<p>I see much of this from a different perspective. My son would have loved to "have it all". The thought of studying at Princeton and getting an academic degree while continuing to hone his skills as a cellist sounds great. But then you run into walls. How is a kid from the midwest who studies with an unknown teacher going to find a superior teacher on the east coast? How is son going to pay for college and then add the expense of an NYC teacher at $150 a week? How is son, who didn't start playing until 10 and never studied with a high level teacher going to have enough time to develop his skills as well as do another major? The answer for him was conservatory. He didn't have the advantage of a pre-college program or exceptionally skilled teachers while he was growing up. He made the best of what he had and was accepted into the studio of a highly sought after teacher - one who doesn't teach outside of the conservatory setting. He sometimes played his cello 8-10 hours a day between practicing and rehearsals. His skills increased dramatically in this environment. He is a excellent player and has no doubt about his ability to make a career in the classical world. He won't ever be a star or the principal player of a major orchestra, but he will be able to make a reasonable living doing something he loves. </p>
<p>Vieuxtemps - you have an incredible talent and have access to fabuluos ways to develop that. I hope you appreciate the advantages you have had and the innate talent you seem to have. You also are around lots of other kids similar to yourself so you don't always know the struggles of other students who may have your talent but not your advantages. Lots of kids come from different areas of the country and different backgrounds. I truly don't think son would have advanced nearly as much as he did outside of the conservatory environment. Until students have unfettered access to top teachers outside of the conservatory environment, it is going to be difficult for any but the tippy-top 18 year old players to not major in performance if they want a chance to have a career in classical music. </p>
<p>I would also like to say the above only applies to instrumentalists, NOT vocalists.</p>
<p>I hesitate to get into this, but I have a funny story from my student days (ancient history, sorry) that I’d like to share.</p>
<p>I was sitting mid-semester in an 8 AM theory class at one of the “good” schools discussed here frequently. The PhD prof (apparently a disgruntled performer) suddenly looked at us and said, “Why are you all here? How many of you want performing careers? Let me tell you, my college roommate barely passed any academic class, but she’s now playing the piano all over the world!! I was like all of you – good grades, conscientious, and here I am teaching theory! Get out of here now!”</p>
<p>I didn’t take her at her word, maybe I should have! Nothing like this ever occurred again. To this day, I don’t know what precipitated the outburst. Mid-life crisis??</p>
<p>PS. I've also known teaching collegues to tell their college students to put less emphasis on the academics and more in the practice room....</p>
<p>I come from a third world country, and I don't think I have any more innate talent than any other somewhat gifted young person. The "advantage" I had was a sickness in my stomach and a deathly fear that if I didn't get to the next step I'd fail in life, so to be honest, I created my own advantages. I am lucky in many ways, to have incredible friends and some great family... however, for every great opportunity I've gotten, I've had several crushing failures.</p>
<p>If you're going to try to tell me that a kid in the UNITED STATES cannot go to a decent school (it doesn't have to be Princeton), and cannot find a good teacher (it doesn't have to be Lynn Harrell or Mr. Starker), then I don't have much hope for him. I don't know your son, but I bet he can do it all. In fact, I know he could, it's absolutely possible. Sure, not everyone can go to an ivy league school and study with a world famous teacher, but you can get pretty much the exact same value without as much of the prestige. He might not have the world's most famous teacher for his undergrad, but if he works hard with a very good teacher for 4 years while studying other things, he certainly could get a great teacher. I'm glad he had a good time at a conservatory, and I'm happy it worked out for him.</p>
<p>I just oppose the notion that to be anything in music, that you have to go to conservatory, and I don't like this very PC idea that you're not a well rounded musician if you don't spend 2-3 hours a day doing 4 part harmonies, analysis of Strauss and Wagner Operas, Bach chorals, and clapping out two part rythms from Dalapicula. Yes you have to spend time working on your tools, but great art comes from other places. So many people have said that current conservatories can actually do a lot to hinder the artist in yourself. If you hold yourself up to the standards of not only those playing your instrument, but also to the higher level of thinking and creativity which are evident in other arts, you'll be far better off then just walling yourself up in a conservatory only doing music. If you don't believe me, then consult pretty much any great musician ever. No one cares about any of it. Go read a book Brodsky would tell his students, go to a museum.</p>
<p>Shennie makes some excellent points.
Vieuxtemps, I think you are exaggerating -- there are very few violinists and pianists of the type you describe -- i.e., top talent, who go to Ivy League schools and then become professional musicians. You may be turn out to be one, but you can count them on one hand. Most of the high school age top young violinists and pianists I've seen (at Aspen, for example) will go to conservatories -- for one thing, few have the grades to get into an Ivy League school, and fewer are interested. And most of those who do have the grades and chose to go to a school without a performance program will end up giving up, or modifying, their performance ambitions. Not all. Maybe you will be one of very few. Don't be so quick to disparage those who chose other options.</p>
<p>with all due respect mam, I don't think you can know that many people if you can count on one hand how many people are doing what I describe. In any case, I know who these people are but I won't say their names because they aren't here to speak for themselves. In any case, it's just evidence that you don't need to go the traditional route, and I am not saying you have to go to Princeton. You can go anywhere that there is a great teacher. A lot of good palyers only do artist diploma's precisely to avoid all the tideous and useless music stuff, so now people are considering getting a university education in another field while practicing. It is a trend that will grow, as evidenced by the fact that several of the top "next big things" are doing this, and the fact that universities are getting much better teachers than they used to have.</p>
<p>Vieuxtemps, I think Dallapiccola is the fellow tormenting music students. Unless there is someone else out there......</p>
<p>I do think the teacher is crucial, and not every wonderful teacher is in a conservatory. However, the conservatories have done a better job of finding the best teachers in the areas of strings and piano than in the voice area. But most conservatories are not in the business of fixing and developing voices, more in the business of maturing artists. Unfortunately singers are not ready to take full advantage of that until the rest of it is settled, which takes physical maturity and time. </p>
<p>Strings and keyboard are different, so much training can happen very early. Winds may have some of the maturity issues because of lung size and air control issues....?????? </p>
<p>Every successful artist has a different path. Who is to say if a different path would have worked as well, or which musicians get lost on the path they choose to follow? We will never know.</p>
<p>Vieux, that PC description is over the top, even for me!! </p>
<p>Conservatories and music depts. do vary in their requirements and expectations - if it's a concern for the student, check on the requirements. We contacted theory and admissions depts as well as talking with current students about their course work at various places before S confirmed his first choice acceptance.</p>
<p>I'm all for the idea of young musicians exploring different disciplines, including getting degrees in those fields while studying music (I don't think the Ivy League schools are necessary the optimal place for that, though Harvard and Yale have lots of talented musicians); but I also believe there is inestimable value for performers to know more than the technique they will learn from their practitioner teachers -- to understand the broader historical and theoretical concepts in music. Music theory may well be boring, and it may well be that it isn't all of direct practical value -- neither is studying calculus, but in any of the sciences, that is part of the curriculum. AP theory, the level you get in high school, just won't be enough to pass out of the conservatory/music department requirements, which typically include 2 years of theory and aural training courses.</p>
<p>ok before people get too mad at me I'll just say this;</p>
<p>Conservatories are a tried and true method, I know that. If that's what you're into, being at music camp 24/7, then do it. However, there is a larger world out there, and you can accomplish just as much, and learn a lot more but just having a regular college experience. As I've found out, there are many types of college experiences, but I think it's important for a kid to not always be around people who practice, and it's important to have to deal with "the real world" rather than being insulated for 4 years. </p>
<p>So many great pedagogues and artists have told their pupils that they must be interested in things not music related (well, related in aesthetics). Sure a lot of places require you to take electives outside of music, but why not take it a step further and consider more normal options as a student. The reason I bring up great players going to regular universities is because these trends always start from the top down. If you read books by economists or sociologists, even like "Freakanomics" or "Millenials Rising", (the 2nd one touches on our generation), the way in which we think and do things are evolving considerably from the "tried and true" ways. People no longer go to law school to be a lawyer etc... start thinking outside the box, and to be honest, music is one of the smallest boxes available. Before, musicians would have private tuition with a great teacher, then spend a lot of time reading and being around other artists. It was more cosmopolitan. THAT is how you get broader concepts into people. Talk to the old school guys. They can discuss so much more than what 99% of conservatory kids can. Conservatories are factories, to many people. They don't encourage much independent thought. If that fits your personality, I apologize if I've offended you. However, I hope that one day a kid or a parent might read this, and think to themselves that yea, they love music and want to be in it, but they don't want to miss out on all the other stuff that one might miss out on by being in a conservatory.</p>
<p>Mam says this is a small trend. Well, just wait a few more years. It's getting bigger and bigger. Last time I was at these Aspen/Encore things, all the younger kids were eager to go to a great university, not to Juilliard. Times are changing... and with schools like Yale and Rice and USC having great faculty and good academics, not to mention the considerable social benefits, sports, activities etc... there isn't as much of a need for conservatories.</p>
<p>Mamenyu, I couldn't agree more...I think the reality is that very very few "top talent" musicians manage to survive the Ivy League schools and continue to conservatories and/or careers, but it is true that some exceptions will always prove the rule: Yo-Yo Ma, Gil and Orly Shahan (trying to think of others...), but keep in mind that in many of these exceptional cases, their careers were already launched before they started college; The idea of waiting to go to conservatory for grad school appealed to us (DD and her worried parents) until we had some serious conversations with teachers about the odds of getting into conservatory programs as a grad student in competition with the students who had been in conservatory performance programs for their undergraduate years. One Princeton-grad musician, a well known orchestra player who has recently retired, told us that "those days are over" and that he could never have managed his career in today's competitive world ... both Princeton and the conservatories are so very much more selective (and rigorous) than when he launched his career! The truth is that for instrumentalists, especially orchestra players, being in an undergrad performance program is enormously valuable for many reasons, not the least of which is the opportunity to play with high level peers who are equally serious about their music. DD ultimately chose a dual degree program, which seems to offer the best of both worlds, great academics and great music, but I realize that's not necessarily the best choice for everyone. In fact, I'm sure as Vieuxtemps continues his journey, he will find that obvious choices turn out to be not so obvious, and that there are always more options than one might have imagined in music and in life!</p>
<p>The idea of this being a new idea, i.e., young musicians not going to conservatories and simply studying with a master, is naive -- there is nothing new under the sun of course...
A fair number of the faculty members at places like Juilliard, or in established ensembles, grew up in NY and went to Columbia; they see the limitations of a conservatory-only education, or think they do, because they find that many of their students are not only not knowledgeable about music, but more significantly, don't care to be knowledgeable. They rightly encourage their students to broaden their cultural and intellectual horizons. So, indeed, it is an old idea. It is a lot harder nowadays though. The alma mater of many of these wise teachers, Columbia, is now one of the hardest schools to get into, and once there, students take 5 courses a semester and have little time to devote to practice, let alone travel back and forth to Juilliard (MSM is an easier commute, but only available for Barnard students) -- one pianist, in the C-Juilliard program, recently said in an interview that finding a practice room was like being a homeless person looking for a dumpster. Also, when those around you are not doing what you are doing, and don't even come to your recitals, you might begin to feel a tad isolated. That is why conservatory and dual degree programs are an easier route for performance majors.</p>
<p>To answer violadad's questions, it is my experience that what is typically covered in the first two semesters of college-level theory is useful for pretty much everyone. After that, the material gets a bit more esoteric and is more useful for musicologists, conductors and composers than it would be for performers. There are certainly exceptions for people who want to specialize in particular periods or particular forms of music but, for the general performance major, the latter portions of the required theory courses are kind of like making an aspiring accountant take a second year of calculus. Great mental discipline, highly useful for anyone who wants to become a theoretical economist, but something that someone making a living by preparing corporate tax returns is not going to be using or even thinking about after completing the required classes.</p>
<p>I have a harder time blowing off the music history aspect of things. I think all performers should have a strong appreciation for the music of other times and places, even if they are not going to specialize in them.</p>
<p>I don't have a problem with music history. My problem is with the theory and stuff like that. In any case, music history only tells you about music history and SOME history peripheral to that. In my mind, that's way too little.</p>
<p>Make certain that you don't want to play in ensembles while you are at a regular university, because the level will be very disappointing. As long as it is only solo lessons that a student is seeking, the undergraduate university experience isn't surpassed by the conservatory one. However, for collaborative or ensemble work, it is simply not true that all those high level musicians are playing together in any meaningful way at Harvard, etc. They aren't. Kids who want decent collaborative experiences have to travel to NEC, because they won't get that at Harvard.</p>
<p>That's why there is no "one size fits all". I hope Viex finds what he is looking for at Princeton.</p>
<p>"People no longer go to law school to be a lawyer etc... "</p>
<p>Yeah, they do.</p>
<p>And if the Ivy League could fill all the orchestra jobs, how come so may seats go to people from foreign conservatories? I have one professional violinist friend. She plays with the NYC Ballet orchestra. She's from Russia. Studied at Moscow Conservatory. Her description of her education sounds even more narrow in focus than what is offered in American conservatories. But this lady can play. </p>
<p>She's lovely, talented, interesting. She has pursued other interests along the way. She locked down her violin skills early. She has the rest of her life to learn everything else.</p>
<p>Your education is about YOU. Do what feels right for YOU. Don't worry about the others. They will take care of themselves.</p>
<p>Librarian... there's been quite a bit of research on career paths taken by the current generation, and they are seeing a lot more people who go somewhere like law school or business school to get a degree that will open doors for them, and not necessarily in traditional fields, so "yea they do" isn't exactly very enlightened. Of course a lot of peopel want to be lawyers, but the point is that the youngest generation will not be like the older ones. My brother is at Harvard Law, and he says only one of his friends plans on doing new york city Big law or just a few who wanna do the D.C. thing. People are changing. And I'll say it again, I didn't mean that everyone should now go to harvard and study with Weilerstein, I meant that you can go to a good school (and there's too many to count), and just study with a teacher once a week. Obviously some of you can go to Harvard but like I said, if you're not into all the things you have to do at a conservatory, don't feel like you have to just because that's the conventional wisdom.</p>
<p>VT5--
OK. Turn it around. Suppose someone actually WANTED to be an attorney.<br>
Wouldn't law school make sense?</p>
<p>You admit people go to some schools to get a degree that will open doors for them. Isn't that networking and making connections? Don't you think one might meet more performing musicians at music schools than at other colleges? Aren't local gigs posted on conservatory job boards more often than on non-music school boards (who you gonna call for an organist? Juilliard or Cooper Union?)</p>
<p>So how is it that these "changed people" you know go to law school to study law so they can do other things -- and that's a good thing, while going to music school to study music to be a musician is not?</p>
<p>Again, pursue the education that's best for you. But don't worry about the entire generation. </p>
<p>And welcome to Jersey, where we don't pump gas.</p>
<p>Umm yea, like I have said many times (perhaps you should do some reading excercises), if people are into the conservatory, then they really should. All I'm saying is that it isn't the only option, and that it isn't this terribly difficult and esoteric thing like people are making it out to be. Like I say, it's becoming more normal to think outside the box when it comes to getting an education, and since this place is about advise (which people offer often and in great quantities), I am stating that it is possible and is something people should consider. </p>
<p>You can still get all those connections and what not by going to a university like USC, Rice, or Yale, not to mention an amazing education on your instrument. You just won't have to be totally in the music environment if you'd rather be a more normal college student.</p>
<p>Vieuxtemps, you keep tipping into arrogant nonsense. Noone here has any problem with the path you are choosing to take. I think you're fighting your own ghosts. </p>
<p>And if you're going to admonish the rest of us:</p>
<p>"Umm yea, like I have said many times (perhaps you should do some reading excercises), "</p>
<p>likewise, you could use a little improvement in your spelling. What is bugging you? Start listening to yourself (in this case reading your own postings)--it really appears that you're trying to work out something personal, and in the process you are coming off as mean-spirited and intolerant.</p>
<p>And by the way, so many people who go to law school these days go into such great debt to do it that they have no choice but to go into corporate law. Harvard Law is so concerned about this that they just announced a program that would make law school cheaper in exchange for a commitment to public service.</p>