<p>Hi. I'm new to this forum, although I've been lurking for a little while. I am a recent high school graduate and will attend a large university's BM program in the Fall. Dancer 101 posted something on another thread that caught my eye and I thought I'd start a new thread to get some input.</p>
<p>The question is: What type of audition is better? Live or videotape? It just seems to me that, like live theater, anything can happen and once it does, you're sunk if it doesn't go right. With a videotape, you can do it over and over and over again until you get it "perfect". If a professional tapes it, he/she can make you look a certain way, the same way a photographer can enhance a headshot. </p>
<p>In this case, is it actually fair for colleges to accept videotaped auditions? IMHO, I think they shouldn't be allowed, and "whatever happens, happens" at the audition.</p>
<p>I think you could also say that live auditioners also have an advantage in being able to interact personally with the judges of the audition. The advantages probably cancel each other out. Just my guess.</p>
<p>Hi Gabby, welcome to the forum! I hope ya stop lurking and join in! Congrats on your acceptance to college for next year and I hope you might come back and share how it is going. </p>
<p>I agree with Chris in that there are advantages and disadvantages to both types of auditions and so they kinda cancel each other out. You each cited a few of these. However, I believe colleges prefer live audtions (either on site or at unifieds) over videotaped ones and I think if you look at the admitted student bodies overall, the majority will have auditioned live. That's my take on it. I think you are better off auditioning live. Most are in the same boat with what is positive or negative about it so you are all in the same situation (the majority, anyway, since most do audition live and get in that way). </p>
<p>Also as Chris mentioned about the interacting with the auditors at a live audition....some things can happen in that situation that cannot on tape...for instance, at various schools, my D was asked to do some things....do her monologue a different way, do two additional monologues, sing scales, change the way the ending of the song was done the first time, and then there is the dance audition which is meant to see not just how you dance but how you learn the new material taught in the combination (can't replicate that on a video) and so forth. Also in the audition, questions were asked of the kid. </p>
<p>I think a video tape auditioner has a slight advantage as Gabby pointed out--the ability to do it over and get it right is priceless!!!! </p>
<p>The person I know went to a studio where the sound was incredible and had a professional videographer tape it. Not to mention there are no surprises and if you are sick the day of the videotaping you can do it another day. As far as the personal interaction goes--- lets face it 8 out of the 10 auditions you do there is no interaction. You just do your "thing" and leave. </p>
<p>OCU is the only college I know that allows video tapes. Although I have heard for any college if traveling to the college is a "hardship" they may let you send a video tape instead. It is worth asking. </p>
<p>PS
for OCU no dance was required on the video tape (as was the same for the live audition)</p>
<p>Thanks for the welcome and the responses. A friend of mine had auditioned for the University of Central Florida at their February audition and received a call-back letter (UCF is the only school I found that has a two-prong audition). Because of another audition out-of-town she was unable to make the callback but was told she could send in a videotape. She spent a lot of money with a professional videographer and recorded her vocal audition at a professional recording studio. In the end, her "callback" turned out wonderful and she was accepted (although ultimately chose another school). </p>
<p>It just seemed so unfair to me that other students who took the time and energy to go back to Orlando for the callback audition lost their place to a videotape. But, again, I'm new at this and am a BM, so I don't know enough about it to really comment. I was just wondering what others thought after reading Dancer's comment on another thread. Also, I have to agree that any school which places a good emphasis on the dance audition is being unfair in allowing a rehearsed, choreographed videotape, when so much of the live audition consists of learning and then performing combinations. UCF had a dance audition, but I hear it was fairly easy. My friend's dance coach choreographed great ballet and jazz routines for the tape also. </p>
<p>As a BM, however, I know I would feel awful if I felt my audition was rejected over somebody who was able to have their audition recorded by a professional studio. And, as we all know, the accompanist on any given day could be in a good or bad mood, and that frequently has a BIG impact on the singer's performance. At the BM audition, it's make it or break it. Either you're in good voice that day, or not. And as other BM's and MT's will attest, I'm sure, we all have our good days and bad days.</p>
<p>My d has a friend who auditioned via videotape for NYU, maybe a couple of years ago (I can't remember if he is a rising soph or jr). I am not sure what school/program but he is now an MT major at Elon, so it must have been performance related.</p>
<p>It is nice to have a videotaped audition, or at least a high quality CD of the voice selections. The reason for this is that things do happen on the audition trail where you may not be able to make an audition or become ill or have a bad audition. Sending the tape as a followup just might tip the balance if you are on the edge. I think schools make it pretty clear that they prefer a live audition, and you do lose out on the opportunity to improvise that some auditioners like to ask you to do. There are schools that video tape at Unifieds and/or ask for a voice tape if you audition there. Doctorjohn or one of the other admissions people who are on the forum could probably address this issue more directly. I know that when we started the audtions, I felt that auditioning on campus and doing it early would be an advantage. Now having gone through the season and seeing the results not just for my kid but for a number of others, I have to say I was wrong on those assumptions.</p>
<p>Gabby, I also am wondering where you are heading next year and your interest in a BM program. Did you only audition for BM programs and not BFA's? What did you prefer about a BM program? </p>
<p>It is helpful for kids on here to hear about more programs out there and more options and so we'd be interested in your process or your school if you could share, thanks. </p>
<p>Thanks everybody for your comments and support. I hope you can understand that I've always been "trained" not to disclose too much information in cyberspace, and until I get to "know" some of you a little better I'd rather not discuss what school I have decided to attend.</p>
<p>I will say, however, that my decision to pursue a BM is based on a number of factors, including a rejection I received for the BFA. I had always been told that my strengths lie in classical voice and I've belonged to a regional opera company for the last few years. I also am strong in dance, but mostly classical ballet. I did a lot of musical theater in high school, even doing some leads and supporting roles, but mostly ingenue roles and/or chorus, and always "for the fun of it". I never really intended on it being a career choice. I always felt I'd have a career with the opera.</p>
<p>When it came time to audition for college, I was encouraged to pursue the BM in vocal performance. I had done very, very well at both NATS and state vocal association, and am very comfortable with languages and musical theory. I also have several years of piano behind me, as well as flute and French Horn. But, I really wanted to see what I could do with musical theater. I auditioned EA at some schools for the BM and even received a sizable talent scholarship from the school I ultimately decided to attend, along with a good merit scholarship. I auditioned for one BFA program because a friend of mine was on the audition circuit and wanted me to go with her to a particular city and I thought I'd try my wings.</p>
<p>I will say, that after being rejected (and actually, in retrospect I had no business even auditioning at that point), I began to doubt myself. But, in the long run, I'm very happy with my decision and will continue my study of music. Also, since dance has always been a big part of my life, I decided to take a dance minor, along with the BM which will satisfy that part of me.</p>
<p>To CoachC: Thanks for answering my private message. I hope this post answers some of your questions. I wrote you before I really had a chance to read this forum in depth and have come to realize that my main interests lies with my voice.</p>
<p>I would say to you that it is not "you" when it comes to MT. So don't doubt yourself. I have found that currently the MT major schools are looking to have more belters in thier program right now. Not that a legit soprano can't get in because I am sure they can, but it appears that the upswing, as in broadway as well (thank you though light in the piazza for having a legit soprano) is for the belters. This has been discussed at one point on one of these threads. </p>
<p>It is obvious as to your training the BM is the way to go for you. BFA, BA, BM whatever....it has nothing to do with the letters you earn but the training you get.</p>
<p>"I have found that currently the MT major schools are looking to have more belters in thier program right now. Not that a legit soprano can't get in because I am sure they can......" </p>
<p>I'd love to know the statistics or first hand knowledge of MT major acceptances you have that allows you to make a statement like the one above. Because so many people are now reading and/or participating in the discussions here on CC and looking to the site to help make important decisions, it is really important that we all are careful about making broad generalizations without supporting information. There are so many programs out there and I'm guessing that they each have distinct preferences and things they look for in their individual classes. However, they are not all looking for belters OR legit sopranos any more than they are looking for all girls or all boys. As I've said before, it takes a wide range of types to cast a wide range of shows. Favoring only one would be equivlalent to artistic suicide.</p>
<p>Opinion is fine - we all have them and espress them here. Maybe just think a bit more before presenting yours as fact. Thanks!</p>
<p>"As I've said before, it takes a wide range of types to cast a wide range of shows. Favoring only one would be equivlalent to artistic suicide."</p>
<p>At one of the schools for which I auditioned and was accepted for the BM, I made an appointment with the theater department to ask some questions. One important question was whether or not I'd be able to audition for, and possibly be cast, in a musical show since I was a legit soprano, studying classical literature, and, as a BM, was not a part of the theater department (although with the dance minor that puts me "kinda" in there :) )</p>
<p>The answer was that several non-BFA students had done a lot of leads in their shows and that, while the "trend" seems to be belting, musical theater is full of all kinds of types and being a legit soprano won't hurt me IF the role called for that type. Since I wasn't interested in a BFA, I didn't pursue the question any further, but was satisfied in knowing that I could audition and satisfy my love of musical theater, while still being a soprano, if the role called for it. </p>
<p>It depends on the show. I really feel I could play a beautiful Cosette or Christine, but would NEVER be right for "Footloose" or "Annie".</p>
<p>I had the same reaction as Theatermom upon reading Dancer's statement regarding the preference for belters in BFA admissions. I totally disagree. In fact, it kinda made me smile because what I observe a lot is that SOME people who are sopranos presume they did not get admitted cause they are not belters. And then SOME who are belters presume they did not get in cause they are not legit sopranos, and so forth. I don't think any BFA program prefers all one type. I think shows and programs call for a variety of voice types and character types and so on. </p>
<p>My kid happens to be a belter though has a wide range and can sing soprano but I would say she is more of a mezzo. Or I'd say her strength is the belt but she can sing the other as well. I know other kids whose strength is the legit high sweet soprano who are working on their belt. It is kinda the same but in reverse. All types are needed though. I have never heard that programs prefer belters. </p>
<p>Just to give a couple first hand examples otherwise.....the feedback my daughter got from UM where she was not accepted mentioned her strong acting and dance and piano skills (piano was a part of it) but that they did not hear a legit soprano in her voice (or in the songs she sang). They cared about the legit soprano sound. That is an example to the contrary of Dancer's statement. At the other BFA program that she did not get into, they asked her to redo one of her songs as if singing to a baby and to hold a blanket (was some other thing) and sing it that way....likely to hear a sweeter sound. At some other programs, where she was admitted, they asked her to sing scales that went very very high to test the soprano. They obviously cared about the soprano part even if she had the high belt too. So, it works BOTH WAYS. The more skills....range, belt, etc. the better but they want all types. You don't HAVE to belt and you don't HAVE to be a soprano. If you can do both, all the better of course. Usually one is a strength and you train to improve the other. My D likely is working on improving the legit soprano and some others here maybe are working to improve the belt. I recall at one school where she was admitted with a talent scholarship, that the voice auditor mentioned to her that if she were to come to their school, they would be working on her soprano. So, they obviously also cared about the soprano. For some other kid, maybe they'd say, if you came here, we'd work on your belt. </p>
<p>I think to say that they just want belters is simply not true. I realize when people get rejected, it is easier to point to a "reason" why...."if I only was a belter"....or...."if I only was a soprano". They want some of each. If you can do both, that is ideal but overall, many shows need sopranos and many call for belters. Think of a classic show...Oklahoma....Laurie needs to be a legit soprano and an ingenue type. Ado Annie needs to be a belter and be able to do comedic acting. Many shows call for these types. Some contemporary musicals surely involve belting (Maureen in RENT, Elphaba in Wicked, etc.) but some involve sopranos (Hope in Urinetown, the younger girl in Light in the Piazza, Jane Eyre). </p>
<p>My advice is to play to your strengths in an audition but also show your range. And in training, work to develop your weaker area...be it the belt or the legit soprano. All music involves sopranos and altos and mezzos. They are ALL needed. </p>
<p>You are so right about the different kinds of singers out there and the need for musical theater to have a variety. And, yes, the most important thing is to play your strengths in auditions, show your range and then be prepared in case you're asked for more. When I was auditioning for the BM, I had several Italian, German, French and Latin music ready, in addition to American art songs. Some were operatic arias, some from operetta's, etc. I was confident with Mozart, for instance, as well as Gilbert and Sullivan.</p>
<p>I'm glad I was prepared because I chose to do my Italian and French music. I was secure with these pieces, had done very well with them at NATS and vocal associations, and knew them inside and out. But, after I sang these pieces, I was asked if I knew anything else in another language or style. Fortunately, I was able to pull out of my bag some Latin and German. I wasn't as comfortable with them as with the original audition material, but I knew I could "pull it off". </p>
<p>My advice to anybody pursuing any kind of performing arts, is to be prepared. You just never know what might be asked of you. If you're a singer, have a LOT of music ready. If you're a MT wannabe, make sure you have several styles available "just in case". You never know.</p>
<p>Also, and probably most importantly, don't automatically assume that a college is looking for a specific "type" because you really don't know what that "type" may be. Like Soozievt said, play to your strengths, and just "razzle dazzle them" and then leave the audition and go on to the next one.</p>
<p>I can only speak for my experiences and if you are a belter or can do both than you would have not have had any problem in this area. Syracuse and Buffalo specifically asked if I had a "belt song" in my reportoire. It is possible I could have chosen different songs; but I really can't belt. I am a high soprano and was assuming I would learn alternative singing styles in college. I have also had many experiences in the community theater world insisting that I belt, but I also think that it is because the shows at this point call for one; Annie, chicago, gypsy, anything goes, Mame, ect....</p>
<p>I do agree that it is impossible to know what "type" they are looking for in general and I would guess a good program would want a diverse group, but they do want marketability and right now broadway is showing us what that is.</p>
<p>If you recall there was a link to an article about this very subject that blasted broadway for "losing its voice".</p>
<p>Of course opinions really shouldn't be argued because that is all it is "an opinion" nor, I believe, can ones own experience.</p>
<p>Haha. I know somebody who had "The Acid Queen" from "The Who's Tommy" in her package. Talk about a belt ... Don't know if she ended up using it or not, but I love the idea of it. She had some purty little legitish songs, too. LOL</p>
<p>Dancer, the funny thing is, however, that in college auditions, they also asked my kid to show some soprano! So, they did care about soprano too! Two schools made her sing Somewhere Over the Rainbow in higher and higher keys. Syracuse (where she got in, just mentioning cause you mentioned Syracuse), asked her to sing higher and higher scales up to like an operatic range and talked about devoting some of her college training to the legit soprano. So, while you felt it did not work out positively perhaps due to the belt sound.....my kid could have walked away and thought, uh oh, they don't think I am a high enough soprano and I am not a soprano (though she has a wide range and can sing high) and why do I have to be a soprano? She has a trained voice but she is more like mezzo.....even sings alto in chorus. So, I kinda think lots of kids walk away from an audition thinking, oh no, I did not have the thing they wanted more! Cause here we have kids walking away thinking "if I only sang belty" and then I have a belty kid thinking "if I only sang soprano, they want sopranos!" In reality, I think they want both and ideally, they would like each person to be able to do both or have trainability in the weaker of the two. </p>
<p>Susan
By the way, lots of belt songs are from traditional and older musical theater songs.</p>