<p>oops, in my last past it should have read “students not from the top schools aren’t automatically screened out” rather then are. Yeah, there is also serendipity to getting in, sometimes it is just being in the right place at the right time…</p>
<p>As my husband was an “old school” conservatory grad, who had no idea of what to do with himself after he graduated, I was happy to see new-ish programs that help music students think about careers after school at a couple of the schools our S auditioned at this spring - specifically IU Jacobs & CU Boulder. Of course connections & therefore top schools/teachers help some students more than others (and only some students at those schools), but all college students, in ANY field can benefit from directed thinking about networking & self-promotion. Perhaps artists especially, who possible need it most.</p>
<p>Jumping back to imageps comments about the lack of popular music grads in the top 40, John Mayer and Esperanza Spalding are two very relevant Berklee grads (and I am not that tied into who and where Berklee alums are) and as jazzshreddermom pointed out the USC program is pretty new but the article below includes reference to two USC pop program participants (both age 21 or under I believe) who are on the upcoming Hunger Games soundtrack. One of them will be touring with Maroon 5 in the coming year.</p>
<p>[‘The</a> Hunger Games’ soundtrack to showcase USC pop music students - latimes.com](<a href=“Archive blogs”>'The Hunger Games' soundtrack to showcase USC pop music students)</p>
<p>From what I gather based on a quick Google search, John Mayer is not a Berklee grad, but rather a dropout. Then again, as others have stated that’s not always a bad thing at that school.</p>
<p>Classical music and its various forms are unique, in that without the training it is next to impossible to break into on any level, it is the nature of the beast. In other forms of music, like pop, rock, jazz and so forth,people can and do achieve, in a lot of cases without formal training (and in many of them, it shows, I cringe when I hear many pop singers doing the national anthem, though some do a credible job, I thought Kelly Clarkson for one did a decent job). A lot of pop music IMO is really the work of marketing geniuses, self made or otherwise, and recording engineers and such.</p>
<p>Okay, now speaking way outside my realm of knowledge, if my son were into some form of ‘pop music’, would I encourage him to go to Berklee, USC, etc rather then getting out there and going for it? From what I know, I would say yes (and again, understand my knowledge is limited on this). From my take, learning to sing properly which I assume is part of the training, learning various styles of singing, or instrumental training, sure as heck isn’t going to hurt, and could in those 4 years save them many years of trial and error to learn what is there. Not to mention that the kids could be making valuable contacts through the school, whether it be kids into recording engineering, or kids on the business side, who will be their colleagues out there…My take would be that they could be doing a lot of what others pick up through years of plugging away out there and so forth in a more direct manner…</p>
<p>The one thing I am pretty certain of is if you are looking for such a program to automatically’ turn out a ‘successful’ musician or singer or performer or see it as somehow making it a lot easier to ‘make it’, it is like my answer to someone who believes going to Juilliard or wherever will grease their path, it simply isn’t true. My take is simply that going through a program like this might teach lesssons earlier then someone ‘doing it on their own’ out there, and might also teach things that may well never be learned outside. For example, I know programs like Berklee and others bring in established music people to give guest lectures/talks/master classes in their fields and they can have insight into ways to do things that simply are not easy to learn on your own, based on experience in other areas. Yes, it is costly to go to one of these schools, and it might seem like ‘a waste’ to go there if it can’t guarantee much of anything and you can ‘do’ popular music without it…but then think about something else, and that is what happens if music doesn’t pan out the way the kid thought? They may not make it as a performer, but compared to the person who went out there and did it, they might be able to land a related job in music (marketing, A and R, whatever); or they still have a college degree from a program that employers will look at and realize it means something, as opposed to the kid who just went out there and did it, so if they are looking for a ‘straight’ job, it will help them:).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s a sad thing for most college music performance majors when it has been well established that only the elite of the elite who attend a handful of “prestige” schools have any change of making a living in classical music (and thats not even a good chance, maybe a 1 out of 25 or 100 chance), and the best example of a college trained musician becoming rich or famous performing pop music is a college dropout.</p>
<p>I really wonder if it is a “you either got it or you don’t” situation with music performance and if college, even “prestige” college is a total waste for a potential performer. I wonder if the best of the best could simply skip college, practice like crazy, possibly own their own, for the length of time that they would have been in college, and do just as well at top orchestra auditions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Quite possibly, for those whose sole dream in life is to get an orchestral job. Luckily, the majority of students in music schools are actually interested in getting a good education, learning new skills, broadening horizons, other career opportunities, etc.</p>
<p>I completely agree with imagep and I’d even go so far as to venture to say that real talent doesn’t get heard in this world by and large. For anyone who disagrees with me, why is it that the majority of people who are well-trained in music and have devoted years of their life to study don’t make it nearly as big as those without college degrees? It’s about doing what the general musically uneducated public likes. As for what fishee is talking about, I think that’s the idea behind those undergraduate performance diplomas that lots of conservatories offer.</p>
<p>Until recently, D’s private teacher (a professional orchestra musician) has said it doesn’t really matter where you go to undergrad, as long as you have a good teacher, that the grad school name is more significant, and that if you get to that point and there isn’t a grad school willing to offer lots of scholarship/grant money, it’s time to rethink career options. Actually, he had said not to major in music at all, but to practice her tail off and major in something else, even if it takes five years to graduate that way. “The music world is changing.” </p>
<p>Then she had her final audition at a more prestigious school, and at her next lesson, he suggested she should go there if at all possible if she’s at all serious about a career in music. She was the very last one in her instrument to audition for the season at that school, and so the professors knew their pool and one, who had gone to college or grad school with her teacher, apparently called him about her. </p>
<p>She’s trying to keep a level head because she doesn’t want to have her career choices limited by a boatload of debt. Can’t really assess the value of her options until we have all the offers in writing.</p>
<p>"I really wonder if it is a “you either got it or you don’t” situation with music performance and if college, even “prestige” college is a total waste for a potential performer. I wonder if the best of the best could simply skip college, practice like crazy, possibly own their own, for the length of time that they would have been in college, and do just as well at top orchestra auditions. "</p>
<p>I doubt that very much, for a number of reasons. While going through a BM degree doesn’t guarantee anything as others have pointed out, when you get a BM degree it is a lot more then simply practicing and practicing and practicing on your instrument. Ensemble playing like orchestra and chamber require skills that you don’t get from perfecting repertoire or playing notes perfectly (it is one of the big knocks on music education in Asia, for example, where teachers basically teach repertoire and until recently, training in ensemble playing has been given short shrift). Talk to people in orchestras and they will tell you one of the problems with the blind audition process is that they can get a candidate who plays brilliantly on the audition, and then when they sit with the orchestra they are not very good ensemble musicians. Chamber even more so, small groups like that require a chemistry and skills you don’t get from being able to play the violin with perfect intonation or whatever. Then, too, there is personality, you can get someone who gets through the audition process for an orchestra who turns out to be someone taking that because 'I couldn’t make it as a soloist" and you find they don’t fit well. </p>
<p>Practicing on your own is not going to get you those skills IMO, unless you have access to high level programs. Likewise, those programs also require you to learn music theory, ear training and music history, that are all part of truly playing the music, rather then notes. Playing beethoven is very different then playing Mozart, whether it is solo or ensemble playing, and musicians have to understand that underlying difference to be good players.
Then, too, things like stagecraft are important, though sadly in classical music IMO that is given short shrift.</p>
<p>Plus what if you spend those 4 years practicing and practicing, and don’t make it in music? You will basically find yourself starting over, whereas someone with a BM degree from a conservatory or music school at a college, has a college degree that shows achievement, no different then many liberal arts degrees would do. </p>
<p>Yeah, I have seen examples of people who didn’t study music as an undergraduate and ‘made it’, but if you look closely at those examples, you see something in common, and that is most of them before college already were out there. Yo Yo Ma studied I believe history at Harvard, but already was an established performer; Gil Shaham went to Columbia, but again had gone through Juilliard’s pre college program and already was performing, and with others I am aware of they already were at a very high level and had the skills in place, so they could major in X, study with a private teacher and come out flying. I see kids all the time that at 16, 17 or 18 who are stepping out as soloists and so forth, and already have significant ensemble experience as well, and who could prob go that route if they wanted to, but that is not true for everyone, either. And voice is even more so, the kinds of things expected out of classical level singers is such that I don’t think you could do it with a private teacher and skip training, especially as singers seem to require grad level work these days, as do many instrumentalists…</p>
<p>Yeah, you can do pop music as you are saying, and in fact most pop stars have little formal training (not surprising, from a form where the geniuses are marketing and engineering and hype and spectacle for the most part rather then real talent; all you need to do is look at Madonna, Brittney Spears and Justin Bieber to see what I mean (with all due respect to people in the various forms of pop music, who did it the hard way, learned their craft and actually have talent). Put it this way, in classical music you can’t fake it, a classical singer doesn’t use auto tune and semi naked backup dancers to make them appear great, they don’t lip synch, and classical instrumentalists aren’t using backing tapes and backstage session musicians to make themselves appear to be actually musical, you can’t fake it. </p>
<p>What this also boils down to is the concept that college somehow represents the equivalent of what a trade school does for blue collar occupations, that in college you gain the direct skills needed to get a job, and in many cases that isn’t true, not by a long shot. Put it this way, kids coming out of college, even with engineering and tech degrees, for example, have only the base knowledge needed, a lot of what they do will come from on the job learning, and for people with liberal arts degrees, like history, english, etc, would be in a similar position to a music major who doesn’t do music <em>shrug</em>. If someone goes to the modern music program at USC, and doesn’t make it in music, they still have a college degree in other words, whereas the person who doesn’t go to college doesn’t have that. </p>
<p>From my viewpoint, the real problem is focusing on one particular outcome, rather then looking at all the possibilities. If you focus, for example, on getting an orchestra job or being a top level soloist or being a pop star as ‘the only outcome’, then almost anything, high level or no, is likely to disappoint most people, if you assume that that is the only outcome. On the other hand, if you go in saying “I would like to make a career in music, I am willing to try it, take the risks, etc” and then look and say “but even if I don’t make it, I think I can take what I learned and use it anywhere” the latter will be the road to whatever comes down the road. One of the things about being successful in music, as someone else pointed out, is that it is changing; the person thinking that only being in a major orchestra or being a soloist is ‘successful’ is likely to not pursue other options, and will be more likely to fail because they can’t see other possibilities in creating their own career, which more and more is what music is about. </p>
<p>BTW, I am not defending classical music training, there are a lot of things about it I feel look a little too backwards and not enough forwards, especially in who they admit or don’t admit, but quite frankly given what is out there, it still gives invaluable training I think a working classical musician will need.</p>
<p>musicprnt, you bring up an interesting point that I was thinking of making earlier. The last set of new hires at the LA Phil have been stratospherically talented people who not only are phenomenal musicians but also possess non-music degrees from Harvard, Columbia and the like. It struck me that maybe even “just” a music degree from Curtis is no longer enough. What’s a mere mortal to do? Definitely need to think about the back-up plans.</p>
<p>I’ve enjoyed following this thread. As a dad who has been a professional musician in the pop/rock/soul/ world since I was sixteen and who also has a daughter who plays viola and is starting the run up to music school I can see a few points you guys have missed. </p>
<p>The first is that the making music and being in the music business are two different ( though not mutually exclusive ) pursuits and require different skill sets. To be in the music business you have to of course be able to play like the devil but you also have to be able to handle the 23 hours a day you aren’t on stage. My daughter is pursuing music without any illusions about the beautiful, heartbreaking, rewarding and terrifying life that is trying to support yourself with it. Rule number one is that if you aren’t on the road you are doing something else besides playing like teaching. Gone are the days when you could do it with commercial or film work. I tell my students to only play music if you HAVE to and if you don’t understand that, then maybe it’s not for them. The twenty three other hours can really suck. Rule number two might be “marry someone with a real job”. </p>
<p>The other thing is that yes orchestra auditions start out being blind but even the orchestra business is still the entertainment business and that means that how a player looks matters, either consciously or unconsciously to the people doing the picking. I used to do a lot of live sound and even with the shows in theaters or pop string hires and darned if the front of the stage people didn’t conform to a “visual” version of what the audience would think a violin player should look like. Being talented and well schooled and well practiced is the thing and being cute as a button doesn’t hurt. </p>
<p>The last thing is that in the last forty years or so I’ve been playing professionally in the pop field is how incredibly talented the back up musicians really are. The playing level is just as high as the classical people I’ve worked with. Now with BANDS it’s a little different but the ones that last usually have an immense amount of talent and can handle the 23 hours better than the others. If writing a hit song were easy…</p>
<p>When my D was going into 6th grade, she announced that the horn (and mellophone) would be her calling. No kidding. By 11th grade, she was studying with the Principal horn of our large city orchestra (in the top 10 in the US)and had been to summer programs at Interlochen and Tanglewood. </p>
<p>A family friend (professional percussionist) told me, “She needs to find a teacher who she can work with and really live with for 4 years. Find the teacher, then look at the school.” So, over Spring break of 11th grade, she took one lesson from 4 teachers (in a college visit, not audition scenario) that were on our radar. We both looked for 3 key components: the best skills, networking opportunities, and a real college environment. This was a financial investment, but later it enabled her to go into each audition with a rapport with each teacher along with her interest in them.</p>
<p>Yes, Julliard and Curtis are world class music schools, but they are not world class colleges - and this was important to her. With that knowledge, we determined that she could get all 3 key components at Rice (Bill VerMuelen), Carnegie-Mellon (Bill Cabellero), Jacobs School of Music/Indiana U. (Dale Clevenger and Jeff Nelsen), Southern Methodist U. (Greg Hustis). She did audition at these schools and decided on Jacobs/IU (and the 4 year scholarship they offered her).</p>
<p>After she completes her BM degree in performance, she will then pursue an MM (targeting Julliard, Curtis, Rice, etc… for graduate school and a job). </p>
<p>As parents, we want to guide our children to make the best decisions. And, I also think it is our job to help them enjoy their youth and all the experiences that they will only have at this time in their lives. I am reminded a a violin protege/virtuso who at the age of 30 had an international reputation. She had been at Curtis from age 10 - 19. She had no social skills, and was quite unlikeable…yet, a heck of a fiddler. What a lonely albeit “glamourous” existence. How could her parents have done this to her?</p>
<p>Cg521- thank you for this post! It is perfectly timed as decisions are about to come out. I have told both my kids to focus on where they think they will be the happiest over the next four years and to make their own decisions. D is presently studying in China for the next 6 months and couldn’t be happier with her choice of college based on the International Affairs program - not rankings or “suggestions” from friends.</p>
<p>It is probably harder for musicians because everybody has an opinion! The message to my S - listen to yourself not everyone else. Find your own fit.</p>
<p>Your welcome!</p>
<p>There is reality to the comments regarding how difficult it is to make a living in music, especially classical music which has a much smaller audience, but as someone else said the main thing is to get your degree. Professors share information like this because they know what a commitment it is, some kids think music is an easy ride in college, and they want to know you are serious - talent helps as well. So don’t give up the dream, pursue it all you can - you can always go back to school and become an accountant or a saleperson.</p>
<p>TMM-</p>
<p>Nicely put, I agree all around. I totally agree that taking out huge student loans to pay for music school makes little sense, given the tenuous nature of being a musician (heck, even kids going to ‘academic schools’ taking out huge loans makes little sense to me). The elite music schools are expensive, many of them are as expensive as an Ivy, and even with whatever aid they give it is still very, very expensive, so the finances have to be a factor in the decision. Just getting to the level demanded these days to get into decent or better level music programs demands a lot of resources from the student’s families and the schools themselves aren’t cheap.</p>
<p>Cookerdee - very insightful post. I’m interested to know if your opinion / view of value of prestige schools changes if the student is a Music Composition major as opposed to performance musician. Our son is interested in Music Composition. I have no insight into that major in terms of how competitive things are. Would love any info.</p>
<p>I applied for a BM in composition at various music schools this year and it is indeed quite competitive. Many had prescreening requirements and then interviews. In these cases, there were 30-40 students who made it to the second stage. Some schools make you audition on a primary instrument and/or take a theory test (for placement/entrance purposes) in addition to your submitted portfolio, but this depends on a case by case basis. At one school, 3 students were ultimately accepted; at another, 6 (I believe). Then again, the level of competitiveness is largely dependent on where you apply. I’ll be posting my final decision shortly and am relieved to be done. 
Good luck!</p>
<p>Composition can be done with a BA degree program as well as a BM degree program, so there are more options for student composers as opposed to instrumentalists or vocalists. Most general music degrees include work in composition and varying degrees of concentration on it.</p>