<p>Do undergrad schools matter when applying to grad schools (UMich, Indiana, Yale)? Do students who apply from the well-known conservatories of the US (Juilliard, Eastman, Oberlin, etc) stand out from those who apply from universities with smaller music programs? Or, is it all based on talent, and undergrad doesn't matter?</p>
<p>Classical Singer magazine has a cover story on Jamie Barton who just won Singer of the World and World Song competitions in Cardiff, Wales. She was also a Met National Council Auditions winner in 2007. In her interview she talks about her journey and the importance of a good teacher. Her undergrad degree was from Shorter College in her hometown. Her grad degree from Indiana. [Classical</a> Singer Community](<a href=“http://www.classicalsinger.com/magazine/article.php?id=2644]Classical”>http://www.classicalsinger.com/magazine/article.php?id=2644)</p>
<p>In DD’s studio at Rice, one Masters student came from Webster University. She also won the Met her year. Another Grad student had a science undergrad degree from a small LAC.</p>
<p>For grad schools it is the audition that matters. For undergrad go where there is a good teacher and you will not incur any debt. It is a long road.</p>
<p>Of course that advice is for singers. Instrumentalists also have to consider the level of their overall ensemble.</p>
<p>In general, it is all about the audition. I do know of 2 bass players who went to Yale for grad school from smaller schools: one from Ithaca and the other from SUNY Fredonia. You should try to go to the best program you can afford. Working and playing with other motivated students will help you to improve your skills. If you go to a less competitive school and are the best or one of the best players, it is harder to stay motivated but not impossible.</p>
<p>SingerMom07 - thanks for the link re Jamie Barton - a very good perspective!</p>
<p>As others have said, entry into grad programs is based on the audition, and that is a function of how well you have been taught. This has been talked about at length in threads about the ‘great schools’ versus ‘less well known ones’, the great teacher at a small school, big fish in a small sea, etc, and they are really valid threads to look at. </p>
<p>In a nutshell, it depends on the student. There are students, my S is one, who I think do better if they are around students who are as good or more importantly better, it drives him forward, so he might have problems if he was at a school where he was near the top of the talent pool. Other students are so self driven, so self motivated, if the teacher is great, they are going to fly. Obviously, if a teacher is that great, they might collect a bunch of talented kids in that studio, who are above the norm compared to other studios or even the entire program, and that may work, too (I am talking my S’s kind of kid, that needs seeing others better to help motivate him/her). </p>
<p>Another factor that can make a difference is access to faculty at the schools you are thinking of applying to as a grad student. While the audition is everything, there also is the factor that in grad school, there will be teachers you are targeting at a school, I don’t care if it is Juilliard or let’s say a relatively high level state school the key thing is going to be the teacher. Juilliard has a lot of great teachers but they aren’t great teachers for everyone, and they also have teachers who may have more of a reputation then real teaching ability, so an incoming student will be targeting who they want to study with. If you go to a smaller school/program, the teacher may not necessarily know what is going on at the grad schools you are applying to (and yeah, the same thing is true of teachers at Juilliard, too, some of them may be cluess, or at least about the programs you are interested in…), at the big conservatories the teachers may be more immersed in who is doing what where, whereas I suspect (just my opinion) that people at smaller programs may not be that immersed in knowing these things…</p>
<p>The other factor is if the teacher knows people directly who you may want to study with, it can help you get into the studio of someone you really want to study with. Among other things, teachers who are active with their students, who know what is going on, can point students to programs where they can gain exposure to people they may want to study with in grad school, they might be exposed through master classes at a festival, or even through current teacher getting the grad school teacher to see the student privately to see if there is a fit. It can make a big difference between getting accepted having teacher know you and liking you, a teacher if you go in their blind might hear you play the audition and say “eh”, let’s say because your audition was off, but a teacher who has seen you before, might say “I have seen that person before, I really liked them a lot, this audition was fluke” and agree to teach them if they get in…</p>
<p>At a bigger program, there may be more chance to interact with the people teaching at the grad level, through masterclasses and such, whereas at a smaller program, that may not happen (the kicker, though, is in the big program/big school, it may be very difficult to get into the master classes and gain the exposure, as a participant). </p>
<p>There is no cut and dried answer. My knowledge is mostly instrumental, and with voice, because singers mature differently and later, my decidedly un-expert opinion is that UG may matter less than in instrumental music, simply because ma nature and the human body dictate a lot of how singers mature. People use the example of Renee Fleming all the time, where she went to a SUNY school UG then went to Juilliard grad, and I am sure there are a lot more.</p>
<p>Aauugghhh, can we please stop citing older singers here?! Using Renee Fleming as an example is really not relevant any more because the process for getting into good grad programs, winning large competitions,etc was vastly different when she was in the thick of it 30 years ago (she’s now 54). Her dream school was Oberlin and she was accepted there but wasn’t given enough scholarship money to attend. And, just as an FYI, she attended Eastman for grad school and later too some post-grad courses at Julliard.</p>
<p>It was possible, in the 70s, and even beyond, to get into conservatories without having much background at in voice at all. In fact, Frederica von Stade walked over to Mannes on her lunch hour to inquire about a course that would help her read music and was on the stage of the Met a handful of years later! Now, one has to go through pre-screening and be prepared to sing pieces within a framework that has been determined by the schools (I actually remember when young singers were actually permitted to sing “Happy Birthday”, “America the Beautiful” or something of that ilk. Don’t try this today!!). Jamie Barton was cited in an earlier post in this thread- she’s 33 and things were quite different even ten years ago when she was in graduate school. Opera News has been featuring articles about how schools are taking in a lot more students than they should , and many of those kids simply do not have the talent and drive that it’s going to take to have a performing career.</p>
<p>Singers are going to “pay” one way or another. If you don’t take something in undergrad, you’ll end up sitting (and paying for) remedial classes in graduate school. I know of kids taking multiple extra courses- theory, music history, languages, etc- while trying to keep up with the day to day course work and learning a lot more music than they were expected to as undergrads. They are swamped with work, tired and unhappy.
It’s important to find the program that’s a good “fit”, taking many things into account. Make visits, ask questions and observe classes and lessons if at all possible. Remember that the students giving tours are obviously going to talk about the good points of the school; they’re probably not going to tell you that practice rooms are hard to get or have terrible acoustics or that one studio may be favored over another so take the tour with a grain of salt. If you can attend a performance of an opera or concert, by all means do. That can be a great way to help compare schools.
The great thing about CC is that there are many viewpoints. Some of our kids went to small LACs, some large university-based schools while others attended well known conservatories. Our kids are proof that there is no “one size fits all”!</p>
<p>I think Mezzo’s Mom is probably printed my last post out, and put it on her dart board and spent several days throwing darts at it, saying “die, die”…Now you know why I put the disclaimer on my knowledge of voice,it sounds like it is very much like what I see with instrumental music (and it is sad to think that today a voice like Renee Flemings might never happen, if not getting into certain programs might have doomer her chances…). As much as they try to deny it, music is more and more becoming something that if you don’t have the resources to do certain things, it is getting more and more impossible to make it into programs good enough to have a chance quite honestly. The amount of effort, time and money it requires of families is immense, and it is exceedingly difficult in many of the top programs to get merit aid and such, unless someone is one of the very tippy top (it depends on the program and instrument, but in strings and piano, that is very much the reality). </p>
<p>The story about Renee Fleming is kind of like the story about the uncle who was a good high school player, then went to conservatory and became a concertmaster of an orchestra, or the person who didn’t really do music in high school at a high level then made it, many of them are from earlier generations (and I didn’t even think with Renee Flemings case that it was a while ago, I don’t think of her as being an ‘older diva’ <em>smile</em>). It has changed a lot, as I have told the story on here, one of my son’s earlier teachers was a hobby player in high school, got serious, got into one of the major conservatories, then came out of school and right away got into a pretty high level regional orchestra and is now a principal; today, her playing getting into conservatory might well not get her into a pre college program, the levels have so skyrocketed (my S estimates that her playing coming out of conservatory is probably at the level a lot of students going into the high level conservatories have on admission). </p>
<p>It doesn’t mean there is one story, but what it means is that things have changed a lot, and it is better to find out from people who are involved in the world today then from people who were doing it 30 or 20 years ago.</p>
<p>It may not matter for the grad school, but it will matter for your own professional progress.</p>
<p>Well for one thing I do not believe that the OP is in voice. Another thing…what does the OP mean by “do undergrad schools matter” ? The name recognition? The actual learning process? Undergrad matters. It matters that you develop as a young artist. Where you develop best differs from student to student.</p>
<p>musicprnt- It only took me one day to work out my angst! I know it’s hard to face that many of the artists we loved are “getting on”- I almost drove over the curb today when the announcer on my local classical station said that today was Yo Yo Ma’s 58th birthday! Come to think of it, he’s another example often cited here on CC as not having gone the conventional conservatory route (although he did originally enroll at Julliard, but left).</p>
<p>As the last two postings say, the most important thing is one’s own development and progress. What is just perfect for one student may be totally wrong for another, while a teacher who works in abstracts might benefit a more experienced grad student but could be all wrong for a freshman starting college in a new studio. A spectacular performer may not be a wonderful teacher. You just have to find what works for you.</p>
<p>This thread just confirms why Mezzo’sMamma and Musicprnt are two of my favorite posters! And MusicaMusica, too!</p>
<p>Mezzo Mom-</p>
<p>I hear you, and then when I hear how old a performer is, my joints start aching <em>lol</em>. Yeah, people talk about Yo Yo Ma as an example (he was in Juilliard’s pre college program, but went to Harvard, studied history), but Yo Yo Ma also had artists rep and was performing with orchestras before he went to college, and continued studying and practicing, obviously,he is one of the exceptions to the child ‘prodigy’ who makes it (I despise the term prodigy, and how young kids are used, I think the teachers and parents who put them on stage should be shot for child abuse), but he is not a great example (I think Gil Shaham went to Columbia,but again, he already was out there).</p>
<p>Neil Tyson DeGrasse, the astrophysicist and all around amazing dude, in his memoir told stories about being at Harvard, and he and his fellow students groaning because Yo Yo Ma was giving another recital in their dorm <em>lol</em> (he was being funny I think). </p>
<p>I suspect the OP meant that could a student go to any generic music program, get a BM degree, and then get into a top level grad school, and my answer to that would be no; on the other hand, that has nothing to do with name, it is about what works for the student. My S went to a program that though one of the top ones, on whole is not on as high a level as another program he got into, but he went to the program he did because he got one of his dream teachers, whereas at the other school he was considering the studio choice was murky, so it all depends, as many people have commented, and it boils down to the student, the instrument and what the school offers. On the other hand, a big name school only is as good as the program really is, there are IMO crap teachers at ‘big name schools’, for example, who would not do the student justice, it all depends, and going for name alone is as short sighted as turning down a school with a great teacher with less of a name.</p>
<p>I’ve know a married couple that are both having the kind of careers that most singers only dream of. They met in grad school, a very high end conservatory, with completely different educations. One straight from a prestigious Ivy music school and the other who had a BS in theater from a small school, who got in on a full ride after after taking several years off and working bad jobs. Both flourished at the grad level, got all the leads, etc and went on to have fabulous careers. Their advice to me when I told them about taking my kid around to music schools was that there was no one way to do it because if there was , everyone would do it and be successful. The guy, who’s career has really been something else, couldn’t even read music when he got into grad school! Not that he advises that, but he succeeded anyway.</p>
<p>I know there is a lot of discussion about the mechanics of learning music on this site, but the “T Word” as I’ve heard some profs call it , still rules the day. It’s about talent in the end. Hard work , good teachers, good schools - of course ! But talent still matters. If it were just about hard work and schools everyone would be a star. And who can explain such matters?</p>
<p>@jb-
While I agree with most of what you are saying, that there is no one path, is true, but again it also matters to compare apples to apples. The couple in question you are talking about are probably from a prior generation, I would hazard a guess they aren’t in their 20s, prob in their 40’s (just guessing). There is such a thing as talent, natural abilities, but the guy in question who got into a top level grad program without reading music would I could almost guarantee not be able to get into a top level grad program today, not with the training that is going on (people like mezzo’s mom can speak with more authority on that than I)…obviously, though, if this were today, he probably would have not been in that position, would probably have realized what he needed to do and get the training earlier, and his talent would have helped him, obviously.</p>
<p>The problem with natural talent is it depends on what you were up against. Someone with a ton of abilities 20 years ago might have been up against kids who were less well trained, there were kids whose singing experience was being in high school vocal groups and got into conservatories, today without high level private teaching, a kid is highly unlikely to go from Glee and get into one of the top voice schools. In the strings world, someone with natural affinity for the violin if they tried to get into one of the top programs wouldn’t pass pre screen likely, because they would be up against students who had studied intensely from a young age, who had focused on the technical aspects, and for all the lyricism and musicality someone with ‘natural’ gifts has, it would be buried by the lack of technical chops.</p>
<p>On the other hand, there are also a lot of music students (I am speaking primarily instrumental here) who have massive technical chops, but quite frankly are lacking other things, terms like ‘robotic playing’ and ‘playing notes’ are used, and some of that is because they lack attributes some of the ‘natural’ musical have, and it is noticeable. </p>
<p>I am not saying talent doesn’t matter, the whole ‘talent is overrated’ notion itself is overrated, but without the serious work and dedication talent alone is going to leave someone dead on the vine, the same way that diligent effort alone isn’t going to do it. The beatles didn’t become a success because they toiled away for several years, they toiled away and they had talent, in stage presence, song writing and so forth. Like I said, there are a lot of kids on the violin who are technical masters who you watch perform and it is painful…but so is the kid who is so musical and expressive but can’t play that well, either. </p>
<p>And if you look at what makes for success, it is what Malcolm Gladwell wrote about in Outliers, it is a combination of talent, it is a lot of hard work, and it is also about opportunity and timing, luck if you want to call it that. For example, one of the advantages of going to a program like Juilliard or NEC might be where it is located, being in a music hub makes it easier to network, get gigs and so forth, and teachers at a bigger program might have more contacts and such for summer programs and whatnot. Sometimes it is luck, you graduate school, and opening happens in a major orchestra, and you get in, someone else might have to struggle for years before that happens. You are the student of a certain oboe player who does work for the movie industry a lot, and he retires and ends up giving it in effect to his student.</p>
<p>With soloists, there are intangibles, things like stage presence, and looks, can influence things as well. Pavarotti was probably not the greatest tenor of recent times, not on a technical basis, but he brought a lot to the stage with his presence and so forth…Yehudi Menuhin as an adult never recovered what he had as a child/young adult, yet he was adored on stage, in part because of who he was, and it all adds up. </p>
<p>Again, I agree there is no one path to success, or even what success is, but it is also wise to realize that without the hard work, the background, the preparation, the luck isn’t going to matter; the person who graduates from school and gets into a good orchestra had to have something to pass the audition, and so forth. Nothing is set in stone, but it also is important that people compare what is going on today and look at it in that context. I have told the story of an ex teacher of my S’s who was a casual high school player and got into one of the top conservatories, then graduated and made it into a pretty high level orchestra right out of school, and he said by today’s standard’s she wouldn’t stand a chance…</p>
<p>This isn’t Mezzo’sMoma first pounce on the issue. I once referenced Dawn Upshaw as an exmple of the same thing and got schooled. Funny though, I don’t think of Dawn Upshaw as old. Guess, I’m in denial.</p>
<p>talent and character still matter. Well, money too. With George Washington University getting caught “gapping” that whole mess should get more consideration. A less talented kid that pays full boat gets in where a better kid with less doesn’t and that’s just a fact of life and it’s been going on since the beginning .</p>