instruments versus schools vs careers

<p>My purpose in creating this thread is to try and tie together information people ask routinely (at least from my reading of other threads) that might be helpful to people trying to navigate the music 'game'. I am not claiming any kind of expertise, just wanted to share what I have picked up so far, from my son's journey (he is still way away from issues of conservatories and so forth) and from the various musical kids/families we have been around. I also hope to pick up pointers from others, so of course it is selfish!</p>

<p>1)Does what instrument you play shape how your options/career unfolds? I have found it does (I know for some of you, this is obvious). Instruments are like anything else, they are a matter of supply and demand, as well as issues of quality. So, for example, someone decent on an instrument like the bassoon or the oboe/english horn or viola, for example, may not have to be as proficient as someone on other instruments, and because relatively few people end up on these instruments (in relative terms) it can make finding jobs later a bit easier in some ways (though, for example, there isn't a great deal of work for solo oboists or bassoonists, so your options are limited to chamber music and orchestra/band/wind ensemble for the most part, which cuts down the opportunities). A music program that needs bassoonists is going to be more favored towards a bassoonist as opposed to a violinist where there are 200 kids trying out for 10 spots, and especially where it comes to scholarships and such. (A friend of ours daughter is a bassoonist,a good one, and she got a 100% scholarship to a good music program on merit, while another famiy's son we heard through the girl's family, was a really talented violinist, didn't get any merit scholarship from the same school [he wasn't crying..I think he went to Curtis). </p>

<p>Obviously, it would be silly to play an instrument you don't love because it is 'easier', but it does make a difference. </p>

<p>2)How about music schools/conservatories/majoring in music, does that matter? Probably the question I am least qualified to answer, but what the heck (take it with a pound of salt). Most of my knowledge here comes from observing and talking to music students and some professional musicians at all levels I know.</p>

<p>The answer is yes and no (nice and clear, isn't it?). It really depends on what the student is focusing on, or expects to be doing. If they are a performance major, a lot of the time what seems to matter (hint; seems, not sure) is the teachers in the particular instrument more then the school itself. Obviously, school life, facilities and such make a difference, but you can go to a school with a shining auditorium and great practice rooms, but find the faculty is incompatible or so so. Getting to know the faculty is important, as is attending performances at the school if at all possible and talking to alumi as well. </p>

<p>And of course, the faculty and the schools reputation can help with certain things, like networking and getting jobs. Students coming out of Juiliard might be able to get a teaching position easier because that is on their cv, and by being at Juiliard they might be able to make contacts easier with a manager or find out of an opening in an orchestra more quickly then someone at another place. However, coming from a name school may help you find the audition, but if you are a so so player, it won't help you land the job, and if it is a blind audition, then where you went to school only might help if there is indecision between two players and the resume ends up being used (I have heard of that a few times in my talks with people). </p>

<p>Another point to consider is that great players have come our of relatively obscure conservatories or schools..and obviously, if someone is already a world class player like Yo Yo Ma as a teenager, then odds are it won't matter (Yo Yo ma went to Harvard, but didn't major in music at all). </p>

<p>And again, what instrument the person plays and what their intentions are matters and comes into play. If someone is playing an instrument that is on track for seeking an orchestra job, then being a decent player through high school and going to conservatory or college majoring in music is a sensible path (and I use orchestra as an example, same for Jazz musicians, pop musicians, etc).</p>

<p>If someone is talented in something like vocal music and aspires to an opera career, or something like wanting to be a violin or piano soloist, it becomes a different story. Like ballet, certain aspects of music seem to demand early dedication to get into the high level (the violin is a classic example)...the people who end up as soloists, or high level orchestra players in top orchestras, generally are not people who 'get serious' in college, it takes dedication much younger and working at a high level, whereas the same thing might not be true in other areas of music, someone might end up as a high level horn player or percussionist who 'got serious' in college. </p>

<p>And again, what school you choose will probably be related to the instrument and what you want to do with it. If you are planning to become a violin teacher at a high level, then a Juiliard or NEC might be a better option, but if you think you are good enough to be a soloist on the violin, a place like Curtis might be a better option, based on the program and what works for you (and I use those as hypothetical examples, I am not touting either Curtis or Juilliard as the best, just an example from the top of my head).</p>

<p>One thing I firmly have come to believe is that there is no one right path, there are a lot of kids who get into a 'premiere' conservatory like Juilliard and either never end up going into music, or end up with a fairly low level career, whereas someone else goes to a relatively no name school, or no conservatory at all, and ends up a premiere soloist or orchestra player. In the end, what someone is able to do with music from what I can gather comes down to a few things, dedication to the instrument or music itself (to the point of single mindedness in many cases), finding the right teachers and contacts, and in the end having that something that orchestras or audiences "want" (put it this way, being in the violin world, I have heard a ton of young violinists, who are probably as close to technical perfection as you could want to see, that would be as interesting to watch perform as watching the grass grow, because there was no musicality and no passion or stage presence). </p>

<p>And to really throw a monkey wrench in things, I will say that sometimes a high level program may be a detriment for some aspiring music students/musicians as opposed to perhaps a music program on a non conservatory basis. Based on the little bit I have seen, I have seen kids who were unsure of themselves, who were good enough to get into a high level place like Juilliard, and then because they weren't totally sure of themselves kind of got overwhelmed; in an atmosphere like Juilliard, where everyone is at a fairly high level, at least by reputation, there may not be as much room for someone to question themselves, whereas perhaps by going to a music program at a college, they find their footing and can shine (and if they are really good or really have the pull, go for grad work at a place like Juilliard)....</p>

<p>And even the great conservatories are not good in all things, and often have a reputation because they have been around a long time and have a ton of alumni out there they can point to, but may not necessarily be doing anything good in the area you are in.</p>

<p>And my opinion, like with regular college, is that someone who really loves music, has the talent and the determination, will find their path and their role, no matter what path they take, even if it isn't in 'one of the top conservatories' or whatever; it may be a different path, or more difficult, but I suspect with music that if the person really loves it, they will find their way:)</p>

<p>Sorry for the long post, and what do others think? (and if this ends up on the bone pile, I can understand it...I don't post short)</p>

<p>"So, for example, someone decent on an instrument like the bassoon or the oboe/english horn or viola, for example, may not have to be as proficient as someone on other instruments, and because relatively few people end up on these instruments (in relative terms) it can make finding jobs later a bit easier in some ways"</p>

<p>Woah woah woah! Hold the horses!</p>

<p>Be very careful if this is advice you're trying to pass down to students! No musician, at any level, would be well off if they truly believe that by picking a "harder" instrument with "less competition" can they get away with being "less proficient".</p>

<p>I guarantee you, the guys in the music world making livings performing, have each given 110%, and your comments might just come off as straight out offensive to those bassoon, oboe, english horn, and viola players out there.</p>

<p>If you feel like people who play these instruments have easier times finding jobs, I recommend you actually go try talking to one of them first.</p>

<p>I also take exception to the idea that violists can be less talented than those playing other instruments. After endless visits to music schools last summer, fall and winter for "lessons" and auditions with my newly enrolled viola performance major D, I can personally tell you that there is no shortage of talented violists.</p>

<p>One quick true story - </p>

<p>My viola D, my wife and I were returning home from a college audition in February. My D's viola case straps to her back, and we were standing in line waiting to board the plane. </p>

<p>There are two guys standing behind us. One of the two says "Is that a viola?" My D responds with a yes. He then tells us that his associate is a big cheese with Yamaha Music. </p>

<p>The associate introduces himself, looks at my viola performance wannabe D and says, "Do you know what four instruments are in a string quartet?" He answers his own question - "One cello, two good violinists and one bad violinist." I couldn't believe it. The three of us just stood there staring at the guy.</p>

<p>My D is not the overly sensitive type, and I'm not sure Yamaha strings are much good after the 4th grade, but Yamaha products are not likely to be near the top of her list ever again.</p>

<p>Mr. Yamaha might do well to consider that true musicians on any instrument work very hard to perfect their skills. There are brilliant violinists, cellists and horn players, but there are also brilliant violists, oboeists (sp?) and bassonists. It takes talented players on each instrument to make a good symphony orchestra, chamber orchestra or chamber group.</p>

<p>Any budding artist will have (I would hope) the desire to be passionate about his art--this really goes with the territory. So, that means not being cynical about "choosing" a passion! I hear what the OP is saying about certain instruments being sought after. A baritone sax player is like gold to a jazz program! But, that bari sax player would have to be good nonetheless. I don't believe the conservatories and music schools are cynical enough to not look for those kids with a real sense of artistry.</p>

<p>Frankly, there are a number of other suspect ideas in the post. Musicprnt, I'm not trying to ridicule you or invalidate your thoughts, but many things you mention are just flat out NOT good objective advice.</p>

<p>Yes, at a top school in any given year, there might be 200 violinists auditioning for 10 spots. But there might also be 20 bassoonists auditioning for 1 single spot! Out in the "real world", there might be 500 violinists trying to audition for a good paying orchestra job. But if you're a tubist or harpist or whatever, you might have to go through 3-4 year stretches of time where there won't even be a single job open in any full-time wage paying orchestra!!!!!</p>

<p>I don't understand how you reached your reasoning that Juilliard and NEC will prepare one to be a good violin teacher, while Curtis will prepare one to be a good violin soloist. To me, they're essentially the same school. That is, high level conservatories that produce very talented graduates in the very narrow field of performance or composition of western art music. Juilliard and NEC also have fine jazz reputations as well.</p>

<p>Lots of young people make the mistake of thinking that the name of their alma mater matters in this business. You mention that students coming out of Juiliard might be able to get a teaching position easier because that is on their CV. This statement is very unsupported. Musicians obtain positions for essentially one single reason only. And that is their ability to do the job. Perhaps a Juilliard training might better equip someone well for a position such as high pressure auditions for orchestras, but the musicians will not win anything by being a Juilliard graduate alone.</p>

<p>The bulk of the remaining things you type seem to be quite obvious statements. Of course one school might be better at something than another. Of course there will be exceptions to anything. Of course there is no right path to anything. Of course there will be somebody who majors in one thing and does another. Of course there will be successful musicians who didn't attend a conservatory. Of course not everyone would enjoy being in a conservatory.</p>

<br>


<br>

<p>Well...let's put one other thing on the table. In each orchestra there is usually only ONE bassoon player, maybe two oboe players. There might be less folks actually playing those instruments, but there are far less seats in orchestras for those than say...the strings. </p>

<p>The reality is that to secure a job in an orchestra on ANY instrument, the player must have the drive to persist, and the talent.</p>

<p>Nah, at least two bassoon players, often 3 with a contrabassoon. Two oboists, often plus an English Hornist. </p>

<p>Not to negate the rest of what you say...You're absolutely right. I think most musicians couldn't imagine doing anything else...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Instruments are like anything else, they are a matter of supply and demand, as well as issues of quality. ...someone decent on an instrument like the bassoon or the oboe/english horn or viola, for example, may not have to be as proficient as someone on other instruments...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Bunk. Balderdash. Wishful thinking. Grossly wrong. At the professional level, forget proficiency. It's way beyond that. It's mastery, for all instruments. Even bagpipers and didgerdoo players.</p>

<p>There is such a minute degree of seperation of artistic and technical mastery between musicians at that this level across all instruments that any number of unemployed/underemployed players could switch with chairholders and there would be no qualatative differences.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Students coming out of Juiliard might be able to get a teaching position easier because that is on their cv, and by being at Juiliard they might be able to make contacts easier with a manager or find out of an opening in an orchestra more quickly then someone at another place.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The orchestral listings are openly available to all through any number of published sources, internet sites and college/conservatory listings. The smart go getter knows where they all are. Opportunities are often constrained by having funds to get to an audition. Now, if you are lucky to have a patron, you have a better shot than many.</p>

<p>A call or email from a teacher, contact pro might get you an audition spot, but not the JOB, 999 times out of 1000.
Yes, nepotism exists. But contacts do help. It's the network. The smart aspirant builds one, and looks for opprtunity to get himself out there. Some work, like pit, session, ensemble jobs are indeed more contact based than orchestral chair positions.</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you are planning to become a violin teacher at a high level, then a Juiliard or NEC might be a better option...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Potentially. You also need to have achieved a high level of performance or established your credentials training students that reflect your abilities as an instructor/pedagog somewhere. And that's as an adjunct at Podunk U, mid level State, and a few "lesser" music schools.</p>

<p>Being a TA for Karen Tuttle or Perlman will not establish you as a qualified, consistent producer of exceptional talent.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And my opinion, like with regular college, is that someone who really loves music, has the talent and the determination, will find their path and their role, no matter what path they take, even if it isn't in 'one of the top conservatories' or whatever; it may be a different path, or more difficult, but I suspect with music that if the person really loves it, they will find their way

[/quote]
</p>

<p>In general, I agree with that statement.</p>

<p>musicprnt, I don't think your intent was to open a can of worms, but I think you might have tried to cover too much. A few word choices might have pushed some hot buttons.</p>

<p>And I'm not even gonna touch the viola. It's not my style to "tear somebody a new one" so, I'll just go to bed. It's late. I'm tired. :)</p>

<p>othermusicdad, my son's favorite t-shirts reads:</p>

<p>"Violinists think they're sooooo good.
We have half the notes to play as they do.
We get paid the same scale.
YOU tell me who's smarter."</p>

<p>The music world starts off with millions of kids who play instruments in high school. By college and conservatory age, there are still tens of thousands of kids involved. There are many thousands more who complete graduate music training. Very few will succeed in careers as performing musicians. Anyone who thinks they can somehow beat the odds by selecting the right instrument just doesn't have any appreciation for the hard work and dedication needed. I can't even try to consider some of the other objects in the OP's "bone pile."</p>

<p>I first of all want to apologize if I came off as saying that someone easily can play any instrument and get professional jobs, that wasn't my point, and especially not at a professional level. I did try to mention that for bassoonists and tubists and such, that in their case their opportunities were more limited, since as others have pointed out there are very few of them in any orchestra (1 tubist, couple of bassoons, etc, as versus more then a few violins, cellos, violas).</p>

<p>As far as the viola goes, I was not casting aspersions on it, there are enough people doing that out there. My comments were aimed more at before professional level, not at that level. Unless what people are telling me is wrong, for every viola player there are many multiples of that playing the violin, and in admission for pre college and even college programs every indication I have is that because of that, it is often easier to get admitted on the viola. One specific example I have, one of my son's first violin teachers tried to get into Juilliard college as a violinist, failed, taught herself the viola and with basically the same skillset, got in on viola. And for a direct fact, I know that in Juilliards pre college program that it is easier to get in on viola, they are looking for them and they don't get that many applicants. This year my son tried out for pre college on the violin, and his teacher had other students trying out, including a girl on the viola. The girl was a decent player, nothing extraordinary, but she got in...another student of my son's teacher (on violin), is an incredible player, but didn't get in, because of the limited slots available and the competition....and friends of my son are in their pre college program as brass players, and even they admit that comparitively that they had/have a much easier time then violinists do, simply because the competitition for whatever reason is much less (that is another story).</p>

<p>My real point was not to demean any instrument or player thereof, I have the utmost respect for kids who have the passion and the dedication to devote the hours they do to trying to achieve this as a vocation and avocation, along with the parents who if they are like me, are often looking at this crazy world and (silently) saying "you want to do this? ", given the arduous prep and the difficult path and lack of rewards, rarely does any field have people who work so hard and get so shafted a lot of the time....and I also think I said that someone choosing an instrument for a perceived advantage, rather then passion, is fooling themselves as others pointed out, especially once out there trying to 'make it' so to speak. </p>

<p>I was aiming more at colleges, and in how to determine where to head, and saying there was no golden rule. For example, there have been a lot of articles written in music magazines that for people who play certain instruments, like the bassoon or oboe or whatnot, that aren't as popular, that they may find it easier to get a scholarship since schools often are looking for instruments like that, whereas a violinist might get admitted but because they have a large pool to choose from, don't give scholarships (I didn't write this stuff, it is out there). Someone obviously needs to be an excellent musician on the instrument, it just gives an advantage, whereas in the professional world the relative lack of oboists (compared to strings) is outweighed by the relative lack of need compared to the number of string positions..</p>

<p>The point I really was trying to make is that there is no one path to success, that it may seem like there is some magic rule (got to Juilliard, get a degree, you are in like flint..50% of Juilliard music majors don't go into music, and the other half mostly find it as much as a battle as others). And in performing, because it is blind audition, the school doesn't matter, as others pointed out.</p>

<p>Where I commented on NEC and Juilliard as being 'better' if you want to be a music teacher, that was based on what I see out in the world, and it is not unlike other professions. Yes, the a bad teacher with a Juilliard degree or Indiana or NEC is going to find in the end that they dont' go far, whereas someone with a degree from someplace not as 'exalted' might turn into gold. However, with teaching positions where the NEC's and Juilliards and such do help IMO is not unlike with 'real' colleges i.e they can help someone get a foothold on a job. It is not unlike having an Ivy league college on ones resume, that can make a difference in an early career (and in certain fields, like investment banking, a tremendous one), Juilliard and NEC et al have name recognition that can help open doors in the beginning (put it this way, I have seen faculty at local music schools that talk about having "juilliard trained teachers', and have seen college web pages that prominently highlight the schools where teachers went to an NEC, a Juilliard, Indiana, etc.....so it does hold some weight, if not they wouldn't make a big deal about it (is it justified? that is another story).</p>

<p>In the end, what gets someone a position in music generally comes down to talent, perserverence, obstinance, refusal to fail and in many cases, a lot of luck, being in the right place at the right time. With soloists, it is even more difficult, because what causes a soloist to 'tick' is even more mysterious....</p>

<p>In any event, I didn't want to open a can of worms, my point was to try and illustrate that how a career plays out is subject to a lot of forces, and that there is no right path or magical path that if you follow it you will succeed, and if you don't you wont. I also was hoping people would share their thoughts, all this is simply my (admittedly limited) view based on a small world.</p>

<p>My daughter is a very accomplished oboe and English horn player. She was at the top of the state for two years, and played in a youth orchestra and wind ensemble. She is regularly asked to substitute with very little notice (she is an excellent sight reader as well) for things like pit orchestras. She owns her own very high quality, professional level instruments, and she still takes private lessons, and one of her criteria was that the college she attended have an orchestra...and yes, she plays in that orchestra (she is not a music major and her school does not have a particularly strong music major or program). </p>

<p>I want to say emphatically...that she plays the oboe and English horn did not help her ONE BIT in the college admissions or scholarship hunt. She does get an (very small) orchestral scholarship for each term for her participation in the orchestra.</p>

<p>Yes, there are more violinists, so there is definitely more competition to get into pre-college programs. However, there are more violin slots in orchestras, so one could use the same logic to say that it is easier to get a professional job as an orchestral violinist than as a bassoonist, oboist or French horn player. Also, the latter are usually solo instruments, even in an orchestral setting, so one could argue that their skill set has to be even higher than that of someone sitting in the second violin section. And pity the poor tuba player...yes, they get admitted to the pre-college programs more easily than violinist because not a lot of kids play the tuba. Then they graduate from conservatory and 200 show up to the few and far between orchestral auditions all vying FOR ONE SPOT. The competition is always difficult, the odds always high and the factors of luck and timing always present. And, at the end of the day, when one has that prized chair in the Chicago Symphony, one is still subject to the stresses of performance, travel, an unusual schedule and a salary that doesn't match those of NBA players for sure!
I agree that there is no magic way to "make it" in music. But choosing the bassoon instead of the violin may look like an easier route from the perspective of a high school parent...it is absolutely not once those musicians are out auditioning for jobs.</p>

<p>Ultimately, choosing an instrument to play at a high level is never about strategy. Because of all the time one needs to spend to become highly proficient it has to because you love the instrument and the repertoire. You have to passionate about your instrument. </p>

<p>I know a young man who is currently doing his MM at Rice on violin. He played the viola for my son's quartet in high school. He was really good on the viola, but he didn't like it. He was strongly encouraged to switch, but he just didn't like the instrument and quit playing it as soon as he got to college. On the other hand, a highly regarded violinist at my son's high school, started playing the viola and fell in love with it. She loved the sound of the instrument and enjoys the rep. She is currently at Curtis. Both of these young people are highly talented but have the most success with the instruments that they love. My own son is also highly talented but he would probably give up music before he would switch instruments.</p>

<p>I inadverently posted an incomplete post.</p>

<p>In a nutshell, not every school or instructor is right for everyone.</p>

<p>There are many variables involved in the selection.</p>

<p>For most, positioning a career based on an instrument choice is not normally a viable option, due to resources or prior instrument skill level. It may be an option for a relatively small pool of applicants aspiring to a high level.</p>

<p>
[quote]
In the end, what gets someone a position in music generally comes down to talent, perserverence, obstinance, refusal to fail and in many cases, a lot of luck, being in the right place at the right time. With soloists, it is even more difficult, because what causes a soloist to 'tick' is even more mysterious....

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I agree wholeheartedly with that assessment.</p>

<p>In response to thumper1's post:
My sister was an oboist in high school. She was not an especially good one, but because she played the oboe was admitted into a closed degree program at a prestigious university. All she had to do was play in the school orchestra all four years. It can (on rare occasions) be a help to play an unusual instrument. It won't hurt to ask, I don't think...</p>

<p>Every school is different, a school with a not particularly top level music program may not offer much aid to students, or it may not offer much in the way of scholarships to those who don't major in music, there is no way to know. </p>

<p>I also know someone who is a dedicated bassoonist who got a nice scholarshop package on merit from a school with a strong music program, while when she applied to some top schools (I think NEC and Juilliard) she was accepted, but got absolutely no scholarships, even though both told her she was probably already the best bassoonist they had (other schools offer aid only on an as need basis), it really depends on the school and the timing as well as other things. I believe the NY times not long ago had a long article about that, and other music magazines have said the same thing. </p>

<p>Again, my point is simply that what path a student takes is not a fixed thing, there is no magic bullet, and choices can be based on what works based on particular circumstances. For example, the girl I talked about went to the school she did because they gave her a really nice package, on top of liking the school itself, and turned down technically more 'prestigious' schools who didn't offer her anything...and she will probaly go far, she is very, very obsessed:)</p>

<p>And I agree, if you don't love the instrument, I don't know how someone could go through this, and to reiterate I wasn't saying someone should pick an instrument because they think it is 'easier' to go down the path with, musicians are not interchangeable, and passions are generally specific (I suspect my son would not take lightly to being told to switch from violin, a youth symphony director kept trying to get him to do it, and he told her no way in spades...he likes the viola, and probably will learn to play it as well, but violin and specifically the violin he plays is his love:).</p>

<p>Just one more quick note. DS started playing his instrument in 4th grade, and DD started playing hers in 3rd. In both cases, we had NO idea where they would go with their studies AND we certainly weren't thinking about college and potential careers in music.</p>