<p>I personally think the movement toward prescreening, while understandable in some ways, is very unfortunate. I fear that it continues the music world down the road to robotic playing that we seem to be on these days. It advantages the kid who plays a note perfect performance without particular flair over the kid who has tremendous flair, but still needs to work on note perfection. Sometimes the gulf between these two is so huge that the kid with flair would never be accepted anyway - in that case it works. But for a string player whose tone is not yet completely clean, e.g., in part because they are going for something more musical than they can yet produce, they are often eased out of competition by the kid who plays a completely clean, though boring line. </p>
<p>In a music competition this is appropriate. You are looking for something very polished, very finished and the kid who plays more perfectly should probably win even if it's a little boring. However, in the world of music schools, they should be looking for the kids who have the greatest potential and it is those with that flair who have it, whether or not they are note perfect yet. </p>
<p>Another factor is that with prescreening, as I understand it, the tapes are often screened by only one person. Again, the kid with great flair will often appeal to most, but not all the people who hear him/her. In fact, there will be those who really dislike his/her playing/singing. In a live audition, that person will have one vote. In prescreening that person may be the decider. </p>
<p>I think the recording so takes the personal out of the mix that the most talented can frequently be dropped out of the pool. After all, there aren't that many Midoris applying to music school who have it all by 18. At a live audition the teachers can really see what direction someone is going in, the seriousness of their playing, the love for the instrument, etc. On a dry tape all they hear is the notes.</p>
<p>In the past, I understand that prescreening was used only to weed out those who really just didn't come close. I think that standard has tightened over the past 5 or so years and they are now making real choices at the prescreening level. This may benefit their resource management, but it doesn't benefit the music world at large.</p>
<p>On the issue of increased usage of pre-screening, I believe it also adds another burden on already-stressed families of student musicians. This may sometimes act as an invisible 'social screen', that makes a serious pursuit of music even more difficult than it already is. Does every 17-year old have a parent or guardian who has time or money to purchase a good recording device? This may seem trivial to some, particularly since most serious music students have probably already been provided with a high quality instrument, accessories, an excellent teacher, etc. And many have already been recording themselves for competitions. </p>
<p>Although most conservatories stress that professional recording is not necessary, many do it just to up their odds. And even for those who decide to do it amateur, let's face it, there is a big difference in sound quality between a $250 H4 Zoom, and a $30 Radio Shack cassette recorder. As has been discussed here before, a DVD requirement is even more difficult. </p>
<p>I understand the advantages of the pre-screening from the perspective of the schools. But in raising the procedural bar, are some potential musicians screened out unintentionally?</p>
<p>Prescreening, in most cases, saves money for everyone involved. When mezzo- D auditioned for undergrad five years ago, half her schools required prescreens and now they ALL require prescreens. I encountered more than one parent at the first (non pre screen) who complained that they had WASTED hundreds of dollars in travel only to discover that their student were no where near the level of accomplishment that was required for admission. There is no doubt that music school admissions (and music schools in general!) are an expensive proposition, but I do beleive that prescreens save money, time and energy for everyone involved.</p>
<p>I agree for the bottom 20-25% perhaps, but it is used to weed out many more than 25% and they are making a lot of judgment calls which perhaps would be better made in person.</p>
<p>Also, I think there are a lot more singers who overestimate their readiness for music school than instrumentalists. Often they have sung in school musicals and everyone at school has told them they are great and ought to be on broadway. I can see how the schools might get inundated with this kind of application.</p>
<p>For most instrumentalists (like the serious and music school-ready singers), they have already spent many years studying hard and working in ensemble groups and often their teachers have a good idea of what their potential is and direct them appropriately. I feel sure you get many fewer completely unprepared instrumentalists auditioning than singers.</p>
<p>"Often they have sung in school musicals and everyone at school has told them they are great and ought to be on broadway"
You have got that right! D's last teacher calls it HSM Syndrome. (HighSchoolMusical)</p>
<p>I would love to see the screening statistics for music schools, and actually I'd love to see application statistics per instrument as well. Is this information available anywhere? The odds are scary anyway, and truthfully I don't know if it would be scarier knowing the statistics, but I like that kind of data. </p>
<p>Because I'm new, can I ask if you have a clear idea when you get to auditions how many applicants for your instrument there are? Is it kosher to ask that and/or how many openings there are in the instrument this year?</p>
<p>They will usually tell you how many spots on a particular instrument. But the broader statistics are only sometimes made available, and then totally on a school-by-school basis. Also, if you learn, e.g., that Oberlin accepts 10% of its applicants, this doesn't necessarily mean that it accepts 10% of the pianists, tuba players, violists, etc. who apply. I think they prefer not to give you a lot of statistics and no organization compiles them the way institutions do for other college and university applications. It sure would be interesting to know!</p>
<p>An interesting fact: last year CIM had a bit of a mess in its violin department with midseason two of their top teachers announced retirement. They never told the applicant pool, but my son tells me that the news on the street is that they only accepted 5 freshmen for violin last year. I'm sure they must have had 200-300 applicants and in a normal year they must take about 20. This is not information that has been made public - just gossip!</p>
<p>I always ask "how many"! D had schools on her list last year that she took off her list when she found out there was "possibly one" spot available in their studio. But, they still accepted applications, auditions...ect. So, I think it is wise to ask.</p>
<p>Stringfollies- you are so very right about pre screening recordings. D excels at live auditions. She feeds off of her adreniline and loves performing live. While her recordings are good, we often listen to them and think that it does not sound a thing like her. I understand why prescreenings are necessary, but I do believe the schools miss many who have a lot of talent that they cannot see (or hear) on the recording. We have also found some schools require live auditions on campus. I would imagine that is also a way to weed out some applicants!</p>
<p>Thanks, It also seems to me that the pre-screening is adding a lot of time pressure to senior year, although I understand how necessary it may be, especially for "popular" instruments and voices. First there's the need to make the recordings (early fall?) then the uncertainty of waiting til mid January (or later?) to know when auditions will be.</p>
<p>Thanks--I'll make sure son asks then, scary as the answer might be. Is it too much to ask that there be a jazz drummer shortage, JUST this year???! Don't you think these kids might as well have also applied for all the Ivies, because the odds there may actually be better?! :)</p>
<p>If you are willing to dig around in the guts of each school web site, you can sometimes find the overall statistics. It may be hidden somewhere under Institutional Research, or on the Bursar's Office page or on the page of some Dean or another, so you have to look in some odd places that do not get a lot of hits from prospective students.</p>
<p>Once or twice I have come across a list of how many openings were expected on a given instrument in the coming year, but I have never seen a posted instrument-by-instrument breakdown of the number of applicants vs. the number accepted. Many of the schools that we dealt with were willing to divulge that kind of information face-to-face or over the phone and did not seem to mind that we had asked.</p>
<p>While that is interesting information, you have to ask yourself how you are going to use it. Some people may be motivated to put more practice time on their audition pieces if they know they will have lots of competition. Some may apply to a wider range or a larger number of schools. If the information is not going to change your actions, maybe it is better not to know.</p>
<p>The gossip you are repeating re CIM is just that - gossip! Facts are certainly confused resulting in the story your S heard. No change in violin instructors from last year to this current year - except the addition of Joan Kwuon.</p>
<p>there is a lot of movement from conservatory to conservatory, though, which can be disruptive for a particular student -- Richard Aaron's move from CIM to Michigan, and now also to Juilliard; wonderful Paul Kantor now teaching at the Royal Conservatory (where his wife teaches)...sometimes students follow their teachers, but other times they could be left behind. This is perhaps inevitable.</p>
<p>When they use pre-screen to do more than just eliminate the HSM folks they do run into some strange occurrences. Friend's DD did all the visits with sample lessons, getting much encouragement from the professors at several conservatories/schools. </p>
<p>Fast forward this audition season. School where professor was very encouraging and recommended application did not pass her pre-screen, even though she is already accepted with money at another well respected school. Communication to said professor and all of a sudden the "mistake" is discovered and her audition date is set. Don't know who listened to the pre-screen, but if you face similar situation it may be worth checking.</p>
<p>"While her recordings are good, we often listen to them and think that it does not sound a thing like her. "
I think this is true of most musicians. D had one of her winning NATS competitions taped by a friend who posted it on youtube. She used that link in her initial emails to prospective teachers for her MM apps. The sound quality was just OK and the camera does a lot of shaking, but she got a fantastic response from the faculty she had sent it to. Reason enough to tape as many live performances as possible.</p>
<p>When my son did auditions for cello in 2002 no one but Curtis was requiring a pre-screen. When he did his graduate school auditions in 2007, everyone required one. When my son asked his undergrad teacher what changed, his teacher told him that there were just too many applicants to hear in the time alloted for auditions. The schools have not increased their teaching staffs and are constrained by the school calendar and teaching schedules as to how many audition slots they have available on a given instrument. When the demand exceeds the supply, something has to give. Thus, the prescreen. I am guessing that most students who stand a decent shot at being admitted to any given program will pass the prescreen, even if their recording is not of the best quality.</p>
<p>From the current website, it looks like Oberlin has prescreening only for voice -- which I believe is a change from earlier years when they prescreened strings, though not piano. They also have regional auditions in numerous locations, including several locations in Asia. Oberlin also offers nonbinding early review. So at least one conservatory seems to be inclined to give all instrumentalists the opportunity to audition.
My sense was that a Juilliard, they wanted to err on the side of having a live audition.</p>
<p>I don't know about the higher strings but, to my knowledge, Oberlin has never prescreened string bass applicants. The year my daughter auditioned, the only school that prescreened on bass was Rice, and they required video. Even Curtis took all comers who were willing to show up in Philadelphia and pay the application and audition fees that totaled nearly $300. They used that plus some very difficult audition requirements to keep the numbers down to what could be heard in a single day.</p>