<p>again, everyone is separated by 1 degree of separation. If you aren't amply aware of the fact that connections have a lot to do with your success, then please stop leading yourself or your poor kid along the path to a music career. If you think knowing people won't help you get an orchestra job then you're dreaming. There's so much evidence of it everywhere that it isn't even funny. If you want to freelance like a lot of LA/NYC people, then forget about it... knowing people is literally everything. With most faculty appointments you don't get the jobs you apply for, you get the jobs you're recruited for, and once again, that means who do you know. With chamber music or anything else, it's about having connections with festivals (which are often started or were founded by players), presenters, etc... </p>
<p>In opera there's a lot of repetition and tremolos and stuff like that. It's really annoying and time consuming. I don't think it would be a great danger to your playing, it's just not very pleasant in between the arias and overtures.</p>
<p>Violinmom's comments about her son's experience of an "overabundance" of ensemble opportunities/requirements put Lorelei's original question into a better perspective for me.</p>
<p>I have definietely heard "top flight" - Dorothy DeLay - string instructors warn against too many concurrent orchestra committments for college-age students. I'm sure those that Lorelei refers to have seen that too many opera requirements/opportunities can be damaging. I guess the places I am most familiar with limit the large ensemble requirements for violinists - perhaps concert orchestra then followed by a chamber orchestra assignment or an opera, but not multiple assignments simultaneously or an inordinate number of rehearsals for anything. Might be something to keep in mind if deciding between schools...</p>
<p>It has to be a balance though. My son's first Russian-school teacher (for the first 5 years) would not allow him to be in an orchestra. Chamber music was okay, but not too much of it. She thought it (a) took too much time away from solo practise and (b) allowed bad habits to develop unchecked. The result: he was unable to play decent ensemble even though he was quite advanced and his sightreading was very weak. He has since done a lot of chamber music and been in an orchestra and started developing these skills, but letting them go completely is also a mistake!</p>
<p>Vieuxtemps, your input is interesting, but you are verging on rude; precisely because the world of musicians is small, there are opportunities to make contacts in a variety of ways. Your implication that those who don't go to Juilliard or Colburn are doomed is unconvincing.</p>
<p>I never said anyone is doomed. I just said that with the world as small as it is, you might as well go there if performance is what you're interested in. Those are the people who will be in the positions you want one day, might as well be friends with them.</p>
<p>The violin teachers who spoke to me about this are reknown pedagogues, close personal friends, with whom I consulted when S was considering various conservatories for undergraduate string performance studies. The way it was put to me was that for violinists, the playing is constrained by the limitations of the pieces, the close quarters, and the tightness in playing for student singers, in an attempt not to swamp their sound. The issue at the time was whether this was a determining factor in which string players would attend these schools, and how that affected the peer talent level. These teachers, who are university and conservatory professors, whose players are winning national competitions and auditions, told me they would discourage their pre-college students from attending any school which was an "opera" school for this reason. This advice was a factor for my S in his choice of conservatory.</p>
<p>If you're lucky enough to get in, Vieuxtemps. Every talent has its time. Some take longer than others. Your world is very selective for 18-year-olds. Luckily the "top-flight" grad schools take players from a lot of different schools, even some you've never heard of.</p>
<p>It isn't really about luck. It's true some talent takes a while to develop, but with the way things are now, it might be a problem for you to get a good job if you can't get into one of the top programs, because getting an orchestra job is about 10 times as hard.</p>
<p>My 18-year-old son is not ready to give up today. Perhaps one day he will be - we are all prepared for the possibility of failure, but we wouldn't have him do so because he's not at Curtis next year. In Washington, the NSO is full of local musicians who went to Catholic University, U. Md., etc. They probably got pretty good connections to the NSO through their local teachers and friends just as you say. Perhaps this is not the NY Phil., but they are making a decent living ($100K +) doing what they love in a city they choose to live in where the cost of living is not a beastly as NYC. This is what it's all about after all, no?</p>
<p>This sounds a lot like the kids on the Harvard thread saying that if you don't go to Harvard you will never be an investment banker. It's true that many Harvard graduates will be investment bankers, but some will be professional musicians...</p>
<p>Not everyone needs an orchestra job to be fulfilled. Does my duaghter want to play in an orchestra someday? Yes, but she may never get there. I DO know she will find a way to make music her career in some way, shape or form because "to ask her not to be a musician is like asking her not to breathe" (her words, not mine - used when she justified her decision to apply as a music performance major). Her dad and I know she's tenacious and smart and will find her own way.</p>
<p>BEK - I agree 100%! My son lives and breathes music - he'll find his niche. It will probably NOT be with a top orchestra. It will be a balanced life with music as his passion and avocation. Today we are seeing more and more children who are pampered, pumped-up, positioned and ultimately doomed to failure because they can't measure up. My son is realistic and has already found other music avenues to pursue. Violin is his instrument...and he loves it. It has enabled him to venture into other areas that would otherwise have been hidden, or touched on at best, had he exclusively pursued "solo violin- only - 8 hours a day with no life." Most of our children aren't geared to that. If they were, you wouldn't be here on CC. Your kid would already be at Curtis, Julliard, etc. etc. Please, all of you who have Julliard, Curtis students, do not take offense. I know what it takes to get in there and succeed, and it's probably the utimate experience for any musician. But they only admit a fraction of students who aspire to that level...the rest of us find the best situation for our son or daughter and let them 'have at it' !!</p>
<p>You have a great attitude about it. I certainly don't think that an orchestra job is the ultimate goal in everyone's life, I was just talking about what is the most viable career option. I think a violinist can do a lot of different things, but as you mentioned, almost no one can be a soloist, and not many more can do chamber music at a level where they can earn a living. Orchestra isn't that much different. If they can make a living in some way, and they love it, then believe me, they'll probably be better off emotionally than a lot of my friends, and maybe even me.</p>
<p>As long as you're not under the delusion that a career in classical music performance is just kind of a given like going to law school and getting a 9-5 is, then you're in good shape. Expectations are everything, we live and die by them. You all read what I wrote about conservatories... trust me... curtis/juilliard is not a guarantee of anything, and it isn't some happy great place either, which is why I want to go to a real university now. But, if you want the conventional music career with enough money to support a family and send your own kids to expensive schools, Juilliard or Curtis, or one of the few other schools it probably will have to be.</p>
<p>Aaaaarrrrgh! - Still waiting to hear anything at this point. No good news or bad news. Generally there's been no posting on the acceptance list for any of the schools in question for my D's instrument with the exception of Univ. of Mich (she auditioned there last Friday). Will there be a lull during the various spring breaks when faculty are gone or do notifications continue? Just about all the places say definitely by April 1st, but definitely getting impatient on this end.</p>
<p>For schools that don't have rolling admissions, don't expect a decision before April 1 or thereabouts. It is too early to expect to hear from some of the conservatories that have just finished the auditions.</p>
<p>Why is it so different for strings? When you look at the successful classical singers, their educationsl backgrounds are all over the place. Some, of course, are trained in Europe, but some of the most successful from the US received their undergrad degrees from state universities, small LACs, as well as conservatories. Is the reputation of the undergrad degree more important for a violinist for example? I assumed they would go on to graduate school too and could do the the conservatory route then - as many vocalists do.</p>
<p>There is a snobbishness in the string community about where you went to school, whom you studied with (e.g., were they trained by Gingold, DeLay or Galamian), etc. The better the music school, the better your peers - if you are not looking necessarily to be at the top of the pack. That said, true talent, a great teacher and hard work will put you where you want to be no matter where you go - or even if you don't go. After all, this is about music. It's probably better to try to go to the best you can get into, but teacher choice for my son is the controlling factor. That said, the big name schools also have big name teachers. Also, if you eventually want to teach, it becomes a feather in your cap to have studied with a famous teacher (or at least one who themselves studied with a famous teacher). Crazy, no? </p>
<p>The problem is that the kids who are really good get accepted into all or most of the schools they apply for leaving a lot of reshuffling for later since each can go to only one and once there, can study with only one teacher.</p>
<p>Sounds like the vocal world is a little easier to navigate.</p>
<p>Voice is fundamentally different from strings in that voices are not even close to being fully developed in the undergrad years. At age 18, it is very hard to know what a voice will be like ten, twenty or more years down the road. Also, it is not possible for most singers to practice several hours per day every day, as dedicated string players do, without overtaxing their voices.</p>
<p>This means that singers can study something else for four years while taking voice lessons and singing part time. In fact, many feel that this is a better course of action for them than attending a conservatory. They will not fall very far behind their contemporaries who go the conservatory route and do music full time. Then, if their voice is sounding like it might become something special, they can still get into top grad level programs.</p>
<p>String players who are not putting in the rehearsal time and working up solo and orchestral rep are simply not going to be ready for auditions against the competition, be it for entrance to a select BM program, a grad school or a paying job. They benefit more from working harder and in a more focused direction at a much earlier age.</p>