<p>sqiggles, in jazz (which is so collaborative and improv-based) our son found that playing and paying and playing with the highest level musicians he could find was the key. Hopefully, there are a number of extracurricular groups your son could find–and then find opportunities to just jam as much as possible with his friends.</p>
<p>I have to agree with what others have written, one of the most critical things is to find a good teacher who is going to stretch your son. I understand only too well what you are facing trying to navigate the musical world, with our S and his violin playing we literally didn’t know about any of this. We had local teachers, the last one was a principal player in a pretty well known orchestra, and we thought as many did that they were doing a great job, that our son ‘played so well’ and so forth (and we aren’t living in a small town, this is in the NYC area, where there is so much music going on, etc). We were fortunate, when our S started getting serious and decided to try for a high level pre college program, we found someone to guide us (a high level teacher on another instrument), and it was at that point that we realized just how little we knew about the levels of playing and such, about the difference between ‘good’ and being capable of making it in music. When he started with his current teacher, he was in shock how much he had to work on, that there was so much he wasn’t doing properly and the like, and that at that level everything counts. Likewise, as he got into high level programs, as opposed to the local youth orchestra he had been in, he started seeing a very different world. With him, we ended up homeschooling, because the demands of going to school, then homework and other things, simply made it impossible to practice enough. </p>
<p>And when he got into the program he wanted to, he was pretty amazed at what he saw. While neither the worst student there nor the best (he kind of fits in the pack somewhere), he saw kids that just make your jaw drop, not just virtuosticity (lot of kids have that, but otherwise are lacking), I am talking kids who had the whole deal. It helps him step up his own playing, to realize what can be done, it is very hard when you don’t know to accept something as ‘good enough’, at the top levels, that basically doesn’t exist IMO. </p>
<p>Jazz is a different world then classical, but I have had the opportunity to see some really incredible kids playing Jazz, in pre college programs and in one of the New York Youth Symphony programs, and it isn’t all that much different in the sense that the serious kids really are at an incredibly high level. </p>
<p>One of the more valuable things is to try and find ways to see what is out there. Summer programs are great (though be careful, some summer programs are high level, intensive programs, others from our experience tend to be more summer camp like, not as high a level). The other thing to do is use the internet, start looking at recordings and videos of high school aged jazz players. You will find the delusional, the ones who post on you tube and would get booed off the stage of a jazz club, but you also see some of the really amazing kids as well. If your son is interested in music, this will help him decide what he wants to do, whether he wants to go that path, given the levels (kids who really need/want to do music, when they see what is out there, generally get bummed out for a while, then seem to get inspired to kick up their level; other kids, who are more lukewarm, often say “no way” and go on to other things, or keep music as a hobby, which is by no means a bad thing:). </p>
<p>I think one of the things I have learned is not to assume anything, and also when people tell you things listen to them (especially if they are first hand), but also take them with a grain of salt at least (including this post), and if you can find ways to check them out, see what other people say, and so forth.The number of misconceptions we had was staggering, for every conception we had that was true we had multiples of that where we were way off base. That includes perceptions of teachers (good and bad), or the realities of the program he is in (we were right about some things, wrong on others).</p>
<p>As far as the college counsellor, I would tell you the 3k is probably money better spent on good teachers, summer programs, etc, my take is that those guys probably promise a lot (I haven’t seen the music college counsellors, but the ones for academics I have, also met a few over the years), they claim to have special insight, that they have mysterious ways to get you in, etc, and frankly what they offer you probably would have a better time using the advice here on CC, from parents and students who are or have done it, and as far as “special influence” about the only time I have seen that, is when a teacher of student recommends them to someone they know who teaches at a school, which can help with admissions for a number of reasons. I have known through my son a number of music kids who have gone on to a variety of high level conservatories, and none of them used a counsellor, they did what people on here have said:).</p>
<p>We have noticed that MANY of the winners at NATS and Classical Singer in our area are home-schooled. Many of the best players in our youth symphonies are home-schooled, or in those charter programs where you show up for class a few times per week. Others ended up going to Interlochen for senior year. It seemed just impossible to get enough high level, focused training and practice while going a “normal” school. So much wasted time commuting, and not enough focus in the peer group. Interlochen, by the way, does not offer AP classes other than calculus, all academics are honors, and are very challenging, probably more so than many AP’s.</p>
<p>sopranomom:</p>
<p>That matches my experience as well, a lot of the kids who are really high level, at the top of their game and so forth, seem to gravitate towards homeschooling. Even in the pre college program he is in there are a lot of kids who either homeschool, or go to the professional childrens school (that is designed around kids working as actors, dancers, etc). The ones who are in regular school and taking the high level academic load (lots of APs, etc) also are generally not the ones at the top of the heap, in fact many of them got into the program and then coast from what we have seen, and especially when they get to Junior and Senior year they really level off/fall back on the music side (This I have seen with kids in the studio my son is in, their reported time of practice is practically nothing compared to the ones seeming to head into music). From my perspective (and it is only that), I cannot see how in the really competitive music fields (which pretty much is all of them, in different ways) how a student could do both. I have seen the ‘super kids’ they have on shows like “from the top”, who seem to be doing everything (academics, sports and playing) but quite honestly they generally tend to be good student players, who in comparison to the top students I routinely see in recital, are nowhere near that level…(some kids are able to do it all like that and go into music, I don’t doubt it, but I think it also depends on what part of music they are in, what program they get into and the like…but given what I have seen, the level of competition that is just exploding, I suspect it is going to become even rarer).</p>
<p>The homeschooling route certainly works for some students. There are also variations on it. I’ve heard about students who took their classes in the morning at school and then did their music “stuff” in the afternoons. BUT not every successful performance major is homeschooled (I know you aren’t saying that but someone could get the impression that success can only be done with that kind of time frame freedom). We know a number of successful (with jobs…attended great conservatory programs) performance majors who did NOT homeschool. The kids do need to prioritize, and they do need to know how to budget their time wisely…but it can be done.</p>
<p>there’s a high level of competition, but on the other hand, a very low level of high end success out there in the real world, so it might be best to maintain a balance - and homeschooling has its costs (a parent has to stay home; tutoring and lessons also cost money; the student does not have the same kind of social and educational experience as the overwhelming bulk of his/her peers; the stakes become very high for “success” because of the sacrifice of time and money, in a field where success is elusive) - it is certainly a personal/family decision and it clearly works for some folks, but it is simply not true that kids who go to high school can’t succeed at a high level in music while also taking a rigorous course load. Most of the successful young musicians I know were not home schooled.</p>
<p>I agree with Mamenyu, having also known MANY talented players, only of few of whom were homeschooled. I also do not think one has to be homeschooled to be admitted to a top conservatory, since I have plenty of anecdotal evidence that belies that claim as well. </p>
<p>Some of the most interesting musicians are ones who are more balanced, who can play multiple genres, have good communication skills, even can talk of something other than music! This isn’t to say homeschooled kids can’t do this, but I do think that eight hours of practice a day, for a high school aged student, means that there isn’t much time to explore anything else, even if the “anything else” is just sitting around with friends at lunch, talking about the English reading, or playing in the school band, which isn’t always comprised of thoroughly talented kids. There can be a benefit to this as well.</p>
<p>As with everything else, there are risks and benefits. Perhaps the non-homeschooled kid will be at a practicing disadvantage (in fact, it is likely that he/she is), but will perhaps have had a richness of other experiences, musical and non-musical, within the school environment which will serve him/her even better in the long run. </p>
<p>In the last analysis, every student and family has to make these very personal decisions. But there is no way that ALL or even MOST of the talented kids are being homeschooled. In fact, a couple of the very most talented ones we know did not even choose the conservatory route and I will bet their names will still be quite well known one day.</p>
<p>We actually did a combination of education opportunities. Soph year, D went to a performing arts HS in the morning and regular HS in the afternoons. Jr. year, she did performing arts HS all day long and I had a tutor for German and AP HIstory, and I homeschooled AP English. now, her Sr year, she is at regular HS in the morning and performing arts HS in the afternoon (also doing AP music theory). SHe has all the needed credits, also has had a private voice teacher and piano teacher for those years, and she will have a state diploma (so we don’t have to jump thru the homeschooled hoops for admission). Junior year was very full but she will tell you it was the right decision. ON top of that we visited 9 schools her junior year - which was also the right thing to do. In retrospect, the thing we are missing (especially for scholarship opportunities) is the community service aspect. I’m not sure when she could have fit that in, but it is definitely the slimmest aspect of her “resume”.</p>
<p>No, Homeschooling isn’t for everyone, there is no doubt about that, and I never claimed it was a panacea for all issues (it isn’t). As far as socialization and academics go, I would be careful about claiming that kids who homeschool somehow are lacking these. Frankly, when I run into the typical teenager going to the local high school and compare them to the kids I am talking about, who are homeschooled, the high school kids come off pretty badly. Most musical kids I am talking about have other interests besides music, that is frankly an insult to them (yes, there are musical kids who are introverts who can’t socialize well or seem one dimensional, but there are kids like that in any school), and many of them because of the nature of music are more adept at getting along with a wide variety of people, they experience kids from all over the world, work a lot with adults, and tend IMO to be a lot more mature then a typical teenager. The myths about homeschooling at that, not everyone is someone trying to hide their kids from the world or to maintain some sort of faith system, and studies have shown routinely that homeschooled kids,on average, are often academically more advanced then peers their age. </p>
<p>I also will add that it depends on the instrument as well, and the kind of music, there is a very different world in each instrument (or voice, sorry to your voice folks). In violin and piano and from what I have been led to believe, in voice, the competition starts really early and the kids are up against literally world class competition. Violin and piano and to a certain extent cello are unique because the kids start really early, and you are also up against kids from places like china who become dedicated to the instrument at a young age,totally focused on it…and are practicing at incredibly high levels very young, and they are competing for slots in the same programs, which is driving the levels way up. Talk to a professional violinist or pianist in an orchestra or soloing, and many will tell you that if they auditioned for a conservatory or college music performance program today with the level they had back in their day, they would often say they wouldn’t get in. One woman, who had been a teacher of my son’s, and is a principal player in an orchestra (a fairly well known one) said that she didn’t get ‘serious’ on the violin until she got to college, and that was common.</p>
<p>No, homeschooling isn’t a panacea, nor is it the only solution, it depends on the student and the instrument and the school, the kind of music someone is going into and so forth. Not everything is as crazy as violin, piano and cello, which is why I was careful to quantify it, but I also will caution people from saying “I have known kids who did heavy academics and went into music, went to a good conservatory, etc”, there are big differences in music, a kid going into Jazz might have a very different experience then a pianist, someone majoring in guitar with an eye towards pop music is going to have a different experience then a bassoonist <em>shrug</em>. </p>
<p>As far as being balanced, in case music doesn’t work out, for some areas of music that is problematic, because by trying to be balanced (and again, key word here is some areas, use piano as an example), it takes away from the practice time needed to get into a top flight program…so they can end up being forced to ‘fall back’ long before even attempting to go into music. It also depends on what determines success, what someone is shooting for, and so forth…</p>
<p>And there’s a big difference between success in getting into a conservatory and success as a US musician. Truth be told, some of the most successful young performers I know went to regular high schools on competitive instruments - but had parents in the profession. Much of the game is entrepreneurship, who you know, and where you made connections.
Those can be tough going for foreign students or kids with poor social skills (this is not directed at home-schoolers - so don’t take it as such), even if they started at conservatories at 3 years of age. It is not simply a meritocracy out there!</p>
<p>I am not going to argue about it being a meritocracy all the time, and that includes in conservatory admissions and so forth. Once someone comes out, social skills and networking do count, and frankly some of the kids I have seen are in for a rude awakening, who have been told because they have achieved such a level of technical excellence, they will become the next Josh Bell or Yo Yo Ma, and they are mistaken (as part of my son’s world of music, he has come into contact with working musicians, people who do a variety of things, and they all say the same thing, that a lot of the kids coming out of the conservatories on especially the solo instruments think that alone will get them jobs,and it doesn’t).</p>
<p>That said, though, it also depends on the type of music. If you are talking pop music, or jazz, it is a very different world then classical music, which has variations depending on the instrument and so forth. When you look at on piano the top soloists, you aren’t going to find ‘well rounded people’, they are people who dedicated their lives to it, for example (and yes, that is rare), and most orchestra musicians who are getting jobs these days with orchestras that pay a living wage are similarly focused. It is why I am very careful to talk about the path someone is on, someone may want to be more of a flexible performer, playing gigs in a variety of genres, from classical to pop, they may put together a career teaching and gigging, and do a variety of things, and that is great (and there you have to be well rounded). It depends on what someone is shooting for, it depends where they want to go. Classical music itself is changing, which I think is going to turn music training on its ear, because more and more if it is to survive classical music is not going to be the 19th century model of concert halls and rarified air, it is going to be a lot more like pop music and such, more personal, more flexibile; but until if and when that model changes, in much of classical music, to get to the levels I am talking about, I think those attempting it are going to have to be single minded.</p>
<p>I am not going to argue about it being a meritocracy all the time, and that includes in conservatory admissions and so forth. Once someone comes out, social skills and networking do count, and frankly some of the kids I have seen are in for a rude awakening, who have been told because they have achieved such a level of technical excellence, they will become the next Josh Bell or Yo Yo Ma, and they are mistaken (as part of my son’s world of music, he has come into contact with working musicians, people who do a variety of things, and they all say the same thing, that a lot of the kids coming out of the conservatories on especially the solo instruments think that alone will get them jobs,and it doesn’t).</p>
<p>That said, though, it also depends on the type of music. If you are talking pop music, or jazz, it is a very different world then classical music, which has variations depending on the instrument and so forth. When you look at on piano the top soloists, you aren’t going to find ‘well rounded people’, they are people who dedicated their lives to it, for example (and yes, that is rare), and most orchestra musicians who are getting jobs these days with orchestras that pay a living wage are similarly focused. It is why I am very careful to talk about the path someone is on, someone may want to be more of a flexible performer, playing gigs in a variety of genres, from classical to pop, they may put together a career teaching and gigging, and do a variety of things, and that is great (and there you have to be well rounded). It depends on what someone is shooting for, it depends where they want to go. Classical music itself is changing, which I think is going to turn music training on its ear, because more and more if it is to survive classical music is not going to be the 19th century model of concert halls and rarified air, it is going to be a lot more like pop music and such, more personal, more flexibile; but until if and when that model changes, in much of classical music, to get to the levels I am talking about, I think those attempting it are going to have to be single minded.</p>
<p>
Actually one of the things about voice is that you can start later. Most good private teachers do not take young singers (much below teenage) for any classical training. Voices do not generally develop until later and the college audition is not as technically based as it is based on good foundations and potential. Further, the successful ones that did not even major in voice as an undergrad are there, too.</p>
<p>Thanks, singersmom, that doesn’t surprise me, since voices take a long time to mature (I remember an interview with Renee Fleming when she said her teachers really, really took it slowly, and made sure not to develop too far).</p>
<p>The direct parallel to classical music, at least in terms of violin, piano and cello, is probably ballet dancers (we see a lot of them in Juilliard’s cafeteria, which is shared with SAB). Ballet dancers start really young, and by the time they are in high school they basically are spending all their time at SAB (different with younger dancers), and many of them go to the Professional Children’s school or other alternative schools, or homeschool, for the same reason music students do similar things. We just watched a documentary about a pair of friends from florida who were in SAB, and in their teens they basically spent 80% of their time with dancing…and like high level classical music, it is very hard to get into programs like SAB, and even harder to get through and then get into the main company (either city ballet or in some cases, ABT), and the odds of making it are staggering, but if that is someone’s dream, they need to do that. Some of them, akin to music, end up going alternate routes, like modern dance companies,but all of them started out with the dream of getting into a ballet company. For many in classical music, it is the same, despite the odds of success, their dream is a high level career, as a soloist or chamber musician, or as a member of a high level orchestra, that is what they shoot for, and many, when that dream turns out not to work, find other ways to be in music, or alternative careers. That is a specific path, like ballet, and does not cover every path, much the same way that the kind of intense preparation for ballet is often not the same path as being into modern dance and going to a company like Ailey.</p>
<p>It strikes me that the homeschool/children’s professional school model is a whole n’other thing in New York City - where there are “top” music students of high school age who spend most of their time involved in Juilliard pre-school. That model is probably limited to NY and maybe Boston (I don’t know much about NEC programs and whether they are comparable) and LA (Colburn and arts schools); and such students often follow their teacher to summer festivals (this is certainly true on piano, where Veda Kaplinsky has a crew of young students who go with her to Aspen, and their parents go as well if the kids are not old enough to live in the dorms). A lot of these kids spend years in these studios - up through masters degrees. If they get management along the way, they sometimes are very successful - Conrad Tao comes to mind.
I imagine that a lot of posters on CC do not have ready access to these options and even if so, may not choose them for any number of reasons.</p>
<p>I agree that home schooling is not required. Son is a cellist. He went to Eastman. He attended public school all 4 years and had no access to a pre-college program so we cobbled together what we could including high quality summer programs. He also did not start playing until he was 10 years old. Another cellist in our area also didn’t start playing until he was 9, attended public school all through and is currently enrolled at Colburn. Another local public school violinist is at Juilliard and we have 2 local string players at Curtis - one on viola, the other a double bassist. All of these kids graduated from area public schools, most in the top 10% of their classes. Some travelled pretty far for lessons each week, some didn’t take any AP classes, my son only attended half days first semester senior year. There are ways to make it work, but it takes planning, parental advocacy, and the willingness to take opportunities when and where they present themselves.</p>
<p>There are definitely ways to be able to go into music without homeschooling, and again it depends on a lot of factors about how a student goes forward, it is a very individualistic process. </p>
<p>It also depends on the school district and how flexible they are. A lot of school districts, unfortunately, are run by professional bureaucrats and bound by state laws that restrict how flexible they can be with kids, so for example doing a half day program would be next to impossible in many cases (NJ schools, from my own experience and also talking to other parents, seem particularly bad in this regards, I am sure there may be exceptions).</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind is that the bar is not static, that the competition level is increasing, even from year to year, so what works might change. Given the levels of practice required to get to the high level, and the amount of time that schoolwork takes (homework alone is a nightmare, and that just seems to keep increasing) and the increasing competition, I suspect that it is going to be more and more difficult to do standard schooling with high academics and get into music. mamenyu mentioned the piano kids at Juilliard Pre college, they are at an incredible level, and the world of piano is small, which means anyone going into piano is going to be competing against these kids (and I have heard similar things about CIM and NEC pre college programs from other parents). </p>
<p>Mamenyu is correct, what I am writing about is based in large part to the situation I have seen at Juilliard Pre C in the areas my son is in. Even at Juilliard, the levels differ, a lot of kids in piano and violin and cello homeschool or do alternative schools, while kids on other instruments often have a more ‘normal’ experience (friend of my son’s went through PC on a brass instrument, combined high academics with his music, and ended up at an ivy). To be brutally honest, I think that is changing, because you are starting to see that same incredible competition coming into the non soloist instruments , you are seeing kids coming in from China and Taiwan and Korea on woodwinds and brass and so forth, who are repeating what the kids on the solo instruments already experience, and these same kids are going to be applying to conservatories in a couple of years, that is your bar. Again, that is my observation, my interpretation of it. If someone can do regular schooling and make it work, that is great, if they have schools willing to be flexible, that is great as well. </p>
<p>Homeschooling is not a panacea, I never claimed that, but I think that others have to realize that parent’s homeschool, not because they are lazy, not because they don’t want to advocate for their child, but they found that regular schooling simply didn’t work, that with everything they do, with all the programs, things like competitions (piano world especially) and so forth. And from talking to music parents who homeschool (from all over the country) part of the reason they homeschool is that kids into music tend to be generally highly achieved academically/intellectually, and many public schools simply don’t work for them on that grounds either.</p>
<p>There are definitely ways to be able to go into music without homeschooling, and again it depends on a lot of factors about how a student goes forward, it is a very individualistic process. </p>
<p>It also depends on the school district and how flexible they are. A lot of school districts, unfortunately, are run by professional bureaucrats and bound by state laws that restrict how flexible they can be with kids, so for example doing a half day program would be next to impossible in many cases (NJ schools, from my own experience and also talking to other parents, seem particularly bad in this regards, I am sure there may be exceptions).</p>
<p>One thing to keep in mind is that the bar is not static, that the competition level is increasing, even from year to year, so what works might change. Given the levels of practice required to get to the high level, and the amount of time that schoolwork takes (homework alone is a nightmare, and that just seems to keep increasing) and the increasing competition, I suspect that it is going to be more and more difficult to do standard schooling with high academics and get into music. mamenyu mentioned the piano kids at Juilliard Pre college, they are at an incredible level, and the world of piano is small, which means anyone going into piano is going to be competing against these kids (and I have heard similar things about CIM and NEC pre college programs from other parents). </p>
<p>Mamenyu is correct, what I am writing about is based in large part to the situation I have seen at Juilliard Pre C in the areas my son is in. Even at Juilliard, the levels differ, a lot of kids in piano and violin and cello homeschool or do alternative schools, while kids on other instruments often have a more ‘normal’ experience (friend of my son’s went through PC on a brass instrument, combined high academics with his music, and ended up at an ivy). To be brutally honest, I think that is changing, because you are starting to see that same incredible competition coming into the non soloist instruments , you are seeing kids coming in from China and Taiwan and Korea on woodwinds and brass and so forth, who are repeating what the kids on the solo instruments already experience, and these same kids are going to be applying to conservatories in a couple of years, that is your bar. Again, that is my observation, my interpretation of it. If someone can do regular schooling and make it work, that is great, if they have schools willing to be flexible, that is great as well. </p>
<p>Homeschooling is not a panacea, I never claimed that, but I think that others have to realize that parent’s homeschool, not because they are lazy, not because they don’t want to advocate for their child, but they found that regular schooling simply didn’t work, that with everything they do, with all the programs, things like competitions (piano world especially) and so forth. And from talking to music parents who homeschool (from all over the country) part of the reason they homeschool is that kids into music tend to be generally highly achieved academically/intellectually, and many public schools simply don’t work for them on that grounds either.</p>
<p>This reminds me of a discussion going on in another forum that focuses on classical voice. The discussion started about Nadine Sierra, a singer who has met with much success at a young age. She started earlier than most and has had opportunities that most cannot have. However, because of the nature of the instrument, just because she is where she is now doesn’t insure success later. I know that is true with instruments too, but it is especially the case with voice, as no one can know how the voice will mature and change. Young singers whose voices are mature beyond their years can succumb to the temptation to do too much too soon, sing rep that is not appropriate and do damage to the voice.</p>
<p>Catera-</p>
<p>There are parallels to the voice in instrumental music with starting young (though generally not physical). One of the problem with ‘prodigies’ is that most of them play instinctively, they can’t really describe why they can play the way they do, and in a sense don’t learn how to play the instrument as such. When prodigies hit their teenage years to early 20’s, most of them experience problems, they literally have to learn to play again. Itzak Perlman mentioned it in an article about delay (that basically he spent from age 13-18 re-learning how to play), Janos Starker, the great cellist, tells the story of seeing Yehudi menuhin (considered to be one of the ‘true prodigies’, who could play like an adult as a child) after WWII, and being shocked about how badly he was playing (menuhin never recovered the form he had as a child), figured out he needed to sit down and figure out how he played, because he realized he probably would lose the instinctive way of playing.</p>
<p>To be honest, I am not entirely thrilled by what goes on in music these days. A young singer can destroy their voice if they try the wrong things, and sadly there are a lot of unethical teachers who see gold in a talented child (along with parents) and forget about development. I can’t tell you as a younger child, maybe 7 or 8, how many supposedly knowledgeable teachers heard our son play, and were making this big deal, how he needed to study with them (or one of their teachers), that he could enter competitions, etc…and it was all about that goal, of ‘winning’. Likewise, at least on the violin, a lot of teachers are obsessed with a student ‘getting ahead’ rapidly, obsessed with their student playing paganini at 11, or getting to the tschaikovsky and sibelius concertos ASAP, and the kids end up playing certain pieces incredibly well, but cannot do other things they should be able to. Later on they will find how much they are missing, and either will have to do a crash program to fill in the gaps, or give up.</p>