<p>i have recently started guitar lessons, and was just curious how long it would take to become proficient enough to apply to a decent music school.</p>
<p>i have previous music experience with trumpet and piano, but i have become interested in exploring future guitar options. i realize i may grow tired of guitar after a year or whatever, but let's say i don't. i will be applying to schools in 3 years (i am 19 right now; circumstances dictate the 3 years), and i am planning on continuing my private lessons throughout those 3 years (should i continue to enjoy it).</p>
<p>my lessons on 30 minutes as of now, with 45 minute and 60 minutes lessons available (they recommend these for intermediate and advanced students). i am able to practice an hour a day on guitar (i am still playing piano as well; dropped trumpet some time ago). let's assume i make average progress and keep the same practice schedule, could i possibly be in a position to apply to jazz programs in 3 years?</p>
<p>i know there are all kind of factors in how quickly one learns things, but i am just curious. thanks!</p>
<p>It’s possible. Is it a given, or guaranteed? No clue. You can try your best. I’d suggest the longer lesson, with the best teacher you can find (and afford). High level ensemble play, with peers of equal or greater skill level is an important learning tool and experience. In the case of jazz (although I have no background here), you will also need to develop improvisational skills. </p>
<p>My experience is in bowed strings. There is a long learning curve on these instruments. Some may say starting at age 5 is late; many start in middle school, and develop dramatically in high school. Practice times vary, but 1-3 hours daily might be the norm; it can can be as high as 5 or 6, potentially more. The practice time on this instrument group at the conservatory level is typically 3-6 hours daily.</p>
<p>The length of time is unimportant. Knowing how to practice and the quality of the practice is.</p>
<p>Some of the questions, responses and insights here will give you some perspective on the
background and training from among this forum:</p>
<p>Are you doing classical guitar? (That is what I know a little about, from one of my kids)</p>
<p>Many people start on the late side (early teens, teens) with guitar.</p>
<p>Our daughter did a year or two (I don’t remember) starting at age 14, with a teacher who did not teach properly. Everyone in our town thinks he is a great guitar teacher, but once she did get a good teacher, it became very apparent what she had been missing.</p>
<p>The new teacher (who is a recorded classical and jazz guitarist) was very selective about who he would take on as a student, and, for some reason, he agreed to accept her despite the poor teaching she had had. Maybe because she works hard and was obviously serious.</p>
<p>She went for a 60 minute lesson, but the lessons were usually 90, because he lost track of time and is just a wonderful teacher who wants to cover what he wants to cover in a lesson. She spent the first year doing the studies (Carcassi, Sor and Giuliani) and then started playing Bach, Villa Lobos, Nin…“real music.”</p>
<p>I think that in 3 or 4 years of very hard work, she attained a pretty good level, and could have applied to schools for guitar. She is actually studying composition, not guitar, in school, but continues to work hard with her teacher and loves it. Good luck!</p>
<p>I will second the advice already given. Having played the piano and trumpet, you are probably already aware that a well thought out practice plan will make your work time far more effective. </p>
<p>As for whether 3 years is “enough” to get into a good jazz program, we can’t begin to tell. There will always be the question of talent.</p>
<p>To quote my high school basketball coach, “Hustle beats talent, when talent doesn’t hustle”. Of course, unsaid was “talent beats hustle, if talent hustles”.</p>
<p>Put another way, I can practice saxophone 24/7, I’ll still never be Coltrane.</p>
<p>i guess the question i should really be asking is whether or not a degree in music is worth it. i know that i want to make music my life, or at least fail trying. but i don’t have the desire to be, say, an accomplished member of a symphony. my interest lies more in making (contemporary) music, along the lines of indie music. the music that i’m most interested in is folk (perhaps rock)-based with strong elements of jazz and classical music; if interested, do a quick youtube search for grizzly bear, anything off of their album entitled yellow house. anyway, i’ve had enough experience playing some type of instrument to know that this is what i want to pursue. the reason i became interested in music schools is because i’ve noticed some of the bands i listen to (including grizzly bear) have members who have degrees from music schools, particularly jazz programs. i want to become as good as i can at actually playing the instrument, and have a foundation in theory. </p>
<p>so my question is, would a music school program be overkill? is the proficiency i’m seeking at guitar (and piano) achievable with only private lessons? i’m not necessarily looking to have world-renowned technique, but i am still aiming to be quite good.</p>
<p>as this seems to be a very classically-oriented forum, perhaps this isn’t the right place to ask. but seeing as most programs are classically-oriented and everyone on here seems extraordinarily knowledgeable, i think there is probably some very valuable advice to be had.</p>
<p>sorry if this has been beat to death, but i couldn’t find anything through the search function, and i scanned the first 10 pages of threads and found nothing, so if it has been thoroughly discussed, could someone point me in the right direction?</p>
<p>In addition to the schools listed in violadad’s link the University of Miami has a strong jazz reputation and I believe a strong guitar program.</p>
<p>Pay particular attention to the post made by raddad in the thread link I gave you a post or two above.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Think of a musician as a sponge. Many absorb from a variety of sources, listening to professional artists, interaction with instructors, peers. There are technical skills to be mastered, and developed. Some seem to be born with an innate ability, others develop over time. </p>
<p>In most cases, it’s the sum of the breadth and quality of the experiences, not just one factor. Formal technical training is helpful in achieving mastery, but when does mastery become artistry is any one’s guess. There are self taught artists, and there are conservatory trained technicians.</p>
<p>Most will tell you a formal background in music theory, history, and the peripherals help to make them better musicians; some will argue vehemently in opposition. Private instruction, particularly at the intermediate and advanced levels can introduce a student to eureka moments they might never have been able to overcome or discover on their own. The interaction and exposure to equal or more talented peers often increases one’s ability and insights exponentially. Being surrounded by “like-minds” is a factor many cite in what defines them as a musician. Most will also stress the influences of a mentor, or a series of mentors.</p>
<p>For most, these experiences tend to be within the aspects of a formal training program, or a series of formal programs, which can typically provide a commonality of experience, not readily available elsewhere.</p>
<p>i first started looking at music schools because it made sense to me to develop my playing abilities from the highly qualified teachers in the faculties. </p>
<p>with this said, i have the opportunity to take the music classes that are not restricted to only music majors (which is pretty much everything except performance classes) at the university in my town, a large top-25 public school, but not known for its music program (one of my parents works there, and i can enroll without charge). it seems to me that classes in theory, ear training, analysis, etc. may not vary significantly (in terms of what i’m trying to achieve) from this school and a reputed music program; i might be wrong, i really have no idea. would it be worth taking these classes here now, before i consider applying to a program? or would the quality of these courses not be up to par? </p>
<p>if they are, i imagine i could get the foundation you spoke of, violadad, in theory, history, etc from this and individual reading and study. in which case, perhaps a diploma program of some sort (am i right in assuming that this sort of program is focused more towards technique?) would be more suitable in the future.</p>
<p>Within a recent listing of the top 25 public universities are a few schools that are at the forefront of high level music studies, conservatory level programs that attract the very best; a number of very good programs, a few that are “solid”. Ten to a dozen are typically not within the “normal” list of the “go to” programs for high level music.</p>
<p>Without you specifically naming the school, you should receive an excellent to adequate foundation in theory, ear training and music history. Most music schools teach theory to their own curriculum sequence and standards, and what may be Theory I at school A may be Theory II at College B. You may also find parts of Theory III at University C is in fact covered in Theory I at A. </p>
<p>Music history should be fairly standard in scope, and like much academic survey coursework, the subject will come alive or be a complete boor, contigent on the instructor’s style and ability, and the student’s personal level of interest.</p>
<p>From a credit standpoint, theory coursework is often the most difficult subject to have attained credit transferred from music schools for transfer students. Typically it involves a thorough review of coursework, syllabi, course description, and grades. Also, a “test-out” may often be required before credit is transferred.</p>
<p>From a knowledge standpoint, it will not hurt you. It should and could help you as a musician.</p>
<p>And in your case, free is good. I see it as a no-brainer.</p>
<p>I’m not sure of what you’re trying to say here, so let me ramble.</p>
<p>If you’ve read through the links I posted above, you’ll have a pretty good overview of the backgrounds of some of the posters within this forum. It runs the gamut from kids whose parents are pro/semi-pro musicians to parents like myself who couldn’t carry a note if it was in a paper bag. The students experiences range from formal instruction beginning at an early age, through lessons only within a public school system, maybe a few with little or no real formal instruction. Some have attended performing arts high schools, “big name” pre-conservatory programs, summer immersion programs; participatory experiences run the gamut from nationally acclaimed intense youth orchestras through barely marginal high school ensembles. Some have national level competition experience, others never made All-state.</p>
<p>What does this tell you? Frankly, not a helluva a lot. Perhaps it hints on it’s not so much the quantity of the experience, but the quality. Perhaps it suggests that self direction and motivation, and encompassing passion plays a role as well.</p>
<p>violadad, thanks for all your insight and direction. you’re knowledge, particularly of everything seemingly discussed on this board is extraordinary.</p>
<p>the university i was referring to is ohio state university. i don’t believe its a ‘go-to program’. even so, i believe, and you reassured, it could only help to take courses there. you said theory differs in sequence. i would have the ability to take theory I-VI (2 years; 6 quarters) which is as high as it goes (apart from counterpoint and ‘theory and analysis’ classes. in which case, would it be similar to other ‘go-to’ programs?</p>
<p>as far as music history, i don’t think i’ll have time to take courses at the university. but there seem to be quite a few books on the subject, and it seems, to me at least, like that would be an appropriate way to learn that material.</p>
<p>the other courses i was considering taking are ear training (through VI; complements the theory), studies in counterpoint, and composition I. again, i can’t imagine that it would hurt to take these classes here, but i am new to the process.</p>
<p>you said you weren’t sure of what i was trying to say when you quoted me, so let me try to rephrase: if the courses in theory, ear training, etc. are similar in quality (with perhaps outside, individual study) to those at conservatory-type programs, would it make sense to take these courses in the time i have now (and for free) and then apply to a diploma-type program to refine playing skill and technique?</p>
<p>i haven’t quite waded through all the threads you’ve listed; hopefully i can get those read tonight and this weekend. and again, thanks!</p>
<p>Thanks for your kind words, but by no means consider me anywhere close to being an expert. I’d settle for being considered a moderately informed layman. Much of the information I provide is already here; whatever skill I possess is knowing what’s available as knowledge and background, both here and elsewhere. It’s a composite of collective wisdom. At best, I might be an effective editor, or the librarian.</p>
<p>Two years of theory and ear training is typically the minimum requirement of a BM, although some specific disciplines may require more. You may wish to do more, in specific areas of interest, as a number of students do even if they’ve met their degree requirements. Counterpoint and an intro level or two of composition would most likely be very useful.</p>
<p>Don’t make yourself too crazy about the level of comparison in equating these courses with conservatory level equivalents. Some of the links I gave you discuss some theory program overviews. Ohio State is a solid program, and you should get a strong foundation, particularly if you can access the courses for music majors (or minors), rather than theory geared to a very basic intro course(s) for non-majors. Without knowing the institutional policies for access, and actual course descriptions, there may or may not be a difference. Take a look, and see what’s available.</p>
<p>Music history can be done as a self study. My son had read two or three of the standard college level texts before finishing high school on his own, but he’s the type that reads full orchestral scores just for fun. A History of Western Music - 7th Edition! (Burkholder/Grout et al) is a pretty standard college text, some might call it definitive.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If you have a serious interest in music, and plans of incorporating it as a career path, I could see no reason how it could not be beneficial, regardless of whether or not you enter a formal training program down the road. It appears it will cost you time and books. As I said earlier, seems like a no-brainer.</p>