and it didn't go so well. It wasn't a bad tape but it wasn't stellar. My teacher said it was decent to use. Do teachers at schools listen to the whole tape or do they only listen to a little bit? And do most schools pass people for prescreening?</p>
<p>What do you mean by, “Do most schools pass people for prescreening?” I honestly don’t know what your question means. </p>
<p>Obviously you want to submit the best prescreen that you can, but no unedited recording will be perfect. My son’s had several obvious issues and he passed all of his prescreens (Juilliard, NEC, CIM, Colburn etc.).</p>
<p>I’m sure that the amount of recording that is listened to will vary between schools, teachers, and recordings. Often only a few measures are necessary to determine that a student is an excellent candidate for a live audition or that a student should never get a live audition. The marginal cases probably get a longer listen. </p>
<p>I would want to make sure that the glaring weaknesses are not in the first minute or so. If your teacher believes that the recording is decent and your teacher has had other students audition successfully at schools of the calibre to which you are applying, then I would trust your teacher.</p>
<p>Yeah most of my teacher’s students are sent to top schools (USC, Juilliard, NEC, CIM, etc). He wasn’t happy and he knows I can do better. It’s too late now but the thing is— I play SPECTACULAR in front of a live audience. I don’t know how I do it. I just pull it together. But my tape is mediocre. There are parts which I like and some that I don’t. It’s not a full representation of me. I’m just worried that I didn’t apply to enough schools (11 btw). I’m afraid my prescreen will have me rejected from 50% of them.</p>
<p>To be honest it has taken my three takes to finally get a prescreening I am satisfied with. Although, I was fortunate because my mom is a professional accompanist so the fees weren’t too bad ;)</p>
<p>I too do much better live. Even if it’s still an audition. Something about being recorded is just evil.</p>
<p>I think it is worth it to do it a third time if YOU are not satisfied with it. One of my friends told me that some schools cut almost 85% of their applicants in prescreening (information he got from the Classical Singer Convention last year).</p>
<p>It’s really expensive! So far my parents have paid $500 for two takes for the recording sessions. I’m going to try to record myself tonight with a bad video camera but that’s all I have. I personally think my tape isn’t great but it’s not bad. It’s average, nothing special. It has its moments. I’m just better live and I’m worried that I won’t pass most screenings because of this stupid tape!</p>
<p>Life-
Conventional wisdom these days is for high level programs that a pre screen needs to be done as well as possible. How important the pre-screen is I would hazard a guess depends on what area of music you are in, I suspect if it is something where they have open slots for something relatively less common (let’s say for arguments sake the english horn) or not as popular (viola for example), then having a flawed pre screen might be less important then on let’s say violin or as a soprano because they have so many applications (and this is a hypothetical example, I use viola and english horn at random,not claiming they are ‘easy’ admits or easy on pre screens). </p>
<p>Conventional wisdom might probably be to do another take, even given the expense. On the other hand, if your teacher thinks it is good enough for a pre screen, and said teacher has gotten kids into top programs in recent years, then you probably should take some comfort in that if you decide to forgo a third round. Ideally, if you do well with ‘live performance’, it would have been great to find a way to combine the two, find a place where you could perform for a small audience of friends or whatever and have that recorded…</p>
<p>The quality of the recording/camera is not nearly as important as the performance itself. I think a lot of kids/parents spend money on fancy recordings when a macbook pro and a good mic can get the job done. Maybe you will be more comfortable in your own room! Just something to consider. </p>
<p>You do want to feel good about your prescreening (that said, my son wasn’t nuts about his prescreen either, but he never likes ANYTHING he does - in the end, it seemed to get the job done)</p>
<p>When my d went through this process a few years back, what we learned was that the entire prescreen process is to weed out those that will not make it to the live audition except where there is a regional audition. Although it might be different now, that was another route and we were told that ultimate admission decisions were not made favoring those auditioning on campus over those auditioning regionally. For example my d did not submit her prescreen to Oberlin for voice and auditioned in NYC at the regional audition, using her vocal coach as the accompanist-same with Peabody.</p>
<p>From what I know of prescreens, the reason music schools have increasingly turned to this is to weed out those who they feel aren’t ready to audition at their program. Especially with the surge of students coming in from overseas, they were finding they were auditioning people who quite frankly didn’t meet the level of the school. It could mean literally getting hundreds of applications on violin when they were admitting maybe 20, same on Piano and so forth (and obviously, this depends on the school, schools could use prescreens for other reasons as well). For example,many of the top music schools with pre-college programs don’t require students in those programs to do a pre screen, because they assume that students admitted to their pre-college program are strong enough to audition for the college. Doing a prescreen means on piano, for example, they potentially would see only 40 pianists lets say instead of several hundred. It isn’t a perfect process, there is always the potential of someone cheating on the pre screen recording, but in the end the live audition will find them out, kind of hard to cheat on a live audition.</p>
<p>Hi All. How do you recommend recording the prescreen for VP? I don’t have a macbookpro but have a good pc. Should I purchase a good microphone and use it? I am a real novice at this. Is there a particular software I should use to do the recording? One of the schools requires a dvd. Is there a particular camcorder I should use that has a good mic or should I purchase a good mic to attach to my camcorder? Thanks!!</p>
<p>To the original poster. Prescreening is VERY competitive at some schools. I would recommend redoing the tape. It doesn’t have to be great quality! Just get a decent audio recorder and do it at your local church. Settling for a prescreening is one of the most common regrets among high schoolers applying to music schools.</p>
<p>GS707, the sound is what matters, not the video (that just needs to be decent). So definitely get a proper mic. I only said macbook pro because that’s what I’m familiar with and all the necessary software (garageband, built in camera?) is already there. I’m sure you can do it on a PC as well, with just about any video camera. But make sure your sound is good. My son knows several people who did their prescreens on some kind of computer.</p>
<p>I’d recommend buying a Zoom H-2 - or whatever the current iteration is. They have fabulous sound, the video is decent enough - but the sound is terrific. Your D can take it to college with her to record lessons, master classes, concerts. It’s simple to upload the files to the computer.
Also check out this older thread: <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/music-major/790864-prescreen-recordings-varying-requirements-whats-best-way-record.html?[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/music-major/790864-prescreen-recordings-varying-requirements-whats-best-way-record.html?</a></p>
<p>I record my daughter’s performances and auditions using either a Zoom H1 or a Zoom Q3. The H1 is audio only, and has been great for recording for auditions such as Tanglewood and other summer institutes. It costs $100. The Q3 is video, but with the same professional level of recording. I find the sound quality to be far better than using a microphone hooked up into a computer. The Q3 costs about $300. It has been great for recording her concerto competitions and performances and putting them up on youtube. I plan to use it for her conservatory applications if we need to do prescreens.</p>
<p>I was just going to recommend the Zoom H-2 also. It makes crystal clear, high quality recordings. It is a smallish device, maybe the size of two cell phones, that you can just perch on a chair. It used to cost $80-90.</p>
<p>I don’t know how that works with a DVD, but someone here can help with that.</p>
<p>I agree with a previous poster. Do the prescreening in a church with a few people there. Maybe even think of it as a small concert or recital!</p>
<p>On the bright side, if you do make it through in 11 schools, you will have a stressful early March!</p>
<p>About the money: if you do a better job (and I am not saying that that is needed, only responding to your own feelings, which may be subjective), there is more likelihood of merit money. You may make many times over that $500, who knows.</p>
<p>Think how you might feel 20 years from now. Will you regret not giving it your best shot? Or will you feel that you made a prudent decision financially and in terms of effort and stress. I almost sense that you feel that you aren’t going to get in anyway, so why bother. Or even that this may serve as a way to excuse your not getting in, to yourself, in the end. If you really want to go to any of these schools, for good reasons, and love music, then it would seem to be a wise decision to do your very best if possible, or at least try one more time. Good luck! This stuff is tough!</p>
<p>Crossposted!</p>
<p>I doubt that one’s prescreening recording makes much of a difference (if any) for merit money at most schools. Certainly the audition can make a huge difference (i.e. the difference between $0 and up to $200 000 over four years). The schools that require prescreening recordings do so because they have very large numbers of applicants and thus the person (or occasionally people) that listen to a prescreening recording are listening to so many that they are unlikely to recall much from them when auditions come around. They all know that prescreening recordings can be the result of 20 takes and potential “doctoring”, so the merit money is usually based on the live audition. Because only the best candidates are present at the live auditions, there will almost always be more faculty that hear the live audition than would hear a prescreen–hence another reason that merit money is based on the live audition.</p>
<p>Now, if the recording is not a prescreening recording, but a substitute for a live audition, then certainly large sums of money could rest on it. However, I believe that the discussion here is about prescreening recordings rather than recordings that substitute for an audition.</p>
<p>Oh, sorry, I am used to composition prescreenings recordings, which end up being the audition itself! Or course you are right violindad…</p>
<p>Definitely re-record. Especially check the opening - you can be weeded out in a few measures if the open ing is poor. They will not listen to much. Merit is NOT based on prescreen tapes</p>
<p>Yeah I’ve just re-recorded and my teacher was extremely pleased. Thanks guys!</p>