Music Conservatory Admissions chances

College Majors Music Major
21

<p>Exactly, Speihei, well worded. Among other things, the ratings in an audition are subjective, they are about what the panelists see and hear. A kid could get into Curtis, because the panelists thought the sound of the student and playing was spectacular, while to the panelists at a supposedly lesser school the kid sounded like a robot <em>shrug</em>.(Tell you the idea of subjectivity and the like; just before one of his auditions for pre college, S had played solo bach for a music teachers groups assesment, and the person doing the assesment wrote that he didn’t play it the way “bach is supposed to be played”…meanwhile, when he did the audition, the feedback he got from his teacher from the panel was that his bach was felt to be extraordinarily strong…)</p>

<p>The thing to keep in mind is that panelists are human, and also that panelists get exposed to candidates before an audition happens (master classes, recommendations, summer festivals), and that can influence who they take in/who they get in. As others have pointed out, someone has to want to take a student, so at school B in the example above, maybe none of the teachers wanted the candidate as a student, maybe they had someone else in mind they wanted to give their slot to. As far as I know, auditions to music schools and conservatories are not blind, which means that candidates are known by the panelists/teachers,so when they look through the run list, if a teacher has slots open, they can go down and say “I want this one, and this one”, which might bypass kids higher on the list, who scored higher. Not fair or scientific, but this is a subjective endeavor to start with, they aren’t using robots to score admittance, the scores are subjective, and so to a certain extent is who gets admitted.</p>

<p>Plus conservatory panels vary, if they are anything like pre college was, at some schools (curtis) I believe the student plays for the whole faculty of the department (or my impression, anyway), at others it depends who is there that day. You might face a panel that values musicality ahead of technical power, you might face one the other way, and depending on who you are as a student, it can sway whether you get in or not. </p>

<p>The key point is that this process is a difficult one and there is no magic formula per se, you have to work hard, and as speihei said, pray a bit that the gods favor you and also understand that if you get rejected from school A, that doesn’t mean you are a loser, or if you got accepted there it doesn’t mean you necessarily are the worlds greatest musician,either (if that were true every musician who went to Curtis would be a superstar, and everyone who graduated from other programs not getting into music, and it doesn’t work that way). What I have heard the people at places S has been say makes the most sense, and that is that wherever you find yourself, in terms of being in the ‘musical pack’, there are always people better then you in some things, worse in others, and that all you can do is work hard always and remember the goal is to make yourself as good as you can be.</p>

22

<p>I’ve got to laugh in recognition speihei-- D had a teacher who insisted D had no ability. With that teacher, D got nowhere and gave up. Fast forward a year, she met a different teacher and despite great misgivings tried again-- whoosh, off like a rocket. D doesn’t even want to study voice in college but the excitement of learning so much so fast has been the most wonderful, infectious experience of her life. You really have to watch out in life–so many people are anxious to hold you back. Off the topic of this thread but I couldn’t resist telling the story.</p>

23

<p><a href=“Tell%20you%20the%20idea%20of%20subjectivity%20and%20the%20like;%20just%20before%20one%20of%20his%20auditions%20for%20pre%20college,%20S%20had%20played%20solo%20bach%20for%20a%20music%20teachers%20groups%20assesment,%20and%20the%20person%20doing%20the%20assesment%20wrote%20that%20he%20didn’t%20play%20it%20the%20way%20%22bach%20is%20supposed%20to%20be%20played%22…meanwhile,%20when%20he%20did%20the%20audition,%20the%20feedback%20he%20got%20from%20his%20teacher%20from%20the%20panel%20was%20that%20his%20bach%20was%20felt%20to%20be%20extraordinarily%20strong…”>quote</a>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I always love to hear Bach criticisms. The #1 critic of how Bach is played today would probably be Bach. At least as far as stringed instruments go, there’s no way 18th century musicians played Bach anywhere near how it’s played on today’s steel strings. When someone offers that standard Bach criticism, the cynic in me just laughs and thinks, “just tell me you don’t like the musician, but stop with the BS.” Truth is that I don’t like some of the Bach played by professional strings and piano players, but I recognize the quality whether I like it or not.</p>

<p>It brings to mind a story about my child’s all-state experience of a few years ago. As a freshman, was principal in the regional orchestra and made all-state with a decent seating. At the regional audition, received the only perfect score for the solo piece and the HS teacher was blown away at the scores. But then came, as my child calls him, “that red-headed judge who just doesn’t like the way I play.” “Red” savaged the student at all-state auditions in the musicality category (a category where the student routinely received the highest scores from other judges.) The following year, “red” shows up at the regional audition and once again savages the student about musicality on a baroque piece that the student not only knew cold, but performed publicly weeks prior to the audition. That year, the student almost missed the cutoff to even audition for the all-state festival due to those scores. Last year, the student didn’t even want to audition because “red” might be there, but we got past that, “red” wasn’t there, and student was principal at all-state.</p>

<p>Why does my child want this life? (Smile)</p>

24

<p>speihei, similar things happen in voice. The year DD received a perfect score at district competition, she did not make the All State chorus. The All State selection panel only selected the voices the “blended” which all came from the middle of the scoring pack. Another reason DD’s voice teacher did not care or place much value in the competitions for state level programs.</p>

25

<p>“I always love to hear Bach criticisms. The #1 critic of how Bach is played today would probably be Bach. At least as far as stringed instruments go, there’s no way 18th century musicians played Bach anywhere near how it’s played on today’s steel strings. When someone offers that standard Bach criticism, the cynic in me just laughs and thinks, “just tell me you don’t like the musician, but stop with the BS.” Truth is that I don’t like some of the Bach played by professional strings and piano players, but I recognize the quality whether I like it or not.”</p>

<p>Yep, exactly. Almost all the instruments were so different in the baroque period that it is very difficult to claim authenticity when playing the modern equivalents. The violin was radically different, the fingerboard was much shorter then it is today, gut strings are notorious for not maintaining tension and going flat, the baroque bow was much shorter then the modern bow, they didn’t use chin rests, so the sound was very different and playing was difficult. As a result, they would have had to play much differently…plus ensembles were different, much of Bach’s music was written with a continuo line because ensembles varied, and also they tended to tune to very different base frequencies for A…</p>

<p>Even the early music experts, like Andrew Manze, admit that they are attempting to come close to the way it may have been played in Bach’s day, through research and puzzling things out, from descriptions written at the time and so forth. Not to mention without metronomes (the portable one invented by a friend of Beethoven, who had a love/hate relationship with it, in his 8th symphony [I think it is movement 2 or 3] beethoven wrote a passage that is supposed to be a metronome whirring apart). Thus it is impossible to know even tempos, since metronomic meter marks came well after Bach’s death…:). Aaron Rosand, the curtis teacher and soloist, said pretty much the same thing, that someone who claims authenticity playing bach on modern instruments is fooling themselves…</p>

<p>As far as all state goes, very few high level music students seem to go into it, from what I have heard from other parents as well as my son’s teacher, they basically say it will lead to disappointment, that the audition process and seating for whatever reasons doesn’t favor the high level students (some popular theories are some of the auditioners are frustrated instrumentalists who ended up going the music ed route because they saw it as their only alternative and are envious of the high level kids, another is that they generally don’t have that much experience with instruments like the cello and violin but think they know it, others because they feel the high level students must be all full of themselves annd try to take them down a notch…). Whatever the reason, All states and the like results can be all over the place.</p>

26

<p>What is, exactly the criteria for a Conservatory to be…well a “conservatory”?</p>

27

<p>Aside from greenhouses, I believe the usual definition is something along the lines of a school that provides advanced study in one or more of the fine arts.</p>

28

<p>

</p>

<p>That’s a good question. I think from reading other peoples’ posts on this, my definition of conservatory is more narrow than most. When I use the word, I am limiting it to stand alone schools that are more vocational than academic. A conservatory like Peabody, even though loosely associated with JHU, has its own set of requirements and graduation does not include a set of distinct academic coursework required by JHU. Just because a music department within a university has a separate name, I do not think that makes it a conservatory. I do not consider Jacobs at Indiana or Shepherd at Rice conservatories.</p>

29

<p>Without starting a debate, perhaps the answer lies somewhere between the broad general definition provided by BassDad and cartera45’s more narrow view.</p>

<p>In the strictest sense a definition might be that admission to the program is based solely on artistic talent displayed at the audition with no weight even given to academic background.
Under that definition, there are very few programs that can be called conservatories.</p>

<p>A broader definition might include the institution’s philosophical and demonstrated embrace of high level artistic pursuit as the primary focus of the experience, yet still require meeting academic standards in determining admission.</p>

<p>I’ve used the term “conservatory/conservatory” like in describing high level programs that fall under both categories. </p>

<p>It may boil down to semantics and the needs of the student in determining their own definition.</p>

30

<p>

</p>

<p>Agree completely. I don’t think people should get hung up on the definition. Determining which schools place a sufficient emphasis on high level artistic ability is subjective and can vary from instrument to instrument.</p>

31

<p>Not saying I agree or disagree…but here is what Wiki has to say about Conservatories…there is more on the site…have just pulled off the “independent conservatory”…they also talk about conservatories tied to university and music programs within a university…etc.</p>

<p>[edit] Independent conservatories
Conservatories are the most individual and popular type of music school. Conservatories completely focus on music and do not specialize in anything else. Usually emphasis within the school will be focused on either “Classical” or “Contemporary” studies, though in recent years, this divide has begun to meld. Some conservatories also include instruction in drama and dance, most notably the Juilliard School, however this instruction is usually not considered part of the “Conservatory” part of the School. In the Juilliard School, for example, there are three schools each operating quasi-independently; the Juilliard School of Music is the only true “Conservatory” part of the school.</p>

<p>Notable Classical conservatories in the United States are:</p>

<p>Cleveland Institute of Music (Cleveland, OH)
Curtis Institute of Music (Philadelphia, PA)
The Juilliard School (New York, NY)
New England Conservatory (Boston, MA)
Manhattan School of Music (New York, NY)
Mannes College The New School for Music (New York, NY)
The Colburn Conservatory of Music (Los Angeles, CA)
San Francisco Conservatory of Music (San Francisco, CA)
Notable contemporary music (Jazz and popular styles) conservatories are:</p>

<p>Berklee College of Music (Boston, Massachusetts)
Los Angeles Music Academy College of Music (Los Angeles, CA)
The New School for Jazz and Contemporary Music (New York, New York)
McNally Smith College of Music (St. Paul, Minnesota)
Often, academic requirements for conservatories are merely supplemental to a music student’s education and career. This makes them very popular with students who are aiming at a professional performance career, and who do not wish to do all of the academic requirements that are normally required at music schools that are part of a larger university system.</p>

<p>[Music</a> schools in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia](<a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_schools_in_the_United_States]Music”>Music schools in the United States - Wikipedia)</p>

32

<p>I think what others say is correct, that traditionally conservatories were stand alone schools or stand alone programs as part of a larger university, but the line has blurred. For example, they seem to consider the music program a conservatory, yet applicants I seem to recall have to apply for academics as well as music and they actually I believe dual major (or at least take academic courses)…so is that a conservatory?</p>

<p>I am not sure about Shepherd or Jacobs, do students who go there take any academic courses at all (I realize they have to be admitted to both the music program and to the university, but as music people do they just study music/music theory/etc as in a conservatory, or do they need to take academic courses)…if in a university the music students basically do the same curricula as a conservatory, study music entirely, how is that different? (a rhetorical question). </p>

<p>I guess what that highlights is that it often is hard to discern. For example, there has been talk at places like Juilliard of requiring students in let’s say the music program take more liberal arts courses like a student in a university has to do; is it then more like a university? </p>

<p>I tend to use conservatory like violadad, where it means a music program that intensely focuses on music performance with little outside of that (though then is Bard a conservatory even in that light?). Maybe we should stick to intense music programs (but then again, what does that mean? <em>lol</em>)</p>

33

<p>As an example the Wikipedia article did not include, I would like to cite Boston Conservatory whose music, theater and dance dance divisions ARE all considered to be part of an overall conservatory setting.</p>

<p>I certainly agree that there are purposes for which a narrow definition of “conservatory” is useful, and purposes for which a broader definition is wanted.</p>

34

<p>Historically the accepted definition of a conservatory includes any school that specializes in performing arts, and therefore a conservatory could legitimately include dance and drama divisions or consist entirely of dance or entirely of drama. In the US in practice the definition of conservatory seems limited in two ways that it is not elsewhere in the world:
a) almost exclusively to music in the US; and
b) to post-secondary institutions; I think that most authorities would include pre-college institutions (for example, the Royal Conservatory of Music in Toronto which is primarily pre-college). </p>

<p>There is no line dividing a conservatory from an “institute of music”: e.g. Cleveland Institute of Music, which is as much a conservatory as is Peabody Conservatory or Oberlin Conservatory. Neither is there a line dividing a conservatory from a “school of music”: e.g. Eastman School of Music, Shepherd School of Music, the Juilliard School, and the Colburn School each of which embodies at least some of those ethereal conservatory qualities as much as places that use the word “conservatory” in their names.</p>

<p>Certainly people are correct when they mention that places called conservatories have a greater focus on music than on other subjects. I would go so far as to say that the focus in conservatories tends to be on the performance of music (while acknowledging that conservatories do have composition majors). Places like Yale, Harvard, and Princeton generally do not offer undergraduate degrees in performance, but do offer undergraduate studies in the theoretical/historical aspects of music.</p>

<p>All conservatories in North America of which I am aware do require non-music courses. I prefer the term “non-music courses” over the term that previous posters have used: “academic courses.” The use of “academic courses” to refer to non-music courses implies that music courses are not academic. For those who want to make such an implication, I would suggest that you try enrolling in a course in musicology or music theory at a reputable school; I believe that you will find plenty of academic challenge and stimulation in these music courses. They are academic.</p>

<p>In answer to musicprnt’s query as to whether Shepherd or Jacob students take non-music courses: They certainly do. They generally take quite a few more non-music courses than most students at places like NEC or Juilliard would. At Shepherd, students must fulfill the Rice Distribution requirement which is required of all other Rice students.</p>

<p>There is certainly a continuum for schools of music in terms of the percentages of music and non-music courses required. Places that we lump into the conservatory category have the highest percentage of courses in music (sometimes at 80% or slightly higher). </p>

<p>I had always thought that the word conservatory was related to “conserve” and that a conservatory was a place where the arts were “conserved” or allowed to grow the way plants do in a conservatory. Wrong. Conservatory comes from the Italian “conservatorio” which was a home for foundlings. Often the foundlings were taught plenty of music (think of the home for foundlings in the “Red Violin” and the orphans’ school to which Vivaldi was connected) and consequently they became excellent performers, forming some of the finest ensembles prior to the full bloom of the Baroque and Classical music periods. So, historically a conservatory is a school for children whose parents have abandoned them:)!</p>

35

<p>Maybe the word conservatory should be changed to “professional music school” but hey, that’s clunky and possibly ambiguous. For example, McSon’s school of music at University of Michigan is not technically a conservatory in the conventional music jargon, yet in true conservatory-like fashion only one class per term is typically pursued somewhere OTHER than the School of Music and the graduation requirements are specific to the SOM and are considerably different than regular U of Mich graduation requirements.</p>

<p>I am often amused when McSon’s peers’ parents refer to the UMich SOM as a great combo b/c of the academic strength of the school (and academics are considered in a prescreening way and net result: 1 in 5 matriculate with a 4.0, the gross average is 3.6 and yet the min. is “3.0” to apply, with an average SAT CR+M of 1300) since in actual fact, BMUS or BFA students at UMich don’t actually have time to take more than one course outside SOM and they need to carry 17 or 18 credits in order to do so.
While they <em>can</em> dual degree, that looks like five and a half or six years. You can do an undergrad plus masters in that amount of time!
So, Jacobs and Rice might not be “conservatories” in the traditional sense, but I suspect like U of Mich they don’t closely resemble typical undergraduate university study either ; )
(The closest fit for a description that can be appreciated by the uninitiated is it’s like engineering programs in terms of specialized curriculum.)</p>

36

<p>Violindad:</p>

<p>When I used the term “academic”, I meant as you pointed out non music focused classes (for example, it sounds like at Shepherd the students have to take classes from the core curricula, which most colleges require undergrads to take, also known places as liberal education requirements, etc…I would be the last one to claim music classes are not academic, theory alone is out there (my son is in the equivalent of roughly a second year music theory class, it is pretty intense). I was simply trying to distinguish between music focused classes and the ‘regular’ courses like math, literature, etc college kids take.</p>

<p>I think the point is that the name conservatory or music school or college music program have little meaning in of themselves, the lines have blurred. I can’t speak for the other ‘standalone’ conservatory, but there has been a lot of time and space taken at Juilliard talking about the need for more non music courses, Dr. Pelosi has been pushing for it, but in reality from what I can tell the Juilliard curricula is still almost entirely music based…but other schools seem to have done things differently. </p>

<p>I kind of like schools of music, last that is the one label that describes what someone is in:)</p>

<p>That raises a question, does anyone know if the ‘old school conservatories’ like St. Petersburg, Moscow, Paris, the Royal Academy, etc, others, if they were music only or did they have other areas, like dance, dramatics,etc?</p>

37

<p>Musicprnt: Yes, I too like the name “music school” or “school of music”: it does seem self-explanatory.</p>

<p>As for your last question about what the historic European conservatories offered: I think that St. Petersburg has always been just music; the Conservatoire de Paris has offered both dance and music. There are a ton of Royal Academies: Royal Academy of Arts (which is strictly visual arts); Royal Academy of Dance; Royal Academy of Music; Royal Academy of Dramatic Art; and even the Royal Academy of Engineering! I think that these academies developed independently.</p>

<p>The push for more non-music liberal arts courses sounds good, but, of course, the time for these courses must come from time previously spent on music. One wonders if that will leave enough time for students to develop proficiency as musicians. I suspect that it would: the level of playing has increased so much in the last three decades that the present students could probably handle more liberal arts without it hurting the development of their playing skills too much. Many of them arrive at the best schools with large repertoires and high levels of musicianship and technical proficiency. Given the greater demands on musicians to be flexible and to adapt to new audiences and new modes of listening to music, it is probably more important than ever that musicians be aware of the greater world outside music. Stimulating and well-taught liberal arts courses should create that necessary awareness.</p>

38

<p>At a HS parent meeting recently, there was some discussion of a kid (happened to be mine) who went to a “conservatory.” Young parent leaned over to a friend of mine and said “what the he** is a conservatory?” My evil friend said, “You know, the place where you go to look at the stars.” Young parent replied “That’s RIGHT: cool!”</p>

39

<p>Well, we all hope our kids will be stars, right?</p>

40

<p>Violindad-</p>

<p>I am not sure even with the levels coming in if the students would have much time for ‘extra classes’, as much as I think it might benefit them. From what I can tell, the intensity level only increases at the college level. Being around Juilliard during the week when my S has his chamber coaching, it is incredible how packed the practice rooms are, and the same applies on saturday and Sunday (the practice rooms are segregated, the pre college kids aren’t supposed to use anything but the rooms reserved for them), and talking to the kids in the college we know they said it is even more intense then it was pre-college…the teachers may not have to work as much on basic technique and such, but that frees them up to be even tougher with the nuances of near perfect intonation, sound, shaping and so forth (just my observation, not exactly broad based experience at this point)</p>