<p>wktk222, you’ve also posted this same thing in the “pre-screen thread” so it’s running in two places at the same time. You’ll find that you have better sucess with getting good responses if you limit posts of the same type to just one location.
Arguing the point of audition trips being a “waste of money” is a moot point. The schools require them- if you want to attend that school, you go. They’re not going to change and there is no other viable system. They do not have unlimited room nor do they know the quality of a particular year’s applicant pool or how many of those will accept an offer of admission. If they accepted just “anyone”, the quality of the school would suffer and the time and effort put into it all wouldn’t be worth anything.
So it’s an individual choice. There are programs which accept students without audition, but you have to realize that their standards are no where near as high as the schools which require an applicant to present themselves. Which is worth more to you- a BA from a school with a general, let anyone in who applies, program, or a BM from a highly selective school with a proven track record of turning out first-rate performers? Which one do you think would stand the best chance of admission to a good graduate program?</p>
<p>The cost of the auditions and limited admissions are why so many schools are using the pre-screen. However, people complain about how unfair THAT process is. Sometimes you can’t win for losing! </p>
<p>One of the “advantages” for having to shell out so much for son’s training was that there was not a huge jump in expenses for college once his scholarship was added in. We were putting aside money for college on a monthly basis. That monthly sum plus the cost of his training pretty much covered a year of school. It helps you to learn financial discipline much earlier :)</p>
<p>notfromme:</p>
<p>In response to your post:</p>
<p>“for every amazing flute or violin or viola or vocalist or WHATEVER that is seen, heard and competing; that are driven three hours to rehearsals; that are flown in for pre college programs… I truly believe there are hundreds that are not “seen”, that are doing it on their own without the support or knowledge we have. But they still have the passion and natural music gift. Can you be accepted to schools without an amazing resume? Just wondering…”</p>
<p>My response would be not very likely at all (and this is based simply on my impressions and experience, not claiming it is gospel).</p>
<p>The idea of the natural musician, the person so passionate and so forth, is something I used to believe was true…my son to a large extent is like that, he loves music, had a lot of ‘natural ability’ (even when starting the violin, he never sounded like a cat with its tail caught in the door)…was studying with local teachers, who thought he was good, outside people saw his passion…but the reality was, there was a totally different world out there we didn’t know about. We were fortunate to run into people who did know, who could help guide him, and without that he would probably have had a slim chance to get into a high level program, even at the pre college level. My wife was at a presentation at Juilliard’s pre college program where one of the admissions people was talking, and they said something that I think has a lot of truth, that it is better to be a little fish in a big sea, and I think that is very true. There are a lot of kids out there, who have the passion, who have a private teacher, who make all county, all state, etc, who seem to be really, really talented, and then try to get into one of the high level programs and find out the reality.</p>
<p>In years past someone like that, a jewel in the rough, etc, might have a good chance, back then there literally were kids who could do okay through high school, get in a place on their potential, and then ‘get serious in college’ and make it (one of my son’s teachers, who went to Oberlin and graduated about 30 years ago, said that she would not get into Oberlin with the way she played when coming out of high school, if auditioning today). The competition is just incredible, and kids in the high level pre college programs are playing at a level usually associated with college students, if not more.</p>
<p>The resume itself is not really what matters (auditions are the real maker/breaker for the most part, a resume I am led to believe might be used in cases of borderline kids, not sure about that, though, others on here would probably know). Where the resume counts is experience at the high levels, which matters for two reasons I believe: 1)It forces them to improve their playing, it challenges them to go beyond themselves and develop the discipline it takes to make it (a naturally gifted student, as pointed out by Malcolm Gladwell, isn’t going to go far without the hard work and sweat) and 2)more importantly, it lets them see where the bar is. The kid who is concertmaster in a local youth symphony that is basically a community orchestra isn’t going to realize that at a high level, their talents might not even get them into a high level orchestra as the worst of the 2nd violins…but think they are ready for the big leagues, because everyone tells them so. </p>
<p>The other reason being involved in the high level programs is that networking plays a role, in various ways. At the very least, in most programs someone doesn’t get in if a teacher doesn’t want to work with them. Kids who go to high level programs can meet either professors at the programs they want to study in, or they meet other teachers who know the professor in question, who are willing to call him up and say “hey, this kid X is auditioning at your school, if the kid passes muster I think you should think of teaching him/her”, that I know goes on and does go into deciding if they make it there (and as someone pointed out in an earlier post, the number of slots expands and contracts with teacher availability, finances, etc). I also wouldn’t be surprised if there were cases where a professor more directly influences a kid getting in who is borderline…</p>
<p>Be interesting to see if anyone thinks differently, but that is my take. I have to admit it shocked the hell out of us how much our perceptions and of teachers and stuff varied from the reality…</p>
<p>The sad part is that natural player, the passionate player, IMO may be a much better student then many of the technically proficient players that are flooding the system,many of whom are technically up there, playing incredibly difficult pieces with incredible precision but almost totally lacking musicality or passion in my experience, but they probably don’t stand a chance because technically they just get buried in an audition. </p>
<p>Are there exceptions? I am sure there are, I am sure there are places where a student stands out who is technically not as advanced but plays with incredible musicality and expresion, but it is definitely an exception IME. It obviously also depends on the instrument and the kind of music, I am talking mostly about classical music and a high end conservatory/college program, it can be very different in other areas (I am not familiar with other programs like Jazz to comment on how hard they are).</p>
<p>(I wrote the following in response to the latest post, but afterward realized that it really is off topic from the OP. I hope nobody minds the rabbit trail.)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I have heard this before, and I believe that as a general rule, it is true. The ceiling can’t be so low, or the comparisons so few, that there is no stretch. Being in a small pond all of the time can warp your interpretation of things.</p>
<p>And yet, I also know that from a personal point of view, it was really important once in awhile for my kids to feel special, to feel top-of-the-heap. Every once in awhile, they needed to be in a smaller pond. Both my music major kids (as well as my non-music major kid) are talented musically. They have the love and the skill. But my S was in the band program, where his teacher made a fuss over him. My D was in the orchestra program, where the teacher shrugged and said, “We don’t have stars.” She was treated as a small fish every time. I think it actually affected her passion, her drive, and her opportunities. She was always treated as just one of the crowd.</p>
<p>My son is about ready to graduate grad school, and is taking auditions. He mentioned last night his sorrow at never having gotten to play principal on a few of his favorite famous pieces. He said, “I’m afraid I’m never going to ever play principal again.” He knows that he will be considered successful if he even wins an orchestral chair, and asking for principal, at least any time soon, might be unrealistic. He is preparing to be a small fish in a very, very big pond for a long time.</p>
<p>So I’m glad he had the chance to be a star for awhile. He’s tasted it - he wants it back. That is part of the passion.</p>
<p>Binx-
Nicely put, I was talking about the situation where someone is always the big fish in the small pond. What you are saying is true, and it never hurts to find those places where someone is a big fish, at least for a while. Whether it is at a summer music festival putting on a great performance, being chosen as principal player in an orchestra, having a really outstanding chamber group/performance, even things like being chosen all state or whatever, there is a place to have your abilities appreciated. </p>
<p>Funny story, our S had performed as part of a chamber group at a fundraiser at an event here in NYC. A couple of days later, he and my wife were getting breakfast at a place in NYC, and this artsy looking young guy (wearing a funky outfit, etc), came up to him, told him he had seen him at the event and that his group, and especially himself, had played out of sight…made his day <em>smile</em></p>
<p>I think it’s a huge shock to some kids, and their parents, to get to the point of college applications/auditions and find out that they are suddenly facing hundreds of mirror images of themselves- kids who have been #1 at their schools, first chair, soloist ,lead, All-This and All-that. A large proportion of these kids don’t attend schools with 1000 in their graduating class, so they have been singled out for years. And then, reality hits. They have to compete via a “pre-screen CD”??? You mean, they won’t hear " -my beloved child " in person? But his/her teacher has always said that my younger’s the best they ever taught! And, then, should they make it through the pre-screen, is when the kid shows up on audition day and sees all of the others, just as good as he/she is…
It’s terrible, when you stop to think about it. These are just kids and they are facing more stress and competition than a lot of adults have in a much longer lifetime. But, for those that make that far, it’s what they want more than anything- they can’t imagine doing anything esle with their lives.
So, we do the budget- make the car last another couple of years, dream about the vacation instead of taking it and don’t replace that couch which should have been given away last year- and we write the checks for the lessons, summer sessions, music, auditions and tuition, and when we stop to think about it, we can’t imagine doing anything less for these wonderful kids.</p>
<p>I do think the singers have it a bit better than the instrumentalists. The expensive instruments that you all are constantly trading up and replacing. Early lessons and summer programs are even more important because you can be “viable” at a younger age than a singer. The paths of many of the successful instrumentalists are so similar that is seems that everyone really is fighting for those very few elite opportunities. You look at the backgrounds of the young successful singers and you’ll find kids with BAs, kids who went to schools that you have to google to know where they are and kids who couldn’t afford any fancy summer programs. On the other hand, violins and tuba don’t catch colds or get bronchitis.</p>
<p>My son was a very, very big fish all through high school, and now…is certainly not the big fish anymore. It takes some adjustment to go from having everyone fawning all over you to being one of MANY very talented kids (and some, even more so). There is more hard work involved now, more earning of positions (as opposed to expecting them as a given), more soul searching and more self-doubt. </p>
<p>On the other hand, he would NEVER have wanted to be a big fish at the college level, and early on, nixed all the schools where he felt that this would be the case (which was obvious at schools where they were just a little too excited about him when he was only 16 or 17).</p>
<p>We were fortunate geographically when son applied for undergrad music performance 6 years ago. He was a big fish in our public school in NJ and applied to a mix of NJ public and NYC area conservatories. Was not admitted to his ‘dream’ conservatory.
Chose to study with a wonderful private teacher at a NJ public and studied very hard.
Auditioned at 4 grad schools and is currently in first year of a music performance masters on a tuition scholarship.
So, financially, it did ‘pay off’ at our house, just a bit later than expected!
Probably no longer the big fish in his studio, but I know he loves the competition and is working harder at his passion. :)</p>
<p>One thing that has helped us tremendously, is knowing the number of real community options out there for musicians. I know musicians who have created their own ensembles, their own music schools, their own community orchestras. I watched one of our teachers build a wind department at a local university while playing in smaller regional organizations. We know pianists who run music programs for youth at two area colleges, while teaching and performing locally. One pianist friend started a choir for inner city kids, while doing a master’s in piano, and now is looking at a doctorate in pedagogy while still finding wonderful grants for “her” kids. </p>
<p>I know there are hundreds of music jobs out there. I see them here, in a small midwestern city. I think our musical kids, who have put together lessons and performance and competition opportunities for themselves, are better able to navigate this new job market in the US - a fluid market that demands creativity and networking.</p>
<p>The jobs are out there. Our kids are creating them.</p>
<p>This is one of the best threads I’ve ever read on here. </p>
<p>The OP’s not really around much on this thread anymore, but I do feel for him/her. I think there is value in prescreening every single application, not just the “popular” ones like flute, violin, piano, or sopranos. Mezzo’sMama nailed it right on the head–part of the music performance music admission process involves a kind of reorientation from the local to the global. Now it’s ALL concertmasters, All-States, NATS and ASTA winners, whatever. That’s the pool of possibility from which very top programs draw. Not to mention the interest in US programs from East and Southeast Asia, South America, Canada, and Eastern Europe. That’s the reality of “life at the top,” so to speak.</p>
<p>binx and Allmusic had children who wanted the challenge of pursuing music at the absolute highest level. And they’ve been successful in achieving this goal. It’s certainly the road less travelled: they weren’t satisfied with being simply the best player in their zip code, their county, but they wanted to “live deliberately” and experience life in the fast lane, so to speak. They were successful because their capacity for achievement went beyond the local and actually captivated the global. This level of involvement in music is the exception, not the rule. And I wonder how many people realize this. My wife has a violin student who is literally going to quit the violin if he doesn’t get in to Juilliard this year. He doesn’t see the point of continuing to pursue music otherwise. It’s not that he’ll just major in something else, go with a respectable Plan B but keep playing in a community orchestra or whatever. He’ll just sell his violin, throw away all his music, and pretend like this part of his life never happened. Or so he says… (He’s recently moved into the area, and for many things, including this attitude, it’s too late for her to really affect much change in him).</p>
<p>The admission process is meant to serve this purpose for the music profession. The results come as a shock to some, a REALLY huge shock for others, but when the dust ultimately settles things have almost always worked out for the best. I don’t spend that much time around the parents of high-performing athletes, but I wonder to what extent top high school athletes actually expect to play in the NBA or NFL, or how many simply love the game and hope it will get them a nice scholarship somewhere. (Or now this idea of going pro straight out of HS). </p>
<p>So I’m really interested in suzukimom’s point. I think it merits further unpacking and discussion. A few years back, a really inflammatory article got forwarded around left and right. Some op-ed piece from a Canadian newspaper (90% certain it was someone from Calgary) writing about the budget woes of a state-funded orchestra there. The jist of the op-ed was “why do we even need an orchestra in Alberta when we can just listen to CDs of the New York Philharmonic, watch Live from Lincoln Center,” etc. etc. I bring this up in the context of this thread because I think that, despite advances in technology, at some point great music just isn’t scaleable. Live music needs to be present–not piped in or otherwise replicated. People want live performances the same way they want courtside seats at an actual basketball game. You can throw all the money you want at Best Buy but something is still missing when you’re in your basement watching the game. (Sorry to keep bringing up sports, but I do see an athletic component to classical music performance—all those moving parts in an orchestra, an appreciation for a really difficult run in a piano sonata, the spectacle of staged opera. Not to mention the kind of physical discipline and coordination both pursuits demand.)</p>
<p>And here, I think, is an important idea to consider. How many music performance hopefuls seriously consider the kinds of work suzukimom mentions worthwhile in and of themselves? I’m reminded of a friend of mine. She grew up in the area, went to SUNY Purchase for a BM because it was close to home and cheap, and now she actually makes a living as a full-time musician. She’s cobbled together enough church work, orchestra work (she plays in many of the top suburban orchestras around NYC), teaching, and paying summer festivals to make a decent living, enjoy a vacation every once in a while, drive a car (that her parents didn’t buy) that was actually made this decade, etc. etc. Meeting her was really a breath of fresh air for me. She didn’t ever dream of any top-level conservatories, didn’t consider moving across the country, etc. She was one of the first working musician’s I’d met who treated the profession the way so many other professions work. Almost as if she wanted to be a CPA, so she just went to the nearest college that offered it, got the degree, and then went to work as a CPA. QED. No flying across the country taking 15 auditions, no nail-biting competitions, no expensive summer programs. And let me reiterate she’s actually working alongside people trained at more famous conservatories (for those in the know SUNY Purchase is a great school), and she makes a decent living as a player. </p>
<p>Sure you could argue that she’s hitting below her weight, that she could have pushed herself more and become a “bigger fish” somewhere. But the fact that this alternative approach even exists came as a bit of a surprise to me, actually. </p>
<p>So questions all applicants should ask themselves: Where in the professional firmament will you feel most comfortable? What are the professional expectations of these music applicants? What kinds of dreams are realistic? Honestly, do you really, truly want to have the kind of life that Sarah Chang leads? Or Deborah Voight? Do you know what that entails? Or is it a case of being swept away by a great performance and then the love affair you develop with your craft, and you try and go to the best program that will accept you (that you can also afford) and it’s just one big Hail-Mary pass (gah! more sports) and hoping there’s something out there waiting for you when you finish music school. </p>
<p>Are you aware that there are plenty of “farm teams” and “coaching positions” out there that provide a great way to earn a living doing what you love? Will you consider yourself a failure if you “only” end up earning a living as a musician playing in, say the Omaha Symphony or Charlotte Symphony, or doing a recital circuit in wealthy retirement communities? (I actually know of someone who’s carved out a living singing in the clubhouses of upscale planned senior communities in the Sun Belt).</p>
<p>I guess the point I think I’m trying to make is that there’s something to be said for this process as a way to orient yourself along the music performance continuum. And that there’s really a lot (no, I mean a LOT) of tremendous music performance opportunities out there, off the beaten path, outside of Lincoln Center and the other “Big 5” orchestra towns. All ponds, regardless of their size, need to have fish in them.</p>
<p>Wonderful points by N8Ma and suzukimom. Some of the busiest and most successful musicians I know locally, in terms of personal satisfaction if not monetary remuneration, attended state and local colleges, not Juilliard and Curtis. I also know plenty of Juiliard and Curtis grads who never worked in their musical field, but rather went on to pursue other careers and degrees. </p>
<p>I grew up in a family whose business was arts management (classical music) and can tell from long-term first hand experience that it’s a very difficult life, and that no one should go into classical music unless they love it so much that the cannot envision doing anything else.</p>
<p>But there is also something to be said for pursuing dreams while you are young. I know many adults who were dancers or musicians in their youth, but went on to other careers, e.g., law or medicine, in their late 20’s. </p>
<p>The conservatory model does seem to be outdated, preparing students for a system that doesn’t really exist anymore. There are very few career soloists; class A (I mean budget class) orchestras are floundering. Musicians need to be entrepreneurs, and they need to be flexible. I do like the model of colleges such as Bard and the McDuffie strings program, in which students are given a broad liberal arts education as well as conservatory degree.</p>
<p>Really interesting thread, and GH came up with a question I have been dying to ask, is the conservatory system (or even the high level pre college programs or college music programs) preparing musicians for the world that is out there? It is a hard question, and one that I am sure there are many opinions, but here is my perspective, based on what I am seeing with my son and other kids ‘reaching’ for it, whatever it is, and I would have to say no, or at least not consistently. Not so much in the way they are preparing the kids technically, that part of the study I suspect is at a level higher then ever before (obviously a function of the level of competition, as well as teaching techniques) , but rather the reality of the world of music.</p>
<p>I’ll give you one example, the conservatories on the ‘competitive’ instruments (in the sense that they are solo instruments as well as orchestral, not because they are harder/easier, that is a myth, it is hard no matter what you play) are full of kids who have this idea they are going to be superstar soloists, and go after the really, really technically challenging pieces, and their teachers push them into competitions and the like, which is all fine…but what I am seeing (to me, again, this is my opinion, having seen these students) is kids who aren’t working on the other side of things…</p>
<p>1)Stage presence and musicality. Teachers seem to spend a tremendous amount of time on the technical aspects (which is needed), but very little time on the other aspects, and I think they are doing themselves and their students a disservice. Especially these days, when classical music is looking for alternative venues, when orchestra jobs at any kind of level are hard to get and the ochestras picky, I am seeing kids that are way out their technically, all the fireworks and such (and keep in mind I am most directly in contact with violin, to a certain extent cello and piano), but frankly are as boring and uninteresting otherwise. They have nice sound, but there is nothing else there, no feel for the music, no passion, no sense of connecting with an audience. That is disaster at a soloist level and even an orchestral ones (I can name orchestras full of players like that, that are struggling to ‘move up’ and become a top level orchestra, and dead musicians is a big part of the problem IMO…). </p>
<p>In a world where orchestras are trying to attract audiences that are used to being entertained, to having performers with some sort of contact, that isn’t going to fly frankly, especially as alternate venues become more and more part of the scene. Yet many teachers seem to be oblivious of this (and again, please don’t think I am saying all teachers, at all schools, it varies, there are teachers who seem to recognize this, but I see a lot more that either won’t or can’t influence their students for some reason). If you look at the top soloists in the violin world, for example, or the cello world, they all are technically up there, but also are seriously musical and have stage presence in differing ways, but that is there.</p>
<p>2)It has always been true that most playing has been in ensemble playing, but these days even more so, there just isn’t the market for that many soloists out there (if there ever was). Yet from what I have been told by teachers, and what I have seen, very little effort is made in encouraging kids to network, to build people skills, to understand how jobs come about, that being tecnically proficient is not enough, and also to understand that if you love music, nothing is truly ‘beneath you’, and that going forward, as it is in business or elsewhere, contacts and networking are important. I have looked at formal curricula, and talked to teachers, and they said basically some teachers do try to prepare their students, but a lot ignore it…again, this probably applies more to solo instruments then instruments that are mostly ensemble based. </p>
<p>Things like liberal arts at conservatories would help, but also focusing on the nuts and bolts would be good (and if schools are doing this, good, like I said, I can only talk from what I have been exposed to, some of which I am certain of, some of which I am working on conjecture and secondhand accounts). </p>
<p>A couple of people I have met who are teachers and also who obviously perform in all kinds of settings, tell stories about the legion of kids who come out of the top programs and then act like they are already hot stuff, and then find out no one wants to play with them, and if they hit the soloist path that it is rough sledding, that they find they don’t have the skills to work with an orchestra, to make the synergy and so forth…</p>
<p>3)The organization within some programs is almost medieval, where instead of being a department (like, for example, violin or piano or whatever) they seem to be organized along the lines of city states, with each studio its own little conclave, and the teachers, rather then looking at this as a mutual education process, treat it sort of like war. In many cases this has changed (Joseph Polisi, when he took over Juilliard, made sweeping changes, and one of the first things he did was to reform the departments into departments, with guidelines and a department head encouraging mutuality…having read what the violin department had been like when people like Delay and Galmian et al were around, I can understand why, people I have met who studied during that era said it was like pitched battle at times…). </p>
<p>I do know it is a very different world out there, and a teacher or progam needs to reflect that reality, and I am seeing quite a few examples where they don’t. There are still teachers who act like this is 1940, where mixing classical music with other forms would be considered heresy (don’t believe me, ask Nigel Kennedy about wanting to play jazz and what the teachers told him about what it would do to his career…while there was truth to that when he was studying in the 70’s, today that isn’t true any more, most musicians are going to find them doing a lot of different types of music). Classical music is going to survive, I have little doubt of that (hasn’t died yet), but it is going to change, as it always has, and my hope is that the music teaching system is going to adjust to this, based on my (limited) view of what goes on. </p>
<p>Thoughts?</p>
<p>I’ve got some thoughts on this musicprnt–some of them will be very predictable and possibly yawn-inducing. So let’s see who else might want to wade in first…</p>
<p>Musicprnt, thanks for that thoughtful and insightful post. You have articulated so many great points. I’d like to respond to each point (but I’m also trying to cook dinner!) As a general comment, I think you really hit the nail on the head when you write :</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>The classical music industry is at a crossroads, and if classical music is going to survive, we need to let go of the kind of elitist attitude that makes it impossible for a paying audience to relate to the music. I have been noticing that subscription concerts in my city seem to attract a <em>very</em> elderly crowd-- plus a handful of music students (who are usually not paying for their tickets) and no one else. This is not sustainable. Serious needs to be attract audiences or it will become like serious poetry-- an effete enterprise whose main arena is academia (or in this case conservatory) and whose only audience it its own practitioner. To survive, a musician needs to be flexible and inventive.</p>
<p>I wish they would all quit wearing black!!!</p>
<p>(It used to be all black so as to not distract from the music itself. But if I don’t want to be distracted, I’ll go listen to the CD. Give me something to look at!)</p>
<p>LOVE the great posts above that talk about musicians who carve out a living in music that does not include a chair in a major orchestra.
Pretty much what my DH and his peers have done for many years. Probably easier here in surburban NJ within close proximity to NYC but there are probably distinct opportunities in all areas of the country. The senior community circuit is vast, if one is willing to consider it. DH and his peers are working musicians who find diverse avenues: teaching, of course. but also summer festivals, private school musicals, plays in the park, subbing in NYC, corporate events, food store gigs, town first night events, etc.
DH has not become rich and famous with such work but has played alongside Juilliard and Curtis trained musicians playing MUSIC. It can be a job, but one that needs creating.</p>
<p>There is a columnist in the International Musician (whose name escapes me) who writes on this topic extensively. He’s a bit too optimistic for me but I appreciate his belief that with perseverence (sp) earning a living in music might still be possible.</p>
<p>As the mother of a grad student in music performance, I hope so!</p>
<p>I have a slightly different experience to share. My son is 26, a cellist. He told me when he was in 8th grade that when he grew up he was going to play for the Chicago symphony. I told him it was a great dream but it was the same as my kids at school who tell me when they grow up they are going to play for the Green Bay Packers. His response - “I know, Mom, but someone has to play for the symphony and it is might as well be me!” We found whatever opportunities we could for him in our community. He went to Eastman for undergrad and Mannes for his MM. He always knew he would never be a soloist, but he also began to discover that playing in the orchestra was not really what he wanted. And he started to explore other areas of music besides classical. </p>
<p>He wanted to go to a high level conservatory because he wanted to be pushed. He wanted to be playing with the best of the best and he wanted to study with a teacher who would help him reach new heights. I don’t think he saw conservatory as a means to end, but rather as a way to help him on his journey to become the best that HE could become. He almost always measures himself against himself, not so much against others. </p>
<p>He finished his MM last May. He is still in NYC and doing free-lance. He will play anything - classical, jazz, hip-hop, country, metal, - if it needs a cellist, he’s your guy. He plays for churches, rock bands, modern dance groups, and recording artists. He hustles and make contacts where ever he can. When he isn’t making enough money he busks in Central Park or the subway. </p>
<p>He will succeed for several reasons, which are things that will help most musicians:
Versatility - He is willing to try different things. Music is music. He doesn’t put classical on a pedestal and refuse to explore other things.
Arranging - he is honing his arranging skills. When someone wants a cello they don’t always know how to best fit it in. He can take the music and apply it to the strengths of his instrument.
Professionalism - He tells me it is amazing how often people show up late, drunk, or unprepared for rehearsals and concerts. His classical training has taught him how to be a professional.
Ability to work with others - Being a prima dona is not going to work. All music is a collaboration. Even if you are performing alone on the stage, you are collaborating with the audience. </p>
<p>Those who truly love music will find ways to do it. What forces them out, often, is economic necessity. My son is young and has no responsibilities so he can afford to try and make his dream. I don’t think that music conservatories are necessarily outdated, but they need to help students learn how to view many genres of music, work with others, and above all be flexible.</p>
<p>I say a loud BRAVA to Shennie’s post! Excellent all the way around (and so true ;))! Congrats and best of continued luck to your son. Versatility and flexibility are absolutely the keys!</p>
<p>Shennie-</p>
<p>Nice post, and thanks for sharing your story. I think that with music kids are going to have to be flexible, but not only that, are going to have to be all around musicians, who not only can play their instrument well, but also know the music (of all types), understand it and truly want to be part of it. One of the things I am seeing in my son’s pre college program is that most of the kids in it, while accomplished in their instrument, see things like music theory, ear training and for many of them, orchestra or chamber music, as an impediment, something to get through, something they frankly don’t seem to care about.</p>
<p>And actually, if you read the posts about conservatories, note the one thing they have in common, everything comes from the audition. When you got to ‘real’ college, they look at cv’s, they interview the kids, to see if they think they would be a fit at the program. </p>
<p>With conservatory, it looks like you go, play for X minutes, and if judged technically good enough (maybe with musicality thrown in), and some teacher wants you, you are in…and that doesn’t bode well for finding kids who truly love the music, who really want to do that, it encourages much the same kids I am seeing at the pre college level, who are incredibly virtuoustic but if you asked them to sight read a piece (another handy skill), or asked them to try a jazz piece, or explain the piece they are playing, they would sit there and stare at you (which among other things, means the admissions can be gamed…if you work on your repertoire for the audition for several years, and lazer focus on that, of course you can play it brilliantly; but does that mean you are a good musician, someone who can adapt, who can learn a new piece easily, interpret it, etc?). Where is looking to see if the kid can work with others in a group? Where is the interest in the music, or that music is more then a series of steps, of repertoire to be learned? I have attended high level master classes sitting in with my son, with kids from top conservatories working with well known performers, and you can tell the performer is ****ed when they, for example, ask the kid in the class to sing the section, and they can’t do it, or if they ask them about the piece and the composer, they may be able to tell the teacher what key it is in, but they know nothing about the composer or his/her style…</p>
<p>For years they have been hitting kids about being ‘well rounded’ as important to succes, well, with music I firmly believe that is true as well. I am not saying that conservatories shouldn’t rely on auditions, that would be ridiculous, but maybe the nature of the process has to be added to and changed, to meet the times. If someone is going to be a soloist, they are going to have to spend a lot of time not only self promoting (the days of Sol Hurok are long over, as are the big record companies), they also are going to have to find venues to play (and I am using words around classical music, but take a look at Jazz, rock, pop, whatever, all of them have the same problem, recordings are declining, record companies are declining). More importantly, they are going to have to find ways to attract an audience and find a base of other musicians they can work with. A kid who understands the music, understands the theory, as with Shenn’s son can be flexible, I have seen my son step in with experienced, professional musicians at an open mike night playing Jazz or popular standards or country pieces or whatever, and despite being trained in classical music, he can step in and play with them, improvise with them, and so forth. </p>
<p>If kids are going to make it into music, in other words, they are going to need to be total musicians, to understand the music, and also very resourceful and easy to work with. The major orchestras haven’t quite caught up to this yet, they are facing audiences that for the most part are beyond elderly, they are way up there in age for the most part (I am a baby comparitively, in late middle age). There are performers who do appeal to younger audiences, when I have seen Joshua Bell performing, the average is a lot younger, and Lang Lang, if more for his fireworks and stage act, draws younger people as well (critics love to blast him for that, but maybe they should look at an audience that is going to be around for a while). That is not a coincidence, Bell has done a lot of un-classical things that have made a name for himself, he has played with fiddlers (who he said were the most demanding musicians he ever worked with), he has created cd’s of movements from famous violin concertos that have sold a millons CD’s and download albums, he is interviewed a lot, and so forth. And he has a charm and stage presence, which despite what critics claim isn’t important, is. The kid playing hotshot violin, with all the technical fire, who can’t connect with the audience, whose playing is like listening to any generic cd playing the same way each time, with no understanding, just isn’t going to cut it on the solo stage, and even more so if they try to go the route of alternative music path and so forth. </p>
<p>And I know a lot of working musicians here in NYC, people who are involved running the programs my son is in, teaching, etc, and they, if not rich, are doing okay for themselves, and it is because they network, know people, so when a fill in at the met comes up, or a gig playing with a rock band, or a broadway pit, or the like, they get the calls from others. These are talented musicians, some of whom might in fact be better then compatriots in the met or ny phil, but make a living through a different path. And many of them have come out of Juilliard, NEC, etc, some of them teach there as one of the things they do, and they have said the same thing, a lot of these kids are going to die out there because they dont’ have a clue, and because of all the years of being told how great they were, that they were soloist material, etc, or so good a great orchestra will take them, that they lack the very skills they may need, including getting along with people, checking their ego and actually working at the music, rather then their instrument.</p>