importance of quality of facilities? really, now...

<p>It has become apparent to me through reading many of these threads that so many of you put a huge amount of emphasis on the music facilities, and I'm specifically writing about Northwestern's.</p>

<p>When I visited NU/auditioned in Feb., I toured the buildings. Instead of seeing old, beat-up buildings that don't have shiny things and newly polished floors, I saw a building filled with history in which many of the greatest walked. The facilities were old, yes, but nothing about them was run-down, embarrassing, or detrimental to an education. In fact, the knowledge of being in such a wonderful building was inspiring and the sign of years of learning and efforts. New England Conservatory was the same way for me-I loved it.</p>

<p>I'm really just curious to know how many of you place emphasis on modern, new music facilities and classrooms and why this is so important to you. I'm open to any new ideas, observations, etc.</p>

<p>They're nice to have...but not essential. However, I could see how someone might place a great deal of importance in facilities, given how much time music majors must spend in them, practicing, rehearsing, going to classes...</p>

<p>When my son visited the music schools to which he had been admitted, he wasn't so much concerned with how new the facilities were, but how good they were. In other words, did auditoriums produce good sound, were practice rooms big enough and built right so you got a full sound when practicing, etc.? And were there enough practice rooms so he wouldn't have to wait to practice? He didn't really care about what classrooms looked like.</p>

<p>Since he didn't get into either Northwestern or NEC, he never visited them, so I don't know what he would have thought...</p>

<p>I'm a student at NEC. The facilities are not the greatest, but they do serve their purpose. I also don't understand people who make facilities a high priority, especially when considering music schools. Older facilities indicate that the school is probably placing what money it does have in areas like faculty and education quality rather than physical appearance. That is certainly the case with NEC, and I think they're making the correct choice. I remind everyone that NEC is not a wealthy institution and it never has been. If the school one day has the money to maintain its standard AND make the buildings look like those at Rice, Yale, etc., they will no doubt do so. Until that time, I'd rather get a good education.</p>

<p>The NEC practise room I used before my audition has an absolutely horrible Steinway baby grand in it - I just can't imagine myself practising on that piano for four years... I would much, much prefer my little Yamaha upright. So, yes, that is one of the reasons that turn my feeling against NEC. </p>

<p>One of my friends, who is a string player, auditioned at Northwestern (and got in). Northwestern was his undoubted first choice, but he immediately decided not never to go there after he saw the practise rooms. According to him, the string practise rooms are constantly disturbed by the percussion practise rooms, which apparently are far from as sound isolated as he wanted.</p>

<p>Just like anything else, if someone has equal feelings about faculty and institution, facilities may make the opinion favor a place with the better facilities.</p>

<p>Of all the schools we visited (NW, Oberlin, IU, Juilliard, MSM, Peabody, Lawrence, Eastman), NW was definitely the most shabby across the board. DD spent summer after junior year at NHSMI there, so we have "intimate" knowledge. NW has been claiming to have a new music building "on the drawing board," but we've been hearing that for 2 years. It's definitely the "lost sheep" of all the buildings on the Evanston campus, most of which are truly state of the art and well-maintained. </p>

<p>When a large, well-endowed school like NW lets a particular facility decline, you have to really question it's commitment to said program. If that building was part of the sports program at NW, it would have been torn-down and rebuilt years ago. I'm afraid that until the building is condemned, it will still be the home of the music program. BTW, the practice facility on the lake is going downhill too, even though it's a much newer building. Seems that after it was built, they have not been too vigilant in it's upkeep.</p>

<p>OK. So here's the scoop on NU. I very much disagree that the facilities are not cared for. My current high school piano teacher taught there for many years since the 60s. She said that there were plans then-lol. But the issue as someone said about NEC is that it's all in your priorities. The performing facilities do produce great sound there, etc., and I found the practice rooms very adequate and the pianos ABSOLUTELY INCREDIBLE. And I went through a lot of them looking for the best ones. They were all steinways, yes, and all when i were there were in very good condition. </p>

<p>And to be honest, my piano teacher said that most of the faculty did not want a new building. They placed tremendous value in the old one.</p>

<p>And by the way, it is far from ever needing to be condemned.</p>

<p>I just seem to look at this from a different angle. Does anyone actually agree?</p>

<p>We toured NU this summer. What my daughter had been most concerned with were the condition and the quality of the pianos in the pracitice rooms. And we found those in NU just shameful! We just couldn't comprehend how the self-respecting School of Music could have such pianos - cheapest, "wooden-sounded" stuff, something we wouldn't consider renting even for kindergartener starting piano lessons! I can understand how any other aspects of "facilities" (like the quality of the building, size of the rooms) might be "unimortant" for the future musicians, but the quality of instruments ... So, my daughter, who considered double-majoring in Music Theory/Cognition at NU, crossed this school out of her list just after trying out their pianos. :-(</p>

<p>bkb1958: You have to ask yourself why you are seeking approval from others on your decision to attend a particular institution? It seems that you've decided that NU is the right fit for you. That is wonderful and all of us here wish you all the luck in the world. It is a wonderful, well-regarded program so comments by others on the condition of the music building shouldn't bother you.</p>

<p>That being said, there is no doubt that NU's music building is "long in the tooth." I never said the building needed to be condemned; I was just commenting that since it's "going to be replaced in a couple of years" for the past 60 years, it will probably take a threat of condemnation for the University's capital planners to actually build a new building.</p>

<p>Don't worry about what others think. If NU is your dream, then fufill it!</p>

<p>Actually, I'd like to clarify the fact that I never said I was even attending Northwestern. That is irrelevant to this discussion. The original question remains as to how important this is to you or do you see it as a symbol of "the greats" and a quality education? </p>

<p>I also never said that you said it needed to be condemned. I simply said it was far from that point to justify the fact that it is in far from dangerous conditions.</p>

<p>I don't have to justify anything to anyone-I really don't care what anyone thinks of my college choice. I am not one of the "prestige whores" referred to so often on this website, although I do consider my college choice to be of the highest quality. I am very confident with my decision and myself.</p>

<p>So again, I will copy my original question: "I'm really just curious to know how many of you place emphasis on modern, new music facilities and classrooms and why this is so important to you. I'm open to any new ideas, observations, etc."</p>

<p>I really liked the music castle at Vassar. It is not included on the usual tour, but it is really worth a visit. The music castle is not new and not modern, but very charming. Obviously, facilities need to be adequate and functional. No one wants to spend their time in a dirty, depressing place so I think it is also hard to overlook the general appearance and housekeeping.</p>

<p>I am curious that one poster describes the excellent Steinways at NU, and another poster said they had cheap "wooden sounding"ones. Which is it?</p>

<p>My son wouldn't consider a school without very high quality practice pianos. While the rest of the school can be run down, the performance and practice spaces have to be up to par.</p>

<p>i audtitioned in february. my sister and i both went-both us of accomplished pianists(she more than i). we were both extremely impressed with the steinways. we are so picky we went from room to room testing them all and were amazed that NONE of the ones we saw were subpar. but i also can't swear to the fact that i saw every single one of them.
i don't think you will have a problem with them. let me know if you have any questions
btw-just as another note in reply to another, nothing at all is dirty or dingy about NU. just old. and so colorful(to me:))...</p>

<p>My daughter thought the Northwestern music school was a dump. It went from the top of her list to completely off the list after her visit. I think facilities are important for several reasons. As noted above, new v. old isn't the issue. The issue is whether what exists is workable and well-maintained. There have to be enough practice rooms and the rooms have to be relatively quiet inside. Performance facilities have to be acoustically good. Props and facilities for opera productions have to be good. (Indiana won on this one).
Good facilities can show a university's commitment to the program and also helps in attracting faculty.</p>

<p>I went to NU a thousand years ago, and the music school was a dump already then. I am not even taking my own son to look at it, because I always felt that sports were the top priority and music and arts got the short shrift.</p>

<p>It occurred to me that when my son attended an information session at NU last summer, we were not offered a tour. Maybe this is why? What we did see was pretty depressing, come to think of it.</p>

<p>DS's number one criteria for his music studies in college was the private teacher. He also wanted to be in a metro area where there were many opportunities to perform and attend concerts. He made an excellent choice. If he had been choosing based on the facilities, he would not have chosen Boston University. He spent a week at a master class at Northwestern this summer and again very much liked the faculty. He didn't make one comment about the facilities....not as important to him as the faculty and location.</p>

<p>thumper1...what is your son majoring in? What about your daughter?</p>

<p>-Allmusic- ,</p>

<p>
[quote]
am curious that one poster describes the excellent Steinways at NU, and another poster said they had cheap "wooden sounding"ones. Which is it?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I can't say for sure whether ot not Steinways are present at NU ... but we didn't see them. ;-) We asked the lady who led the music info session where could we check up some practice rooms; she sent us to the music building near the lake. We found quite a few open practice rooms there and our daughter went onto each of them and tried to play a bit ... then came back to us completely outraged. ;-)</p>

<p>first-thank you thumper1 for your comment. i think it says a lot about your son and his maturity to his evaluation of the school on a different level.</p>

<p>myau-i was in the main music building(music administration building). i went in most of the rooms there and did see the steinways. so no more discrepancy there. however, i didn't go into the other building, so i don't know. i do know MAB is for pianists, vocalists, lessons with those, and others who need top-notch pianos. now if you're a flautist and don't need one as much, maybe you are sent out there. i don't know. but anyway, the point is, if a good piano is needed, there is an over-abundance of excellent ones.</p>