<p>Ah! Sorry! I thought it was facts and insight that mattered. Silly me. Thnx for the correction!</p>
<p>Actually, sorry to say that Tortoise is being more civil here than compared with some of Tortoise’s other posts. Tortoise has quite the habit of dive bombing into threads with the rude know it all attitude. When kept in a civil manner as is usually the case on this board, the debate regarding the order of factors in which to judge a school of music or a conservatory is useful. But it also depends on the major. Composition factors may be different from performance factors.</p>
<p>Thanks Bartok. I usually don’t check past posts, but just did so. You are correct.</p>
<p>Tortoise … while I share your belief that the most important factor in choice of conservatory is private teacher, your resolute dismissal of all other factors is misguided.</p>
<p>Why? Because if your hope for a career in music is to be predicated on anything other than orchestral auditions, you must be able to freelance successfully. That requires the following things: skillsets in chamber music and orchestra; a network of accomplished players who know and respect you, and can tolerate your presence as a human being if not actually like you; adequate street smarts to handle finances as an independent contractor, and adequate self-promotion to find work.
These are MINIMUM requirements. If you hope to work in chamber music or as a soloist, you must bring a personality, intellect, and/or soul, which no school can give you, but a few may stunt. </p>
<p>So, yes, focus. But it is bewilderingly naive to suggest that nothing but a good teacher, talent, and focused work is necessary to attain a life in music. Don’t believe me? Then come to New York and chat up the staffs of music stores and coffee shops near Lincoln Center, where you will meet plenty of blue collar workers with no health insurance and minimal lives in music who studied with Dorothy Delay or Leonard Rose. I really wish I were exaggerating the case, but I’m not.</p>
<p>Now, I realize that you didn’t actually SAY that nothing other than a good teacher and hard work and talent are requisite to a life in music, but you did adamantly deny the merits of seeking to develop any other personal qualities or resources, which amounts to the same thing.</p>
<p>Agree with everything you say, fiddlefrog, except for your mischaracterization of my comments: I “adamantly” denied no such thing. I merely said that the single focus in choosing a conservatory should be the teacher with whom you want to study. (Again, setting aside finances.). </p>
<p>This implies a lot. I’m presuming that in choosing a teacher, you are taking into account a panoply of factors: Teaching style, track record (does s/he foster careers you’d wish to emulate?), etc. Overwhelming odds are that if you do this, and block out secondary factors (eg, student life, etc.), you’ll get the mix that you need…or, perhaps I should say, the mix that you’re looking for. </p>
<p>In other words, I’m advocating exclusive teacher-focus as a heuristic. If a high school student approaches it this way, s/he’ll have a vastly greater chance of hitting the mark then his/her peers attempting to choose their institution of higher learning with spongy criteria like “prestige,” “quality of life,” etc.</p>
<p>As for Juilliard/DeLay, believe me, I believe you: I’m a survivor of that camp.</p>
<p>Sorry you’re unhappy with your life, Tortoise, but your rude, condescending attitude is an irritant on this thread. Perhaps some of your problems stem from your approach to interpersonal communication. </p>
<p>No one would argue that the teacher is the most important factor in a conservatory decision, an issue that has been discussed thoroughly and repeatedly on the forum. </p>
<p>The OP is not a child in need of a lecture-- she was asking a legitimate question on behalf of her son. After reading your first post, I, too searched your posting history on CC. Please don’t behave like a ■■■■■.</p>
<p>So tortoise went to UChicago undergrad, Stanford grad AND Juilliard! Wow!</p>
<p>Hm. You critique my deportment, first, by (mis)characterizing my life, then, by name-calling.</p>
<p>Anything else?</p>
<p>One thing I can say for tortoise, he/she is very good at getting people’s blood pressure up. I also wonder if Tortoise isn’t one of those people who get their nose bent out of joint because they went to a ‘lesser’ music school (and I have it in quotes because I don’t think those comparisons mean much) and are basically saying “the school doesn’t matter” as a way of saying “I am as good as anyone else” …part of that I think is also the fear, engendered by further specious information, that somehow if you don’t go to a name conservatory like Juilliard or NEC you won’t become a musician (i.e that the name alone means something, which more then a few kids going to those schools believe then find out the grand truth when they get out of there…), or that having it on your CV ultimately matters (it doesn’t really…yeah, if you are going to teach kids and the parents see “Juilliard” they might think it means something, or a music school might think so, but that is only one small facet). </p>
<p>Yes, the teacher is paramount, and in the end it has nothing to do with their reputation per se, but rather how they work with a student, the student/teacher interaction is key. My son has worked with some ‘famous’ teachers in master classes he would go absolutely crazy working with them, while other people claim that person is ‘the best’, he has worked with people he had fantastic luck with, and others are like ‘they don’t have the reputation’…music is a funny place, a lot of it is very individualized but people want to make general rules that don’t mean anything. The prestige of Juilliard, for example,as a school may be more about perceptions then it is better then let’s say NEC, for a violin student (that is a hypothetical, don’t read anything into it). It is what makes music a pain in the royal tush, there just isn’t a grand standard that tells you what the best path is…</p>
<p>GlassHarmonica is correct, but the fact that someone got into Curtis and not into Mannes doesn’t mean Mannes is ‘better’ then curtis on piano, what it says is the audition process is screwy. I have known people who got into the ‘best’ conservatories and got rejected from second rank schools; I know of someone who got into NEC on a really good scholarship to study with a highly, highly regarded teacher who didn’t get into Juilliard, there is no science to this. (Not saying Mannes isn’t competitive or doesn’t have a good piano faculty, it is and it does from what little I know, just saying admissions are weird). Someone could have had a great audition at Curtis and had a crappy pre screen, or the pre screen at Mannes was seen by relatively few people and they didn’t like his/her playing style…the transitive theory may not work well here, because the process of picking people is so subjective…</p>
<p>For Piano, all three are going to be competitive,common perception might be Juilliard is harder then MSM which is harder then Mannes, but I wouldn’t read anything into it, in reality it is probably as hard to get into any one of them (among other things, the same people tend to apply to all three schools, and it can be luck of the draw. Some of it too is that a lot of people will get admitted to all three places but insist on going to Juilliard because it has the bigger ‘name’ of the three, Juilliard is known all over the world literally wereas the same people may never have heard of MSM or Mannes, and this is international in scope of who applies. As a result, it could be that the average level is higher at Juilliard on Piano or Violin because the most talented of the pool of applicants wants to go there…(note I said could be, I am not entirely sure). </p>
<p>A lot of the same people teach at alll three schools, so it isn’t about the teachers necessarily, either (I mean quality of teachers, not that teachers aren’t important).</p>
<p>That said, I think the environment is important, it isn’t just the teacher. First of all, a talented student in an environment where the average level isn’t so high may not be driven to excellence as hard (depends on the student), you can have a world class teacher but if you are a big fish in a small sea, it may be less incentive. It is kind of like the old Avis syndrome, i.e we’re #2 and we try harder; if as a student you are surrounded by incredible players it can be an inducement to try even harder; likewise, if you do chamber and are playing with less powerful players, or you play with a group of monster players, it makes a difference, and it is a lot more likely you will find monster players at some schools then others. </p>
<p>True, an orchestra audition is behind a screen, but guess what? Playing in an audition also means understanding the piece you are playing, what your part in that is, and if you have actually played in an orchestra of a high level, you learn in effect by doing what it really is about. Heck, same is true if you go listen to let’s say the NY Phil or Berlin Phil do Rite of Spring or hear some small regional orchestra perform it, you often hear two entirely different pieces…if you are at a program with a so-so orchestra, you can learn bad habits and may not really understand the dynamics of a high level orchestra… it is like the music schools that emphasize playing technically on solo instruments and neglect/degrade chamber music and orchestra and other ensemble playing as ‘lesser’ (still common in Asian music schools but changing),there is a lot more to music then playing technically at a high level (you need that, but alone it doesn’t mean anything).</p>
<p>Fiddlefrog matches what I have heard from a lot of working musicians, people who are in orchestras, others who do all kinds of work, chamber, freelance, etc, and there is another side to the school you go to. As with academic schools, networking can be critical, if you go to a school in NYC there are opportunities to get to know people in the music world there, you can do gigs, you can meet people, volunteer, and get into that world. A lot of work is free lance or otherwise done by networking, Chamber music, for example, often happens when people are in a particular school, or at an event linked socially to the school. For example, musical groups have sprung forth from Marlboro, and the musicians there generally are from top level music schools and often from the same school…</p>
<p>The other thing about the environment is learning to work with other people, to get along with them. A student you suggest, who has a great teacher at a school but basically spends all their time practicing, might be technically proficient, and might even pass an orchestra audition on ability…but guess what? Orchestras have probation periods, usually a year or more, to see if the player fits the orchestra, and a lot of that can be personality and being able to work with others. I know of direct examples where one of the hotshot types, whose teacher groomed them to be the next big soloist, who thought the sun rose out of their , well, you know where, who went into an audition, played well, was tentatively accepted, but then was such an arrogant jerk, or was so not able to interact with others, that they failed their probation, others played beautifully behind a screen, were considered, but were found not to be a fit with the playing style of the ochestra (for example, an introvert sitting there playing robotically in an expressive orchestra like the philadelphia)…</p>
<p>Conservatories and music schools are not trade schools, they are still university level programs and part of their mission is to turn student musicians into adult musicians or more better, into adults who even if they don’t go into music, have it as part of their lives. Among other things, the conservatories and music schools are well aware that it is likely only a small percent of their graduates will end up making a living full time as a musician and there is a reason why they emphasize connections between the students, try to make sure they are social, and also give them plenty of opportunities to work in ensembles and such, because they know that in the real world musicians are not robots, they don’t operate outside of everyone else; even soloists have to work with others. The trade school approach is what Tortoise is talking about, that everything is sitting in a room grinding away practicing and working with the teacher, and there are music programs like that and as high a level as the students may play, they run into trouble when it comes to being musicians. </p>
<p>Put it this way, I know plenty of working musicians at all levels, and they emphasize the fact that playing at a high level is not enough, there are a lot of musicians to be out there are that level, and that to make it as a musician takes high level playing and a lot more, which is where the school environment comes in.</p>
<p>With facilities there is a big difference between the three schools. Juilliard recently underwent a major renovation and its facilities (I can’t speak for the dorms) generally are first rate from what I have seen. MSM’s facilities are older (they are located in the original Juilliard location) and they may not have the level of facilities that Juilliard does (for example, Juilliard literally has an army of technicians that keep the pianos in the practice rooms and such in tune, and they are all steinway level machines). MSM’s facilities are decent from what I have seen but from what I have heard (YMMV) things like practice rooms can be very hard to find. </p>
<p>That said, I think a motivated music student would do well at any of the three schools, for piano they all have high reputations as far as I know, and they have the advantage of being in the middle of NYC and all the music that is there.</p>
<p>Tortoise, BTW, no one here said that a student should go to a school for its environment only, what people have said and continue to say is that all other things being equal (meaning having a great teacher), that environment and such is a concern. If a student got into Juilliard but didn’t find any of the teachers were good for them (that would have them), it would be idiotic to go there when they had a teacher (let’s say at NEC) that suited them. It would be stupid to go to the university of Miami Frost school of music simply because the weather was nice if you felt a school in a cold climate had better teachers, and so forth. The way I would put it is the teacher comes first, as others did, and if you feel teachers at different schools would be good for you, then you start looking at the environment and so forth. I don’t think the OP was implying they were looking for a ‘nice environment’, they simply were trying to get background on the schools…and with those 3 schools, you often can find the same person teaching at one or both of the others <em>shrug</em>.</p>
<p>musicprnt, nice and nuanced. rest assured, my nose is not out-of-joint regarding the reputation of any school I attended. but I do feel very strongly about the primacy of teacher. I’d like to think about your scenario wherein several different teachers could be considered more-or-less equivalent and so the prospective student would then choose schools based on other factors. My initial impulse is to think “uh-oh” but, like I said, I want to think about it.</p>
<p>Also, many teachers teach at more than one school. For example, Ida Kavafian (whom you mentioned earlier) teaches at Curtis, Bard, and now Juilliard. Arnold Steinhardt teaches at Curtis and Bard-- and he used to teach at Mason Gross. Weilerstein teaches at Juilliard and NEC. Robert Vernon teaches at Juilliard and CIM. Just a few names off the top of my head.</p>
<p>These are very different environments, with respect to education and setting. Studying with Pam Frank at Curtis is going to be a different experience than studying with her at Peabody.</p>
<p>ceteris paribus, curtis wins: it’s free.</p>
<p>Ceteris paribus…Denuone Latine loquebar?</p>
<p>I disagree that all other things could necessarily be the same, nor that Curtis would necessarily be less expensive. Curtis is tuition-free, but unless one qualifies for financial assistance, one must pay living expenses. Students are required to live within a close radius of Rittenhouse Square, an expensive neighborhood. By contrast, I know of students at Bard who receive extensive merit aid. Living in Annandale-on-Hudson would perhaps be less expensive. But, come on-- there are differences between these institutions that cannot be settled with a price calculator. Different institutions present different kinds of educational and professional development opportunities for students. It’s not as cut-and-dry as traveling back and for from lesson to practice room.</p>
<p>My daughter looked at all 3 and most loved MSM, for many reasons. She thought it was rigorous but a little more relaxed, and also liked the contemporary focus, just to touch on a couple of things in the original poster’s brief question. </p>
<p>(There were teachers she would have liked to work with at all 3. Composition is a little different and her favorite teachers rarely interfere with what she is trying to do!)</p>
<p>Curtis does in fact have free tuition, but as GH pointed out you still have living expenses there (unlike Colburn that I believe is full ride). What is the best school is not always so easy; for example, Curtis has a notable violin faculty, but it is conceivable someone got in there but the teachers that agreed to teach them may not be the teachers they feel they can work with…likewise Curtis might be the place for some because they feel it has the environment that is geared towards training soloists and they want to be in a place they feel makes more effort in ensemble playing (again, hypotheticals, this is not about the ‘reality’ of Curtis). Someone may get into Colburn but because the faculty is limited on violin, for example, may not want to go there if they feel they can’t work with their faculty. </p>
<p>A great teacher is a teacher a student can work with, and that may not be at the place that gives the free ride or the best deal necessarily, either. It is why though a teacher must be primary unless there is only 1 teacher at 1 school that someone feels they can work with, there can be other choices around where to go, and things like networking, making contact with other high level students and the like are considerations, as for example might be the level of chamber programs and so forth. No, a crappy teacher (for the student) at Juilliard probably doesn’t outweigh a great teacher at a ‘lesser’ program, I won’t argue that one, I can’t, but if you are asking me if a great teacher at X university school of music in a rural area with a great violin teacher outweighs a teacher the student finds to be great at Juilliard or NEC, there could be a lively discussion because NEC and Juilliard, being in city areas with large arts presence, could give the student a lot, lot more then the teacher at university X simply because of the intangibles, and there are more then a few I could name. (all programs have them, of course, depends on the student). </p>
<p>Despite all the hype in recent years, music is not one dimensional, and as classical music continues to change, as being a musician is going to mean a very different career path then getting into a top orchestra or being a soloist with artists management (both dwindling/changing career paths, in so many ways), it could be the student with the great technique and a mess of experience is going to be the one who does better then the technically astute player who has spent all their time becoming technically astute, that’s all. If someone’s goal is to lay all their eggs in a small basket, like getting into a top orchestra or being a soloist, there could be validity to what you are saying, that someone could focus solely on technique and make it, but that is like buying an expensive car and betting you will hit lotto before the first payment comes through, given how hard those options are (and getting harder).</p>
<h2>“Curtis has a notable violin faculty, but it is conceivable someone got in there but the teachers that agreed to teach them may not be the teachers they feel they can work with…Someone may get into Colburn but because the faculty is limited on violin, for example, may not want to go there if they feel they can’t work with their faculty.”</h2>
<h2>Exactly. The nightmare scenarios, avoided by observing Rule #1: You study with the teacher, not with the school </h2>
<h2>“A great teacher is a teacher a student can work with…”</h2>
<h2>Necessary but insufficient condition. </h2>
<h2>“It is why though a teacher must be primary unless there is only 1 teacher at 1 school that someone feels they can work with, there can be other choices around where to go…”</h2>
<p>You’re erecting a straw man here. “Feels they can work with?” How about “wants to work with?” </p>
<p>Think about it: You go to Meadowmount during your high school summers, you’re on fire with
Sally Thomas, it’s Juilliard for you! </p>
<h2>Because Sally Thomas is the only one you feel to can work with? If that’s true, you are an odd duck indeed. (For many years, Ms. Thomas had her pet crow present at her lessons.)</h2>
<h2>“if you are asking me if a great teacher at X university school of music in a rural area with a great violin teacher outweighs a teacher the student finds to be great at Juilliard or NEC, there could be a lively discussion”</h2>
<h2>I’m not asking you that. Was anybody else? If so, I can’t imagine the conversation would be terribly lively: Given the choice between two equivalently great teachers (whatever that means), go to Juilliard/NEC, dummy.</h2>
<h2>“Despite all the hype in recent years, music is not one dimensional, and as classical music continues to change, as being a musician is going to mean a very different career path then getting into a top orchestra or being a soloist with artists management (both dwindling/changing career paths, in so many ways), it could be the student with the great technique and a mess of experience is going to be the one who does better then the technically astute player who has spent all their time becoming technically astute, that’s all. If someone’s goal is to lay all their eggs in a small basket, like getting into a top orchestra or being a soloist, there could be validity to what you are saying, that someone could focus solely on technique and make it, but that is like buying an expensive car and betting you will hit lotto before the first payment comes through, given how hard those options are (and getting harder).”</h2>
<p>Ok, I’m not sure what you mean to say here. So how about this: </p>
<p>Training for a career in music is a lot like training for the Olympics–and rapidly becoming as competitive. Look at the way Olympic gymnasts train, then ask yourself, “What conservatory environment best prepares me to annihilate my classmates in pursuit of the Plum Gig?”</p>
<p>If you want to succeed in classical music, that’s where you’ll want to go.</p>
<p>I think that the original question has probably been answered by now.</p>
<p>I hesitate to add to this, but for the sake of anyone new to this forum who might be reading this, especially young people, I know many people who are working musicians, or working in music, who live very full lives, and thrive both musically and personally. There are many paths to follow, and people can create all kinds of opportunities for themselves these days.</p>
<p>Good luck to the original poster’s daughter as she chooses schools…</p>
<p>And I know many people who are working musicians, or working in music, who are substance abusers.</p>
<p>Don’t go into a life in music unless you absolutely, positively cannot conceive of a life outside of music. And unless you are willing to devote yourself to the perfection of your craft. And unless, in pursuit of that goal, you are willing to work ten times as hard as your liberal arts-studying peers.</p>
<p>It all comes down to you and what you do, alone, in your practice room. A purer meritocracy you’re unlikely to find. </p>
<p>Bottom line: Don’t consider a life in music unless you are ready to dedicate your life to music. It really is as simple as that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The OP’s daughter is a pianist, so this is all probably gibberish to her, but how can we not point out that Sally Thomas also teaches at Mannes? Anyway, your remark could be construed as a slur on Ms. Thomas (we tend not to get too personal about individual teachers on this forum.) And, as you surely know, with your deep understanding of NYC conservatory violin faculties, that Ms. Thomas’ students are co-taught by the highly respected Ms. Setzer. I can think of numerous students who chose Ms. Thomas’ studio above many excellent options, and none of them is a duck, let alone an odd one.</p>
<p>So, we are back at square one with the OP’s question. </p>
<p>Tortoise, you have succeeded in changing the direction of this thread-- congratulations. But the old chestnut, “Don’t consider a life in music unless you are ready to dedicate your life to music. It really is as simple as that,” appears regularly on this forum (and differs from your previous chestnut, “it’s all about the teacher.” No one would argue with those parts, except to say that it’s not really as simple as that.</p>
<p>You could shut down every conversation on this forum with those two statements, but what would be the point? Students and parents of music students come here to discuss ideas in an open-minded, open-ended way, a sort of group brainstorming effect. </p>
<p>To get back to the OP’s question, there are differences between the three conservatories in NY that she cannot appreciate from her geographical location on the West Coast. It is perfectly reasonable for her to come to this forum (where she has been posting for a while and has a kind of human capital not unlike friendship) to ask this question. Why shut her down with an all-purpose retort that is not even related to what she asked?</p>