<p>Wonderful discussion! D is following along with great interest and grateful for your interest. I had a hunch (are we up to $.06 yet?) that this group would be the right place to come for informed opinion.</p>
<p>We actually showed up for an Alexander Technique class at a local music school only to discover that it had been cancelled due to lack of enrollment. She's been doing yoga, which has helped, but it would be good to try something more specialized.</p>
<p>musicprnt,</p>
<p>With all due respect, your analysis is complete nonsense. Please identify the Julliard violin prof who told you that viola students are inferior. Perhaps we can get you a meeting with Heidi Castleman. Will she confirm what you've told us?</p>
<p>A discussion that tries to compare the musical talent required for two different instruments is a ridiculous one. It's like trying to decide whether Lance Armstrong or Michael Jordon is the better athlete. </p>
<p>To the OP - if your D elects to switch from violin to viola, please make sure she does it because she loves the instrument not because it is "easier".</p>
<p>My 5 ft 3 daughter plays a 15 inch viola. She started on violin, added viola at age 12, and decided to major in viola in college. She is passionate about modern music, which makes up the bulk of the viola repertoire. With respect to college auditions, because there are fewer violists needed, the openings for admission may vary widely. She also knew a violist (good not superstar) who got into Juilliard on a year where they happened to have a number of openings. The following year they only offered 1 violist admission at the graduate level. She found in her travels that the number of great viola professors is a much smaller population than violin professors.</p>
<p>Son has a t-shirt that says:</p>
<p>"I play half the notes you do.
I get paid the same scale.
Now you tell me who's smarter?"</p>
<p>Enuf said.</p>
<p>Other music:</p>
<p>Please re-read my post, I nowhere did I say that viola players were inferior, you read the words and jumped to conclusions that I was defaming viola players, I am not (and I was very careful to say that banking on the viola being easier is a mistake). </p>
<p>What I was saying is that compared to the violin, which draws huge numbers playing it as compared to other string instruments. What I did say was that my son's teacher had a girl get in on viola whom technically was not as advanced as some of her violin students, while the violin students did not because the competition level on the violin was that high. </p>
<p>The rough analogy is in terms of college admissions for academics. Schools like Harvard, that for whatever reason have a big name, draw 1500 applicants for a very small pool, and so they can be very picky about who these choose, whereas a school that for some reason is seen as less prestigious, often gets few applications and as a result, the average level is lower. When you have large numbers going into a program, as you do with violinists, the program can be a lot pickier.....a couple of years ago for violin in the juiliard pre college program there were only 6 or 7 spots, with again well over 100 students applying, many from overseas programs. The viola is not as popular as the violin, so with less competition it is easier to get into programs relative to the violin. Does that mean every viola player is inferior? No, it just indicates that the level to get in may not be as difficult on the viola as it is on the violin, simply because the numbers trying out are less. Competition for any kind of positions heightens the talent pool, when companies advertise a job and get 1000 responses, they will be more picky then if they only get a few responses, because the pool is less. </p>
<p>And it is no different then with conservatory programs. Curtis Institute only has a relatively small number of students, and they take very few each year, and the competition is fierce to get in (that and it is full scholarship). Juilliard takes in a lot more students, has a lot more slots to fill, so they take in kids with a wider range of abilities, so Curtis tends to get mostly kids who already have demonstrated almost professional level ability, while with Juilliard they probably have a lot more Jewels in the rough then a Curtis would admit, and it is mostly a factor of size. If curtis had the size of classes Juilliard did, it probably would have more of a range of talent (does that mean kids at Juilliard are inferior to Curtis? Or that Curtis is better? No, it simply means they have different environments, the best at Julliard are as good or better then the best at Curtis, and I have heard a lot of recitals at both places over the years).</p>
<p>And I was very, very careful to say that planning a career based on the perception that the viola was easier is a mistake, that the relative lack of competition for viola spots in programs (key word, relative) may make it a bit easier to get in or get a scholarship then someone on the violin (key word may), but in the end talent is the only thing that is gonna get you a job, and it isn't easy for anyone, and a bad violist is in the same shoes as a bad violinist. You used the word inferior when I was talking about relative competition levels, and that is the key word, relative competition levels, not "all x is inferior"</p>
<p>Guess I opened a can of worms here, huh ;) Not my intention. I have great respect for violists. My youngest son is one! (Viola is his avocation.) My viola son had a classmate in high school who was a fabulous violinist. She was one of those prodigies that a lot of string kids envy. When she was in high school she started playing the viola in her string quartet and fell in love with it. She also realized that as a violinist there were quite a number of students who were playing at her level, but very few violists. She made a permanent switch, won an international competition and currently attends Curtis. She is a fabulous player, but her talent would not have been nearly as apparent on the violin because she would have been standing with so many others. She was able to stand out as a violist because there were far fewer who were at the same level on that instrument. </p>
<p>It would be a mistake to switch instruments if you don't love the viola as much or more than the violin, but I still think that a highly skilled violist is going to have a bit less competition on the viola than someone with the same level of skill on the violin.</p>
<p>
[quote]
the relative lack of competition for viola spots in programs (key word, relative) may make it a bit easier to get in or get a scholarship then someone on the violin (key word may), but in the end talent is the only thing that is gonna get you a job, and it isn't easy for anyone, and a bad violist is in the same shoes as a bad violinist
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I'm sorry but I can't buy that it's going to be a bit easier for a violist to get in or get a scholarship at a conservatory level program than a violinist.</p>
<p>The corollary to the argument is that violin studios tend to be more plentiful, to accommodate the larger numbers. On the same token, there are fewer studios for viola, just due to "lack" of numbers. The typical modern orchestration is a ratio of 3 violas for every 8 violins, or thereabouts.</p>
<p>While shennie's example illustrates the potential for a violinst switching to the "dark side",
but it's by far from typical, even at the highest level. </p>
<p>It's not worth nitpicking this one. The simple reality that the competition for chairs at the professional level is measured not in degrees of separation of talent, but in minute fractions of degrees. The "need" for violists runs 3 for every 8 violins. Do vioists have it easier in terms of getting a paid position? Naw. Within the ratios, the level of competition is just as fierce.</p>
<p>We're not comparing apples to apples. They are different instruments, requiring similar, but have instrument specific skill sets.</p>
<p>Imagine the poor harpist or bassonist. Now they have it tough.</p>
<p>Violadad,</p>
<p>Think of it this way. All those violin performance majors have to learn to read alto clef when they take that first year of music theory - our kids don't. That gives violists more time to practice, so they're better in the long run. So there! Ha!</p>
<p>Violadad:</p>
<p>I was not talking the professional level, I was talking programs like prestigious pre college and college programs, and what I simply was saying is that for every violin opening, there are a lot more students trying out for that space then there are for the viola, at Julliard's pre college (whose numbers I am pretty certain of) for every open spot they had roughly 12 or 13 kids trying out for it, with the viola it is about half of that and I have heard similar things about other programs.</p>
<p>And there is a reason for this imbalance, something that I can personally attest to. The violin, because it is probably the most common solo instrument (cello and piano are obviously up there), it attracts a lot of prestige and thus attracts a certain type of student. A lot of the kids coming out of Asia are drawn to the violin because culturally and in their own eyes it is considered a prestige instrument, and a lot of them see themselves as the next generation of hot shot violinist (not much different from almost all kids who pick up the violin, at least at some point:) who will solo with orchestras, etc. The Viola, though it does have a solo reperatory (and quite frankly, sad that there is not more, it is a beautiful instrument) is not commonly associated with soloing, so it tends to draw less people to it....There is incredible competition on the violin, I have seen this up close and personal. The competition is literally global, and the numbers are staggering, and when you are competing against kids from China in the state programs, that cull literally the best, or from places like Korea and Taiwan where playing the violin is considered a major point of prestige, and where you have well off kids who are taking 6 lessons a week and show up at a conservatory audition with a 200k instrument, that tells you a lot about what I am talking about. Yes, this applies to other instruments as well, but by far this culture centers around the violin, and if you don't believe me, ask a teacher at high levels about that and see what they say. </p>
<p>What Shenna said highlighted that, the girl in question was a pretty high level violinist, but her skills in the world of violin brought her only to a certain point, but putting those skills to work on the Viola (which given the similar nature of the two instruments) got her into one of the most difficult programs to get into...and I have heard similar stories, a woman who was one of my son's first teachers tried to get into Juilliard on violin, didn't make it, switched to viola over the summer and next year made it into there......</p>
<p>Obviously, in the 'real world' this advantage ends, that because of the nature of the numbers of openings in viola and the demographic drop off of potential musicians, leaving only the relatively high level players, I suspect it is just as difficult.</p>
<p>Even in the "real world". I know of two professional violists who trained all the way up on violin, had trouble getting orchestra seats, switched and both got incredible jobs - one became principal of a major opera orchestra, the other in the viola section of a major orchestra. They are both really good players on both instruments, but there is terrible competition for violin seats.</p>
<p>musicprnt, I agree many are drawn to the violin (and piano; cello and harp to a lesser degree) because of the solo nature of the repertoire and the potential for "hot shot" and solo opportunities. I also agree that the "prestige" associated with the violin as well as the limelight of featured status draws many, and in particular among those of Asian descent.</p>
<p>But there is also a mindset that drives this type of individual, and many that chose (or are wrongly steered) down this path have little chance of achieving this dream. A number may end up as superb technicians with very expensive instruments, with little or no formal intensive training (or desire) to function as orchestral or ensemble players. For some of this ilk, the idea of a principal chair is anathema, a section seat the kiss of death.</p>
<p>I've seen that too. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The Viola, though it does have a solo reperatory (and quite frankly, sad that there is not more, it is a beautiful instrument) is not commonly associated with soloing, so it tends to draw less people to it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps by the nature of the instrument and repertoire, the viola draws fewer of the "soloist" mindset. Perhaps, as the rep evolves, this may well change. Personally, I see reasons where such an evolution is not necessarily a good thing, but that's just my $.02</p>
<p>Again, the examples of success cited due to an instrument switch are by no means typical. I can also cite examples of a few professional violists holding high level chairs as violinists. It's not a one way street. In actuality, the ones that fall into this type of category are consummate musicians, and might well achieve a level of fame if they switched to didgeridoo.</p>
<p>If one is to consider switching, by all means try. It may well be your path to your goal, but the path will just be just as hard, require just as much blood and sweat, just as much talent, and just as much luck because the competition is just as determined.</p>
<p>I wish you string people were not so civil. I keep checking this thread for a viola/violin grudge match. A no holds barred, mano a mano, to the death cage fight. But no such luck. Oh well.......</p>
<p>Awright musicamusica, you want the gloves off, they'll come off:</p>
<p>A violist's definition of a string quartet: </p>
<p>A String Quartet has</p>
<p>One wannabe violist
One failed violinist
One violist
One player who hates violins.</p>
<p>:D</p>
<p>Another ancedote:</p>
<p>My D's former violin teacher is married to a violist. They met at Indiana U, where they both got performance degrees. On the basis of school alone, I would speculate that they are both rather talented. She is a member of the ASO violin section. After years of disappointing auditions and studio teaching for him, last I heard he'd given up and returned to school to become a physician's assistant. He would probably bristle at the idea that the viola was easier to succeed at. (He tried very hard to talk us out of letting our S become a music major.)</p>
<p>Of course, everybody always thinks their own instrument is hardest, most disadvantaged in some way. (And in some way, they're probably right.)</p>
<p>As for Violadad's reasoning about why people choose "solo instruments" he might be right, but I have another idea - Around here there are only so many instruments available for younger children. Namely, piano and violin. </p>
<p>In addition, parents are usually the main force behind children beginning music lessons (not always, but often enough!) And parents, especially non-musical ones, tend to go with instruments they've heard of. Piano, violin, trumpet, guitar. (I'd add drums, except that many non-musical parents don't seem to think you need lessons for that.)</p>
<p>In our case, H plays violin, I play piano. Those were the instruments our kids were familiar with. All 3 kids asked for violin lessons, but I couldn't find a teacher until it was D's turn. The boys settled for piano. It wasn't because they wanted to be soloists, it was because that's what they knew. I'm kinda sorry I didn't push D toward viola or cello, simply because I love the more mellow tones. But I had such a hard time finding a violin teacher, and I don't know where I would have found a viola or cello teacher at that time. </p>
<p>(And violadad, I'm familiar with that joke, but you got the instrument wrong....)</p>
<p>Violadad-</p>
<p>Your description of the violin world is right on the money, with the attitudes and such (the Strad magazine did a whole profile on Chinese music education,and they said one of the problems with the Chinese system is everyone thinks being a soloist is the only thing......and yep, the technical mastery without the musicality is quite common, too. Ironically, while instrumentalists of Asian descent have become a major force in orchestral playing and in chamber music, in the violin solo level at the top levels there still are relatively few, which I often muse is perhaps those whose vision is that there is only being a soloist lose sight of the music, and end up doing nothing relatively (one of my pet fascination is some of the high level violin competitions, like the Queen Elizabeth and the Tchaikovsky, where these hot shot virtuosos win and then are never heard from).
We were shocked when we saw what the violin world was really like, we used to think, for example, that it was just as competitive in other instruments like the Cello, but a friend, who is a cello teacher at Julliard, said as competitive as cello and piano are (and they are), they said nothing was as bad as the violin. They actually weren't happy about that, they felt that in many cases this obsession led to kids who were technically flawless being entered into both the college and pre college level programs, whose whole existence was in winning competitions and such, and whom they felt were otherwise but lacking major musical feeling and expression, while kids who lived and breathed the music, who probably could end up as high level, expressive, musicians, perhaps even solo level ones, are kind of lost in the shuffle...and in their experience,many of these hotshots end up doing very little relatively. </p>
<p>That said, I hope you understand I had no intention of denigrating viola or any other student instrumentalists of any kind, that was never my intent. </p>
<p>As a sidelight, my favorite viola piece is not a viola piece, it is the bach solo cello suite done on the viola, I personally thing it sounds much, much more beautiful on the viola (sorry Mr. Ma and Janos)</p>
<p>Did I hear someone say Bach cello suites? Try Edgar Meyer's recordings of them on bass. Fun stuff.</p>
<p>musicprnt, I took no umbrage, and did not read any comment as either denigrating the instrument nor its players. Civil discourse and disagreements can expose perspectives one side is unaware of, and shed additional light. </p>
<p>binx, you must have seen the cellists' one. I vaguely recall seeing that twisted version years ago. ;)</p>
<p>BassDad, now that begs the question: can a cellist switch to playing bass easier than a bassist to cello? :D</p>
<p>The question is meaningless. Why would any bassist ever want to switch, except for the conductor's podium?</p>
<p>If someone wants to switch to the ultimate puzzler of an instrument, I've got a bandoneon in the closet somewhere. The buttons appear to have been placed completely at random, some in places that no human fingers could possibly access while still attached to the rest of the hand, and the method book is in German...</p>
<p>You guys are a riot! </p>
<p>None of these instruments would be very interesting without the others.....that's what makes ensemble so great.</p>
<p>Just another personal viola / violinist story to add to the depth of this thread. </p>
<p>My S started playing violin at age 8, after 4 years of piano, and caught on very quickly. His teacher (a violist turned violinist) from early on, told him that he would be a good violist. He balked at the idea for many years, a lot of peer pressure, etc. within the violinist peer group. He finally agreed to try the viola at the age of 15 and totally fell in love with the instrument, wondered why he hadn't agreed sooner. </p>
<p>He played both the violin and viola for 1 year and then, by his own choice, decided that he wanted to study only the viola. As a violinist he was just one of the pack, near the top of his local peer group but would never be the best. He was playing at the level of Mendelssohn and preparing some Bach solo stuff. But at viola, something just clicked. He quickly became the best in his youth orchestra and school orchestra. He is in high demand for chamber music and placed high in All State his first year on viola. This year he was principal violist all around, school and All State (big program in our state). It was not until he found "his instrument" that he was sure that he wanted to study music in college. Now it is the only thing he wants.</p>
<p>Now we will see how he really stands up. His repertoire list is shorter than most musicians at his level since he started playing viola later, but hopefully the quality of his playing will convince his judges. He has applied to 8 programs, across a wide range of options, 2 acceptances (still waiting on financial offers), 1 other where he backed out of the audition for no good reason that I could see. Still waiting for 5 others, 2 University based programs and 3 conservatories. So now we wait. Feedback has been very positive but the final acceptances will tell more of the story. </p>
<p>At many of his music school visits S was impressed with the dyniamic within the viola studios or sections. A very supportive group overall. He is not the super competitive type so this really appeals to him. </p>
<p>I must say, the level of music ability of the other violists auditioning at the conservatory level was very high, S was very impressed and is more than a little nervous about his chances. He met some really amazing musicians. Some have played the violin and some have been violists from the start.</p>
<p>He does on occasion play the violin, when needed in a pinch for chamber music. This is a definite plus of being able to play both instruments. He will be bringing his violin with him to college to keep this opportunity open.</p>
<p>Will post results when they all come in, I feel like I am stalking the mailman these days. His journey is just beginning!</p>