For those of you who have been through the pre-screen process (both as a student or a parent), how much effort and expense did you put toward your pre-screen recordings/videos? Was it a semi-professional session, multiple takes for each song, hired professional accompaniment, etc.? Or did you set up a tripod in the family room and do it in one take?
Maybe more importantly, do you think it matters? (i.e. the quality of the recording vs the quality of the playing.)
My son’s a jazz saxophone player and at least half of the schools on his list require a pre-screen and my impression is that some are very selective at this stage. I’d hate for him to not get an audition because we skimped on the pre-screen recording session.
From what I can tell, recording quality matters more at some places than others. My daughter used a consumer-quality camcorder in a good hall but no special mic setup for her college prescreens (5 years ago) and passed all the screens. But she did not need to prescreen Juilliard because she was in the precollege and I have been told that for Juilliard prescreen recording quality may matter. For grad school she made her prescreens herself using a Zoom Q3 or whatever it’s called, that is about 5 years old; again, passed all of them. Her reasoning is that the panel can appreciate the playing even if it’s not a professional recording and that multiple takes are not really necessary because you will not be eliminated because of a small blip near the end of a passage… but I don’t know. Maybe she got lucky. I know parents who have spent a fortune doing studio-quality recordings. Also–my daughter was recently surprised to be rejected from a competition on the tape round, but hers was made with the Zoom recorder and no professional mic set up. I’m thinking that others are spending money on recording (and probably editing recordings) and that a home-made recording put her at a disadvantage, regardless of her playing.
A few years ago, a friend of my daughter, an outstanding violist, submitted fairly low recording quality prescreens (high playing quality), to the most selective conservatories, and passed all – except Juilliard. She was subsequently admitted to all of the remaining schools on her list. It’s completely impossible to know if it was the recording quality, of course (we are talking Juilliard here), but given her skill level, her admission results, and the fact that her prescreen recordings were of lower recording quality – lower than can be obtained from using a zoom in a nice space-- it does seem it could possibly have been a factor. Idk.
My d used the zoom recorder in a nice space three years ago and passed all of her prescreens. I think, talking recording quality, that the space is most important factor, and gave her the biggest headache. A really dead room – which she tried once, forced my daughter to work extra hard and actually changed the way she was bowing, so it didn’t work.
Re the zoom, I recently swapped some audio for my daughter’s old teacher. He had some zoom video recordings as well as professional audio recordings of the same performances, and I swapped the professional audio into the videos for him. For his purposes, the professional audio made sense; there was a difference between the two – the ambient noise was basically gone in the pro audio, and (I’m no recording engineer so not sure of the correct words) also a certain undesirable brashness/harshness was removed. But i can’t imagine the difference would be material in a prescreen–the performance was all there, and readily discernible. But who knows? Maybe it does. A fancy recording – perhaps with editing, which is unethical but done-- would make a difference in certain situations.
For undergrad, my daughter’s high school gave her a recording device (only vocals required) and she went into a cinder block room for her recordings. It sounded tinny and harsh. We contacted her music school and paid for her to sing in the recital hall with her pianist there. They recorded her. In the end I don’t think it cost over $200. We were well-organized and got it done in 30 minutes. She did a few takes and she and her pianist quickly picked the best ones. I was much more comfortable with the sound quality. For grad school auditions, she hired a grad student in the school who had equipment. It cost $150. She did not use a recital hall just a class room (this was video and vocal). She had a friend who used a recital hall for a better background and maybe acoustics. Their results in pre-screening were identical - passed all except Juillard. I don’t think you need to go to a professional studio and spends tons of money. If there is a decent room at home, school or church that’s fine. For me, it was more the recording equipment and formats. It was worth a bit of money to have someone else deliver those recordings in the right format as I know nothing about that.
Figures, of course, that Juilliard is on his list. :\ And they accept audio only, no video. Seems like that puts a lot of pressure on recording quality.
So, any feedback from someone who passed the pre-screen at Juilliard?
My son like GH’s D didn’t need to prescreen Juilliard, because he was in the pre college there. However, from what I can tell I would encourage you with your pre screen to submit as good a quality audio recording as possible, I tend to think that the quality of the recording may hold you back, if the quality interferes with their ability to decide. It is possible to do a great recording using something like a zoom recorder, if you have the right space and know how to use the device properly, setting the gain on it, and also the recording angle and such, plus being able to use a recording program can be useful as well (not to splice takes or such, but you can take noise and such out of a recording using programs like Nero).
That said, you may want to pay a pro or semi pro to do the recording. Pre screens aren’t as long or intensive as the full audition repertoire, and doing it in a recording studio with proper sound levels and such is certainly not going to hurt you.
I started to say that can be more challenging to record. We decided to put some money into the prescreen in lieu of advance college visits (we figured if he didn’t pass the prescreen it wasn’t worth visiting beforehand). He asked a couple teachers and a college student to back him up (we paid them) and it was so worth it - they knew how to support his playing. His guitar teacher recorded it at a studio at a local school. We didn’t attend and I really think my son gained a lot just from the experience.
I went with a professional recording simply because I didn’t want the tone of my voice to sound thin due to the recording quality. I didn’t rent a space and instead used a friend’s large living room which was a mistake; we were worried for months that it made everything sound muffled. Multiple takes for a few songs, but most were the first take. I passed all of my prescrees including Juilliard. If you have the $$ available, I would go professional just for the security and avoiding “what ifs.” I wouldn’t go professional if it would cause financial stress.
Thanks for all the feedback, all very helpful. I think we’ll budget for this and try to do it right. He has a rhythm section in mind. So, I guess we need to decide whether to go in the studio or record in a performance space.
We’ve had great luck with a Zoom and the teacher’s church (he insists on it for acoustics, and shows up and directs the whole recording). I think the acoustics are probably more important than the equipment, fwiw.
My son passed all his prescreens…we hired teachers from the NEC prep program to be additional rhythm (son is a Jazz Bassist) and recorded it at one of the studios at a local high school that has a conservatory. We did it in one evening and they spent about four hours on it.
Now my own son has participated in playing on numerous successful prescreen recordings for younger students as a Jazz Bassist. Many are similar in quality to what he did, but others just do it at their local high school with recording equipment there. So much depends on where a student is applying. If you are using the recording as an addition to an academic application then it is less important to get an actual recording studio. But if you are applying to conservatory I would invest the time and money. At a minimum it is a nice thing to have.
Think of the recording as your presentation. Obviously if you are applying and it is clear you live far from resources or do not have the money then schools will make allowances for a poor recording. But if you clearly have the ability to do a nice recording then if your recording feels a bit less polished the conservatories you are applying to might question your child or your commitment to this particular path.
I’ve posted on this subject before, but I do have a unique perspective on the topic. I’ve spent my entire life working as a musician and as a recording engineer and when it came time to record my daughter’s pre-screen I had every possible angle covered. I had the keys to very good recording studio and if I wanted location the keys to a church I do sound for that has great acoustics. I also could borrow, at no cost, any mic and any mic pre-amp I wanted - some very high quality vintage stuff. So what did I go with? After a lot of experimenting I went with the built in mic on a Sony digital camcorder!
Not borrowing stuff, not going into a studio, not going to location and instead setting up the camera ( with some borrowed lights ) in the back room of our house worked out the best. I was able to leave the stuff set up and my daughter could come down anytime she wanted and record whatever. Having a more relaxed vibe was so much more important than having super quality.
But that said, the quality of the mic , with the built in compressor on the camera sounded exciting and live. There is a big problem with going too professional and that’s that your ear starts expecting perfection because of the setting. If it looks like and has the sound quality of Yo Yo Ma and then doesn’t sound like him ( which of course is impossible ) there is a let down by the listener.
When it came to accompanied things like concerto excerpts we hired the best pianist and paid for a couple of rehearsals. Rehearsal money is money well spent. We went to the hall where my daughter’s private orchestra rehearses at and I set up the same camera and , after making sure the viola was louder than the piano , just went for it. Wonderful recording!
From talking to teachers and the grads they often have screening ,all anyone wants is clear audio and a good picture with absolutely NO editing in the takes. Editing between takes okay, but don’t even think about touching the performances. Another advantage of using the mics in the camera is that the sync is perfect and anyone who can figure out iMove , etc. can piece one together. If you can’t do it ,I’m sure your kid knows someone at school that can. I found that it’s all about the excitement of recording and never ( except muddy , dark , hard to hear stuff ) about whether you went into a studio or not.
@Jb, thanks for that perspective. To be honest, a video pre-screen doesn’t worry us half as much as an audio-only one. My son’s in jazz, so everything is accompanied. We’ve made various audition recordings and videos before, so between us and his teacher, we have the wherewithal to do them. So, actually, we weren’t all that worried about them beyond the usual logistics stuff like scheduling until Juilliard came into the picture.
We’ve come to realize that we don’t know anyone who has actually gotten an audition for Juilliard’s jazz program through their prescreen process. We know a few musicians who were in their pre-college program and had their prescreens waived. Last year, my son’s combo played for the Lincoln Center Jazz Orchestra and Wynton invited their drummer in for an audition. But we also know a bass player from the previous year who was one of the top high school jazz bass players in the country, and the only school that wasn’t tripping over themselves offering full-ride scholarships and then some was Juilliard; he didn’t even get past the prescreen. Obviously, there are students who get past the prescreen but the entire jazz program, graduate and undergrad, is only 45 students, so it’s conceivable that many, perhaps even most, of the auditions granted for the very few freshman openings in jazz are via other means than the prescreen.
So, I guess we’re trying to decide whether we want to invest in “whatever it takes” (if we can even figure that out) or write it off as winning the lottery odds. I’m on the fence, to be honest. And, just so it’s clear, it’s not as if Juilliard is this mythical dream school. He had no interest in going there until he met and played for their sax teacher at a masterclass. He then had a lesson with him and just really liked him. We visited the school recently and he really loved the vibe there and I, as the parent, can see all sorts of aspects about the school that I think would be a great fit for him. That said, life will definitely not end if he doesn’t get in.
Periodically there have been discussions on what equipment to use for your own recordings. Since technology changes I was wondering if there are any updates on the best equipment to use for self recording? People mention Zoom, but are newer ones better?
jb1966 is probably right about obsessing over pre screens, I think their perspective is really valuable, and also is giving room to take a deep breath and realize they don’t have to be perfect recordings.
I recently bought my son a replacement zoom video recorder, the HQ model, and the quality is still great. Zoom generally improves their sound with each generation, and I suspect the same is true with others (I bought a sony video recorder for someone last year, and it has great sound, too, even though it has some limitations compared to zoom)
@ScreenName48105, my son knows at least seven kids (that I’m aware of) who submitted pre-screen recordings for the Juilliard jazz program this year and six of the seven made it through the pre-screen to the audition, so it does happen. (Five of the six who auditioned made it through callbacks, and two of those five were admitted.) However, none of the seven was a high school student auditioning for a freshman spot. Four were Columbia students applying for the Columbia-Juilliard exchange program, and the other three were seniors in other NYC music schools applying for the masters program, so they were all able to record at their schools.
I don’t know exactly what they used, but I do know that my son thinks that the Zoom does a good job – you probably don’t need anything fancier than that. I’m pretty sure that’s what my son used for his pre-screen recordings a few years ago, and he did fine with them. I also agree with others that having a good acoustic space in which to do the recording is helpful. I can see @jb1966’s point about the advantages of using a recording space where your son feels completely comfortable playing, but with a jazz pre-screen you need to line up the rhythm section, so it’s not possible just to set up a camera or mic in the back room of your house and have your son wander in to record whenever he feels like it. Good luck with everything!
The Zoom Q4 and now the Q8 are great little cameras. Very limited as far as lenses go (only wide) but the audio quality is very good. The Q8 accepts XLR plugs so that makes it much easier to use higher quality mics without external gear. One drawback about each if the cameras is the limited battery power.