Being realistic about music

<p>This thread is coming about in part because of a conversation I had with someone else from here, about how hard it can be when kids come in here asking about chances in music, who seem to love music but haven't had much formal training, experience, etc. It is hard because no one wants to tell someone no, and people try to couch it as positively as they can, but the reality is getting into music is hard and getting harder each day and I think it is important that people realize what is out there, what it means about being realistic.</p>

<p>What I am writing about varies from instrument to instrument, area to area, it is a very different experience being a violin student then it is a tubist (not talking ease of being in music, just that the paths are different in some ways), it is different for a jazz musician or a contemporary musician and different for composition students, and music ed is once again different. I am primarily talking about classical performance, but some of what I will talk about applies across the board with performance. </p>

<p>First reality check: </p>

<p>There are a lot of music programs out there, last number I heard was 15,000 kids graduating each year. Not all of these are performance, classical or otherwise, but even assuming half of them are, it is a lot of kids coming out, and the competition for jobs is fierce or grad school positions. Because they have many slots, a lot of schools are more lax in their requirements....so getting into a music program in of itself may not mean much in terms of your ability. There was a flame war on one thread, where people accused others of elitism and such, thinking this meant unless you go to Curtis or Juilliard or CIM or whatever, that you shouldn't go into music, and no, it doesn't mean that.</p>

<p>However, what it does mean IMO is that to realistically have a shot at making it in music (and again, I am talking professional performance of any kind), you should be at the point where you realistically could get into the competitive programs or very close to it. It may make better sense to go to a school with a great teacher where it won't cost you an arm and a leg, where said school is less competitive, than the great school at 55k a year, but the thing is, you should be at the point where you have that choice of going to the highly competitive one or the lesser one (not saying you have to audition at Juilliard, CIM, Curtis, etc, just that your level should be where you could audition there). I wish I could say that spirit and hard work would make up for deficits, but I can't in all honesty (remember, I am talking about someone nowhere near the level to get into a competitive program, not someone who just misses, which could be luck of the draw as much as talent). </p>

<p>Second reality check:</p>

<p>"My S or D is playing first chair in their school orchestra, as done all State, has won competitions, everyone says they are great, so they have a great chance of going into music, right?"...I have heard this quite a bit, and quite frankly, this may mean nothing at all. School programs comparatively are not going to be that strong and All State and such vary from place to place, region to region, it depends on what else is out there. I have heard some states have fantastic all state programs, others are full of decent school musicians. The big fish in the small sea is problematic because you don't know what is outside of that bubble, it can be shocking what is out there. It is why it is important to find benchmarks that are real, the violin competition at the local orchestra might not mean much, getting into a competitive summer program or youth orchestra means a lot more. </p>

<p>There are videos of kids out there from the top prep programs, there are videos and recordings of top level youth programs, it can tell you a lot; the key here is don't assume. </p>

<p>BTW, I am not saying this as if I always knew, we knew nothing about the reality with our kid, we are not musicians, didn't really know much of anything....and were shocked when we found out how different the levels of playing are, and teaching. Their old teacher was a pretty accomplished musician, had a top seat in a pretty well known orchestra, and we were in disbelief when our kid switched to a high level teacher, how much he was lacking. </p>

<p>Third reality check:</p>

<p>"I have been singing in chorus and choir for years in school, I found I absolutely love it, and though I haven't had any formal lessons, I would like in (1 year, 2 years) apply to a vocal music program in classical voice/performance"....</p>

<p>I am no expert on voice, but I have seen young, top level voice students. While in some ways it is easier to start late with voice, in part because the voice develops later (as opposed to strings and piano where right now scientists are perfecting pre-natal training programs for budding string and piano players). Even so, to get with a good program and more importantly, a good teacher, without the training, all the passion and natural talent and desire may not be enough. </p>

<p>Similarly, the kids on instruments who pick it up late, have been playing in school orchestra, no or little private instruction, are likewise going to hit a wall. With instrumental music, it is worse with the piano and violin because kids start so early and are working earlier and earlier to higher standards, but with any kind of instrument that bar is flying higher and higher, kids are getting serious much earlier, and without the training, to make up for lost time gets to be more and more difficult. Natural talent may or may not be an oxymoron, but the reality is with natural talent you need the time, 10,000 hours or 2000 hours or whatever. </p>

<p>The sad reality of music is it probably takes the most amount of effort and support to achieve in something that is so fraught as a future. Monetarily and time wise, to build a top level student musician takes time and resources that many would struggle to do, whether it is lessons or music programs or instruments or driving to competitions or summer programs, it takes a lot of support, monetarily and time. There are ways for people of modest means to support a kid who wants to do music, some programs offer decent aid or scholarships, there are high level programs like New York Youth Symphony that are free (or with a nominal fee), but it takes a lot of effort to navigate that (we know a family like that, they have a pretty big family, family income is modest, but the kids all played instruments, got into programs, etc, but the mom was a master at finding ways to do it). </p>

<p>Reality check 4:</p>

<p>If someone really wants this, there is a way to make it in music....</p>

<p>There are many paths, and for example, someone who finds they struggle as a performer might end up teaching at a local music school, or working as the manager of an arts group, but what I am talking about is as a performer.</p>

<p>We all love stories like this, the musical equivalent of Horatio Alger, and few want to discourage someone. It is more likely to work in non traditional music forms, like folk and rock and country, where you don't necessarily need formal training, but if you are talking more formal forms, it is extremely unlikely. The playing level out there is just too high, the opportunities relatively few, the competition fierce, to make this a reality.</p>

<p>I have heard the stories, the kid who didn't have formal music training who ended up playing in an orchestra, the singer who is 'discovered' singing in an amateur group who ends up singing at some opera, and to be honest, most of those stories turn out to be 'someone I know knew someone", or stories from long ago (usually the same generation where someone picked up a violin in high school, played in the school program, and ended up at X music school........a long time ago in a galaxy far away)....</p>

<p>Reality check 5: "I really want to do music, but I also have to maintain all the AP's, EC's and so forth, in case music doesn't work, but I can do that and keep up".</p>

<p>Caveat, there are kids who do just this, but they are rare IME. In the program my son was in, it became evident by sophomore/junior year who was heading into music and who was heading the academic route, the kids heading to academic pursuits in college, heading for top level schools, had their playing fall of dramatically. The kids who were serious about going into music tended to pull back with academics, many music kids homeschool because of the drag of having to go to school all day, then have hours of homework, just doesn't allow time to practice. Kids taking the heavy academic load without music are up late trying to finish everything, try fitting in 2,3,4 hours of practice a day....</p>

<p>Given the level of playing ability required to get to the level you need to have a hope of making it, and that the requirement to get serious is moving earlier and earlier, for most kids there just won't be the time to do everything that entails and maintain the 8 AP/4.0 GPA/honors course track, and it probably won't get any easier. I have heard 'but what if you are applying to a music school in an LAC, where grades and such matter"...the answer is those schools make allowances, they realize what it takes to become a top music student, and they don't want to have the level of music student drop because they rigidly demand hyper academics. It doesn't mean you can slack off in the classes you do take, it just means they understand the difference. </p>

<p>Reality Check 5:</p>

<p>"I have discovered I really love music, I want to write music, and want to study music composition in college, but I haven't had formal training or music theory, can I do that?". </p>

<p>There are people who taught themselves to compose, there are people who kind of set their own curricula (Michael Giacinno, who did Lost, Star Trek and so forth recently), but if you are talking going to a college based program, this again is difficult. They don't take many composition students, and the programs want to see portfolios and demonstrate ability on an instrument before they will even look at you (disclaimer: not having a composition kid, this is from what I have heard and seen). </p>

<p>Like with instrumental music, I think the reality is you have to have some background in it if you want to try and get into a decent program. There could be exceptions, but the reality is this is very competitive as well, and you need to realize that sudden love for composition, passion, probably is not enough. </p>

<p>I think across the board, the best way to look at it is to assume what it is, something that takes dedication and passion, yes, but also takes a lot of preparation before college to even get into a decent program, and if you are not already at a certain level by the time you graduate, it is extremely unlikely you will be able to pull it off. </p>

<p>Obviously, this is just a matter of opinion and experience, but I think it is important to dispel some of the myths and things being said by people with all good intentions.</p>

<p>Just let me add a tad about duel majors. Seems like about one out of ten posts on here is asking about majoring in music, plus a more “employable” field. I think that sounds really good, and it is perfectly doable with a BA in music plus any other BA, but at many schools, a Bachelors of Music (BM) is exceptionally concentrated in music, and most BS degrees are also very concentrated in their field, so there really isn’t that much overlap, and a duel degree, unless both degrees are BAs, will cost you so much extra time, that it’s really kind of silly to pursue both.</p>

<p>If you are willing to consider any other field other than music, you probably shouldn’t even consider a BM. You can still do music in college, with a minor in music or just taking a few classes or performing in some ensembles. But there is really little point in spending an extra year or two in college studying a field that you know you will never work in.</p>

<p>Also, with that extra year or two, you could have gotten a masters degree. Many colleges have year or year and a half masters, in a lot of different subjects, and you don’t necessarally need to have an undergrad degree in that field (just depends).</p>

<p>Imagep - I don’t agree that a dual degree is a waste of time. Yes, one might not pursue the second degree as a career, but it brings other rewards. And usually there is financial support for that fifth year. Are our children in a hurry? Need they quickly get out of school? Yes, a fifth year for a Master’s is more practical - but a fifth year for a music undergrad gives them more time to explore other fields. (Once in grad school the choices are narrowed.)
My son is going into his fifth year of a dual degree program. He’s gotten at least as much out of his academic degree as his music one - in terms of his intellectual and personal growth. He brings so much more to his music than he might have if he’d not had all these other influences and experiences.</p>

<p>Here’s the summary from Bard, which requires all of its music students to get a second degree:
Music, like all art, engages the mind and the heart. It redefines boundaries and questions limits in order to make a meaningful statement about the human condition. The education of the mind is, therefore, as important as the education of the fingers. The greatest musicians not only have the technical mastery to communicate effectively, but also are deeply curious and equally adept at analytical and emotional modes of thought.</p>

<p>The mission of The Bard College Conservatory of Music is to provide the best possible preparation for a person dedicated to a life immersed in the creation and performance of music.</p>

<p>Don’t ignore rule #1 and that’s that you have to have talent. I’ve always wondered about the phrase "making it " in music. I can’t understand that at all. What you make is music. If you are a computer programmer or a symphony member it should be about making music, not “it”. Life is short. Music as a full time gig historically is a new invention.</p>

<p>Great post! I have two degrees in music, but when I landed a full time music job, I was miserable. I did not have any time to make music for myself. On the other hand, my favorite time professionally was when I was piecing together a schedule of performing, teaching and conducting gigs. I thrived on the variety. Now I have an office job and spend my free time helping with music at my church and running a volunteer music group. Eventually I’ll add back more teaching and performing. But full time music was just a rat race for me.</p>

<p>I agree that the term ‘making it’ might be nebulous, but what I was talking about is where music is both your avocation and vocation, making a living playing professionally. As posters on here and in other threads point out, there are plenty of ways to have music in your life while something else pays the bills, doctors and lawyers and such play in amateur or semi amateur music groups for the joy of it, and so forth, and by no means am I saying that either you go into music full time and make your living there and forget it, or somehow that it is wrong to do other things and have music in another context, that would be silly and wrong.</p>

<p>I really was aiming at those who saw music as the one and only thing they saw themselves doing, where they didn’t want to do anything else. Among other things, what I have learned about with music is that there are many ways to enjoy it, and that is what is important.</p>

<p>I also think many kids need to be realistic about other fields as well. Taking a few CS classes does not insure that you will get a job at Google or even a high paying programming job these days. Taking math classes does not mean you will get into graduate school in math. Just because your mom or one of your teachers likes your writing it does not mean that you will make it as a writer. And becoming an artist is not about who can draw or paint well. And the other reality is that many who are successful do not have a straight path to success. Most have some failures and set back and bumps a long the way. </p>

<p>Another reality check is that kids need to realize that life is random. There is nothing more frustrating than to see the kid whose daddy is somewhat well known, and has all the best equipment and plenty of connections, but has not spent any time studying music formally suddenly get a great gig or have his/her band take off and be successful. It is a myth that the best and the brightest always win or come out on top. Sometimes connections matter. Sometimes it is just about being in the right place at the right time. </p>

<p>That is one reason why it is important to not define success narrowly.</p>

<p>Enjoying this thread, as DD gets ready to apply and we struggle to decide WHERE she should apply as a Composition major. (Yes, we have heeded Reality Check #5 and she has a portfolio, a teacher, and depth in a few instruments!) We have reason to believe that she may well have a shot at the “competitive” programs and she will apply to some…but the price tag is high, and the environment at some of those schools does not seem to be the right fit for her. So, I’m interested in the assertion (in Reality Check #1) that if a student has talent, perhaps it doesn’t matter WHERE they go to school. This is something we only very recently have begun to consider - until this point, we had been thinking that to pursue music, and to have any chance at all of making it a career, she needed to be at one of the major well-known programs. But perhaps, if the talent is there, it does not matter where they go? I’m interested in others’ thoughts on that?</p>

<p>Also wanted to say that I’m not sure I fully agree with the Reality check regarding academic rigor. Perhaps that is because I have a potential Composition student, rather than Performance student though. She is without a doubt, insanely busy due to her academic courseload, and really, she has no ECs that are not music-based. But, there are many music schools at colleges/universities that require an academic admit first, and they don’t always lower their standards just because the student wants to be a music major. And, qualifying for academic merit, as well as music merit could be a big help in paying the bills!</p>

<p>I agree that kids (and parents) really need reality checks before they try to pursue music performance as a profession. Earning a living doing music, not just at a “top” level, is very difficult and only a few music graduates become full-time performers. My kids went to a fine arts magnet and they had a class to explore “arts related” professions - administration, teaching, non-profits, management, technology, etc. The majority of kids realized by graduation that, although they are talented in their field, they would not be pursuing pure performance or BFA degrees. We made sure that our kids were evaluated by many outside professionals before we agreed to let them pursue performance degrees. </p>

<p>Their HS also realized that “academic rigor” (whatever that means) was not as important for performance kids. They offered AP classes, but never pushed kids to take them. My S preferred to make As in regular classes than work for Bs in AP classes. He only took the AP classes that interested him - history, music theory, English. Dropped math and science as soon as allowed. </p>

<p>All this being said, both of my kids are still in college. I have no idea what the future holds. All I know is that we gave them every opportunity and our full support to pursue a professional career in the arts. Now, it is all up to them to work hard, make connections and as my dad would say “hustle.”</p>

<p>I think this is a valuable thread. I would like to expand a bit on composition, because that’s what my son is doing. I think it’s a bit easier to get into composition later than performance, in part because it’s something you can do as part of a music major in a non-conservatory setting and still do well. In my son’s program at Yale, there were composition students who had a great deal of experience before college, including studying with famous composers, pre-college programs at conservatories, etc., and some with less. (My son, for example, had quite a bit less–no private composition teacher at all, although he had been to BUTI the previous summer). I think somebody with a reasonable music background–especially if it includes some theory–could start composing in college and be successful. But reality checks are still needed–for composers, though, this might come when they apply for graduate programs.</p>

<p>This thread should be pinned, this is a great discussion. I would add that unless funds are unlimited, for some top schools (Eastman and Berklee for sure), unless a decent amount of scholarship is offered, the student is likely to be at the bottom of the talent pool there. This could mean few performance opportunities or little attention.</p>

<p>I’ve heard that you can tell the weak students at Berklee, because they are the ones who graduate–the strong students having already left for musical opportunities. I’m sure that’s a gross exaggeration, but I think it’s important to realize that there are not good jobs in music for all graduates of even good music programs. This is very different from some other fields.</p>

<p>Small point but there are many schools where a composition student or general music major student does not need to be proficient on an instrument, or audition at all, at least for admissions. I agree with Hunt that composers can start later, unless they are applying for a composition BM at a conservatory/music school, in which case an impressive portfolio is needed. However, that portfolio could be assembled during senior year for a kid who started then…</p>

<p>@collegetwins-</p>

<p>My thoughts on where you go to school is one of those things where there is no set in stone answer. What makes a school ‘good’ for a student are a number of things, but in performance the biggest element is the teacher, and if faced with taking on a load of debt at a ‘great’ school versus a more doable one at a ‘less great’ school with a great teacher, it can make sense to take the second option. There are a lot of kids out there, especially kids coming from Asia, who believe that unless you go to Juilliard or Curtis, you won’t ‘make it’, they think the name brings something, when it doesn’t really. </p>

<p>There are factors in schools that can make a difference, like for example, networking, if you go to a program like Juilliard in NYC it might be easier to network than at a school in a college town someplace else…so it all needs to be added up, for each student…and cost is a factor, laying out 50+ grand on a big school may not be worth it, if the kid has to take loans and such. </p>

<p>With composition, factors like networking might be huge (and I am speaking hypothetically, I don’t know composition that well), teachers know people, help get the kid into internships or summer programs, it can be huge.</p>

<p>As far as the academics go, I stand by my reality check, which was aimed primarily at performance. Composition may be considered more of an academic pursuit (Hunt or someone else in that area can probably comment on that more), but with performance that is a reality. Put it this way, on strings and piano there simply is no substitute for having the time to practice every day, and a number of hours, it is the reality of that (to give an idea of the competition, a friend of my son’s started playing violin at 5, and by the time they were 7 or 8, they were putting in well over 6 hours a day practicing…)</p>

<p>It isn’t that academics aren’t important, it is that schools will make allowances for kids coming into their music schools where the academics are looked at in the admit. I think kids need to keep their grades up, it is not an excuse to loaf, but there is a difference between a piano performance student and a kid getting an academic admit to the school, and I am fairly certain they take that into account even with merit scholarships on the academic side. </p>

<p>So you have kid A, who is trying to get into the school (let’s say Northeastern, or Rice) as an academic admit. Kid has taken honors courses, a large number of AP’s, has a high GPA, EC’s, etc…</p>

<p>Then you have Kid B, who hasn’t taken the honors courses, the AP’s, but otherwise has done well…Kid B is a music performance student, who has been in orchestras, has been playing a long time, been in summer programs, etc…</p>

<p>My point is they will recognize that kid B has achieved a lot, given that he has made it into the music program, and will factor that in on decisions, they won’t say "oh, B doesn’t have 8 AP’s (which for the record, I think college admissions people and schools should be shot for, I think it is one of the most idiotic moves in education since letting kids use calculators rather than learning basic math skills), or doesn’t have 10 EC’s, so we won’t let them in’ because they know what it takes to get to that level in music, and if there is academic merit awards, I suspect they don’t look at B and A equally. If A came in with B’s academic qualifications without the music, they might have a hard time getting in, but my point is that they do look at the whole picture, I am sure of it (if going to a conservatory, it basically means zero how many AP’s you took, I have been in college days presented by admissions offices for them where some of these parents, all inflated that junior did his 10 AP’s, etc, etc, found out it would mean nothing in their kid getting into the conservatory).</p>

<p>With admits into a college, it isn’t the academics aren’t important, in terms of maintaining grades and so forth, it is that kids probably shouldn’t try to do the things kids madly trying to get into an HYP school would be doing, because trying to do both will either result in problems academically or their music level dropping off. There are kids who do do both, and are able to get into the top music programs and have the huge EC’s, but IME usually it is because those kids achieved such a high level early, that they can go into maintenance mode with their music to focus on the academics, but I don’t think that applies to most kids, these are special cases.</p>

<p>I think there’s a continuum of how early you really need to start, and how focused you need to be, in order to succeed in different areas of music. It’s pretty clear that if you want to do violin or piano performance, you will be competing with vast numbers of people who have been heavily prepping since they were very young. For vocalists, it’s a bit later. For less popular instruments, it may be even later (indeed, you might switch from violin to viola, or from piano to organ, in college). For composers, you can start in college.
For all of these, it may be easier if you start early, but how important it is varies. And yes, there will occasionally be a person who picked up the violin at age 21 and became a star. But you can’t plan on being that person.</p>

<p>From someone whose D is in the post grad music trenches:
Those first few years out of music school can be even more expensive than music school. The cities where music happens are very expensive. Travel is expensive. Rehearsal space is expensive. Coachings and continued lessons are expensive. Even participation in paid Young Artist programs is expensive. All of this is doable, but not with burdensome debt.</p>

<p>Hardly anyone ever “makes it” right out of music school.</p>

<p>Do not incur debt. </p>

<p>I know everyone gets tired of hearing this…but someone said “realistic”.</p>

<p>

Tell me about it! My son is going to New York next week to look for a place to live while he’s in grad school. His tuition plus living expenses will almost certainly more than what his (expensive) college cost.</p>

<p>He assures me that after the master’s, a PhD would be “free” though. Yeah, well, we’ll see.</p>

<p>I think kids have to be aware that being a music major may lead to a career that does not involve playing music all the time. </p>

<p>On a positive note, my son who is a freshman found an internship at a start up this summer that turned into a paying job for about half of the summer. The job is boring data entry, but still, it’s on a music-related web-site. Additionally, he has been gigging for money about once a week. He has started referring to himself as a “professional musician.” I would not be surprised if the rest of his working life looked like this-employment in a music related industry plus gigging. </p>

<p>Very few people end up being able to make a living solely on playing, but opportunities for related work are out there.</p>

<p>There is talent and then there is talent. Try to get an honest evaluation - if you can. Nobody wants to tell a young person they don’t have what it takes. Better to find out where you stand right away than find out during college or after.</p>

<p>Music schools are filled with students who are paying for the few at the top. Tough reality but true, most students in music school will never see a professional stage - also tough reality. If the student understands this and will be satisfied with performing non professionally or working in music in another area fine. There’s an old saying: If you don’t get a full ride for grad school, maybe you should look into a different profession. </p>

<p>Drive/work ethic. Most who make it to the top have this in spades. It can be hard to get these types to focus in other areas of study. Although I think it’s important to expand beyond music - the artist needs to have interest in other areas of classic studies and life experience to bring depth and understanding to the performance. </p>

<p>Having contacts is huge. Do not underestimate this. My son had a great teacher for undergrad, I would not be in this conversation if he hadn’t, but said teacher had very few US contacts. My son began his contact “pool” through summer programs, many top level performers teach/mentor/coach in summer programs and these people have the contacts. My son’s much in demand teacher (grad level and beyond) would not have taken his call or read his email with out “important persons” name in subject line as well as “important person” making phone call to “important” teacher. And then to follow the chain, people in the biz listen to “important” teacher regarding new talent, etc.</p>