Young Singers- too much, too soon

College Majors Music Major
1

<p>Here is a link to an article that lays out what I've been arguing for years now. The problem is that schools continue to accept students with no realistic chances of a career. Those same students end up with a rep list filled with wildly inappropriate repertoire- aria after aria- when the foundation should be built in Art Song. And let's not even talk about operas and scenes that are far and away too much for these kids to be singing... As long as competitions continue to hand out medal to 16 year olds singing "Casta diva", it's not going to change.</p>

<p>Young</a> opera singers: Who will sing Aida? | The Economist</p>

2

<p>“The problem is that schools continue to accept students with no realistic chances of a career” (with 7000 plus VP students in this country the shear numbers preclude 99% the students having a career.)
Mezzo—can you explain this? I am not quite clear how this applies to the article. In the article it’s about pushing young singers after their education. errrr at least I thought it was. I understand that it’s the pressures of the marketplace rather than admissions. (though admissions are another market all together. :wink: And I am a little slow on the uptake. SERIOUSLY slow.</p>

3

<p>“Nadine Sierra, a 25-year-old soprano, describes being offered Mimi, the female lead in “La Boheme”, two years ago. “The casting director told me, ‘Trust me, I’ve been in this business for a long time, I know you can do it’,” she recalls. While flattered, she turned down the offer. This was a hard decision, not only because of the loss of income and notoriety, but also because she knew another eager star-in-waiting would seize the role.”
How can we take this journalist seriously if s/he misuses a common term like “noteriety”?</p>

4

<p>I have noticed the misuse of “notoriety” a lot lately. It has come to mean “fame” to many people, who don’t get the negative connotation at all. I suppose language is always changing and sometime in the future, this will be one of the listed meanings of the word, but for now, it can be disconcerting.</p>

5

<p>Oh, musica, it’s a long-standing pet peeve of mine! This article was passed on to me by a voice teacher who is really trying- from the inside- to change the system, or at least change what’s it’s become. The explosion of VP and MT programs in this post-“Wicked”, post-“Glee” and “HD broadcast” age has been astounding! Middling programs and not-so-hot teachers pandering to star-struck kids, and the result is those 7000+ VP students and heaven knows how many more enrolled in MT.
They’re there because schools saw an opportunity- something that simply wouldn’t happen in many other fields. Would schools accept kids into good pre-med programs if they failed chemistry and calc? Of course not; and if by some chance they were OK in high school but weren’t able to handle the course work in college, they certainly wouldn’t be encouraged to remain in the program and apply to medical school! These schools have to produce numbers- “how many of your graduates actually gain admission to medical school?”. Either the numbers are good, or they’re out of business. What are the standards for admission to voice programs? And the criteria for graduation can be almost as nebulous. The realm of post-baccalaureate education is further muddied by the addition of “Artist Certificate” or “Professional Studies” programs for those that can’t handle or don’t want to be bothered with further theory, history or analysis classes. There are singers hanging around in those at the age of 30- going from one to another because they can not get accepted into any Young Artist Program, place well in major competitions or get an audition with a company.
The article is focused upon a certain timeline in a young singer’s life, but that time could very easily be moved forward. I’ve heard girls of 18-22 singing Arabella, Fiordiligi, Zerbinetta, Azucena, Violetta…you get the picture? Voices damaged by singing too much, too soon; many more are ruined at this stage before they even get to the time of “Post-grad”. Sure, there are singers with pipes of steel- Elīna Garanča comes to mind and although she sang Octavian at the age of 19, she strongly advises others not to do the same!- but they are rare. Too much is to be lost by singing too much at a young age or on bad technique but schools have decided that not enough is to be gained if they apply realistic admissions criteria and enforce the same standards to which they hold instrumentalists in the same classes (there are some schools that do, but far fewer than there should be). There are requirements for those auditioning on violin, piano, flute, oboe, any instrument, but audition standards are much looser for for singers at both the undergrad and the graduate level. I’ve seen grad schools asking for “no more than one aria” among their requirements while another school demanded 5 arias on pre-screen and “5 DIFFERENT arias” if the student is invited to audition! Really, how does that make any sense, and in what universe should a 21-22 year old have mastered that many pieces? While IN grad school, certainly, but not in the preceeding years. That is patently absurd and potentially dangerous.
In the past few years, the number of singers accepted to good (note that word, please) graduate programs after getting their BM degree has been astoundingly low; making those numbers public is necessary before this issue can begin to be dealt with. In the meantime, ENT specialists will thrive and cadres of young sopranos will continue to be the life blood of music schools.
Rant over, thanks for hearing me out!</p>

6

<p>Well I understand, but there is a lot that you say that I don’t really agree with, especially your assessment of singers in professional studies or artistic certificate programs. The older students are usually doing exactly what they should be doing—perfecting a still developing dramatic voice that still needs work in an artists late 20’s or early 30’s. As YAP programs rapidly shrink(where they USED to get this training), it’s frequently the perfect option and not because they are hiding out away from music theory classes. Some well matured fantastic voices come out of these programs. My D had mastered at least five very carefully selected arias appropriate to her voice for her grad auditions. Though she, like many others, advisedly, had taken a break between undergrad and grad just to do that.</p>

7

<p>I do agree with you, Musica- there is a definite place for those programs, especially for those with larger voices that need more time to mature or a student that may be a bit younger that needs extra prep time or who wants to work with a specific teacher. There are some really good programs out there that provide great opportunities.
What I was referring to, specifically, are the student that I see going from program to program that are “hiding” within them because they are unable to do anything else; they don’t improve and are working with the same teacher for years on end, maintaining the status quo of poor technique. And there are schools which, once a student is enrolled, are loathe to reject the kid who applies for the additional programs. Six, seven years later, the student is still there, and may still be getting roles in productions (most places cast from the “top down” giving preference to the older ones) and they’re either no better in that time frame or have actually gotten markedly worse because the training hasn’t changed and poor technique and methods are reinforced into habit.
That has become a boondoggle in some schools and results in more $$ for the institution and more debt/financial outlay for students. When the young person runs out of options for further programs and can’t get accepted into the private studios of really good teachers, they are devastated. You don’t see this happening to instrumentalists because there are clear cut standards of achievement, but in VP and MT programs, greed is replacing common sense. The system has grown too fast and is failing to adequately provide for far too many students. I’ve talked with a number of teachers at the better schools and know that they feel that they’re hearing too many underprepared applicants for masters programs and that some places have had a rough time assembling entering classes of even 15-20 students- given the vast numbers of undergrads, that shouldn’t be happening. I am all for giving kids with
" potential" a chance, but by the end of junior year, it’s clear if the student is making the required progress or if they need to consider a gap year between undergrad and grad to be much better prepared for auditions or if they just didn’t develop as had been hoped. Stringing them along, for whatever reason, is cruel and wrong.</p>

8

<p>Honestly—I have seen students “hiding” in virtually every sort of grad program that I am even vaguely familiar with. I do not consider this endemic in voice. Do schools hang on to students who are willing to pay too much money for something that will not happen? Sure! But this “something” may not happen to even the best students. The market is that tight. Students are stringing themselves along. It’s up to the individual in any field to take off the art goggles and look at reality. That’s why I am constantly ranting about not taking on debt and advising that singers should constantly seek new ears and input from outside of their programs. And casting students based on age and length of time in the program? It had not been D’s experience and I would think that that is the sort of program that anyone should stay away from. Far, far away from.
As far as school being cruel or manipulative …oh just wait for the professional opera world. Think of it as practice. ;)</p>

9

<p>I am not all that familiar with voice, though MM and others have taught me a lot, but what she is talking about is endemic in music as a whole and i tend to agree with what she is saying on a broader scale. Last I checked, music schools are turning out 15,000 graduates a year, a lot of this is classical performance, a field which is to say the least, changing, and what I see out there is instead of the number of programs shrinking, they are increasing, all these schools announcing new schools of music and such, proudly announcing how they are up and coming, etc…and to fill them, lot of them take students quite honestly who don’t stand a chance, simply to get the tuition IMO. To be really cutting, these programs almost seem to be proliferating to create jobs for people who came out of music schools, and found that they didn’t/couldn’t make it out there.And while I would be the last person to say a student studying music or music performance is ‘wasting their time’, that I don’t think it doesn’t bring benefits, what bothers me as I suspect it bothers MM is that to me, these schools are basically building programs and selling dreams they know almost none of the kids enrolling have a chance at, it is almost like the ‘colleges’ you see advertised on subway walls and buses in NYC that routinely get nailed by the feds and state for taking aid and not actually doing anything for the students.</p>

<p>In some ways sports are a good analogy. In sports, kids start out with little league, where a lot of kids play, but then one you get beyond 12 or so, the numbers drop off, school teams have tryouts, the travel teams likewise, and there isn’t this idea of ‘anyone can do it’, ‘sure you have a chance’, it is brutal but in many ways it is reality. Kids going to college who play football know that unless you are good enough to get into a highly competitive program, you stand almost no chance of even getting a shot at the pros (some do, of course, but they had the talent already)…yet when you say that about music, people are saying that is elitist twaddle, there are many paths, etc…and there are programs that seem to sell this ‘dream’ to kids.</p>

<p>With voice I can imagine it is even worse, because of the all the hoopla with programs like 'The Voice" or “Glee”, or seeing someone sing an opera aria on “X has talent”, and so forth, and think ‘wow, that is so cool’, etc… </p>

<p>It is very, very difficult to make it in any kind of performing art, I remember my son, like a lot of kids into classical music, commenting on pop and rock stars, how to him (at that age), they were basically all fluff, they didn’t have to work at it, someone pulled the strings and ‘presto’ you have a star…until he heard the stories of bands and performers, that while some are of the ‘pop tart’ mold where the geniuses are the producers and such, that a lot of them hump it, bands playing years anywhere they can, trying to make enough to live, guys who put their all into it and so forth.</p>

<p>But with classical forms it is even worse in a sense, because you don’t make it by building an audience, you make it because some kind of gatekeepers, teachers on audition panels, grad programs, young artists programs, impresarios, talent agents, are all in the path and to make it you have to do it their way, get the training, etc( and no, that doesn’t mean that doesn’t apply in pop or rock, they have to deal with music companies, agents, A and R people, booking agents, you name it, but it is a bit different). There is a lot more rigidity in classical forms that happen long before/sheltered from audience approval, and a lot of hoops to go through, that the levels and barriers are just staggeringly high, that is the reality, and in effect it is like a coach for a college football team for some division III nobody school, that I could play on their team, and they would give me a shot at the pros when the division i guys wouldn’t even look at me because I was too small, too slow, too non athletic…the coach and the school wanted me so I could go there and pay tuition, when there wouldn’t be a tinker’s cuss chance of me making it in football. </p>

<p>In a sense voice has a handicap if my impressions are correct, that at 18 you can’t really tell how good someone’s voice is going to be, because it develops a lot more over time, whereas by the time someone is 18, in the instrumental world there is a much fuller picture, music students have been playing a long time by that point, etc…so it I would guess is harder to judge talent and such at that point in voice. </p>

<p>Going back to my fundamental question, it almost seems that as opportunities for classical musicians has shrunk, the programs training for this have proliferated, and the question to me is this expansion about realistically wanting to train musicians/singers, or is it programs seeing that a lot of kids dream of music, and see building programs as bringing more tuition paying students on board? It doesn’t make any sense, otherwise, and like MM, I kind of feel like they are selling dreams to students they shouldn’t be doing it to. In a supply and demand framework, we shouldn’t have seen this happen, so why did it? Usually when the rules of supply and demand fail, it is because something is tipping the hand, so to speak.</p>

10

<p>“I kind of feel like they are selling dreams to students they shouldn’t be doing it to. In a supply and demand framework, we shouldn’t have seen this happen, so why did it?”</p>

<p>Twas ever thus:
“many are called but few are chosen”</p>

<p>With the possible exceptions of Yale and Curtis…MUSIC SCHOOL IS A BUSINESS. And they have marketing plans like any other business.</p>

<p>We need to remember that this applies to OUR kids as well. “They” are not the only ones selling dreams to students. We all get excited about our kid’s aspirations, hard work and talent. And how we bristle when our student is not given a role, a fellowship, or passed over by an opera director. Granted,some are more familiar than others with the pitfalls and shrinking job market. But I will tell you that I get a little unnerved when fingers are pointed at all the “others” who we deem have no business studying music. That the system is set up to take advantage of THEM and suck THEM dry. It’s just “them”? Or has no one else here written tuition checks?
Look around—this happens in every field that has even an ounce of “sparkle” attached to it.<br>
So work hard, don’t incur debt, and constantly seek out new ears.
And please…listen to those currently working in the business of performing.</p>

11

<p>Well said musica! And it happens in every field - with or without the “sparkle.” America has always been touted as the land of opportunity - work hard and get ahead. Blaming the colleges for offering the means to “get ahead” is wrong. In the performing arts field I’ve heard it time and time again that hard work and sheer persistence outweighs natural talent. That’s true of every field as well. In a day and age when even graduating with a law or medical degree offers no guarantee of a job, I feel better about seeing my child go for her dream.</p>

<p>I agree it’s critical that they don’t incur debt. My daughter sees most of her graduate class with enormous debt from their undergraduate studies and feels so sorry for them. It’s hard enough to stay afloat just paying for your everyday living expenses, never mind paying interest and principle on old loans with ballooning interest rates. I see friends who co-signed loans for their kids who never got a job after law school and now the kids, in low paying jobs, are walking away from their loan and the parents are left holding the bag at an age when they are retired. It’s just heartbreaking. It’s tough out there for everyone. Budgeting and financial planning are essential tools that every middle school and high school student should be learning about.</p>

12

<p>musicamusica-</p>

<p>When you say “music school is a business”, there are issues with that, both ethical and practical. Warner Lambert pharmaceuticals used to market Listerine as ‘preventing colds and the germs that cause them’ or some such, and they got whacked by the FDA for doing so, because they were selling it based on something that hadn’t/couldn’t be proven. </p>

<p>More importantly, music schools are supposed to be educational institutions, not businesses hyping a product, they are generally non profits and their prime mission is supposed to be to educate. Even if they are a business, businesses supposedly operate on a supply and demand basis, if existing facilities are turning out too much product, no one is going to expand into that area, unless they think they offer something unique.</p>

<p>It is very easy to argue that potential students should know the reality, and I agree totally, and it is why I try to be as realistic as I can be to other people, given I don’t know the student or their abilities and quite honestly, can’t judge them. The problem is that there isn’t really reliable information out there, even CC has its limits, and caveat emptor only works when the consumer has open access to knowledge, when a lot of the information about the reality of the music world comes from personal experience, something a lot of the people don’t have. Even here on CC, I have seen posts that set my teeth on edge, when I hear anecdotal evidence of how someone went to a community college, then went to some local music school, and then managed to wangle a job in a relatively major orchestra doing that…besides the fact that there is no way to judge the veracity of it, there also could be other factors there if it is true that aren’t being told.</p>

<p>We were lucky with our son, in that we got exposed to the reality of music very, very early, he was in programs where he saw where the bar was, and also had interactions with a lot of professional, working musicians, and we saw the reality, were told what makes the difference…and people were brutally realistic. If my kid didn’t have the chops to make it into a top program/teacher, they to a one said you were doing it as a hobby, period, that if you couldn’t get into a competitive program, especially on strings as he is, you are wasting your time. </p>

<p>Anyone writing a tuition check knows there are no guarantees, but there is a difference where the people are writing the check where there is some hope for the kid, and writing the check for a substantial amount when realistically they are being sold a pig in a poke, perhaps deliberately so, and I think quite honestly that borders on fraud if they are taking in kids who have a snowballs chance in Guam of being able to do anything in music. Put it this way, a student who can’t get past the pre screenng requirements of a competitive or higher music program (and when I say this, I am talking they sent it to x schools in the first/second tiers, and got turned down), at least they know to a certain extent where they stand, that same student applying to Anywhere U with its new school of music who gets in there isn’t doing themselves any favors IMO if they have failed the pre screen level at top programs. Obviously, it also varies from instrument to instrument, there is some wiggle room there (that in vocal, for example, kids are not fully developed, the ugly duckling can become a swan by grad school), or on instruments where kids develop later, it may work out, but the person on violin or piano who can’t meet the pre screen requirements and then goes to Anywhere U’s school of music is quite honestly facing not the daunting odds people even in top programs face, but next to impossible odds.</p>

<p>It isn’t that I think that a kid going to a music program with almost no chance of making it as a musician is necessarily ruining their lives, I am in the school of thought that college in general is not a vocational training program only, but what I object to is these kids going in with their eyes full of stars, being in effect taken advantage of by the school, working their tails off towards something that there is almost zero chance of achieving. Going into music even for the most talented students is a low yield proposition and selling a dream to kids who literally have almost no chance is using them IMO. Education institutions love to talk big about ethics and such, we expect them to be a little different then devour and engulf, inc. The other thing that the more competitive music schools do is if the kid is not cutting it, they let them know. Friend of mine went to Indiana as a performance major in brass, there was some subtle and not so subtle things being given him in feedback that made him realize he wasn’t going to make it and he switched out, and at the big conservatories with the Jury system you kind of find out pretty fast as well, whereas at the kind of school I am talking about, from what I have been told and have heard about directly, they just keep passing the kid along, until they graduate and then realize reality. </p>

<p>Of course, there are arguments that there are way too many colleges out there on the academic side, that the education they provide does little to help the kids, etc, etc,that they take in kids otherwise ill prepared or suited for college and turn them out with a degree that is meaningless, so it may be this is a broader phenomenon. Doesn’t make the music school situation feel any better to me, arguments of ‘well they do that, too’ was something my mother would have ripped me apart for saying.</p>

13

<p>@ablestMom-</p>

<p>It has nothing to do with ‘natural talent’, that isn’t the point, no one gets by with natural talent in the performing arts, even in folk arts it takes a lot of hard work and grit to make it, Malcolm Gladwell and his 10,000 hours is very true.</p>

<p>The problem with what you are saying is that with performing arts, specifically in the classical music area, that hard work and such has been going on long before kids get to college, and the bar has gotten so high in the ‘real’ world of music that basically, kids who aren’t at a certain level, I don’t care if they practice 10 hours a day, are not going to catch up. Where that limit is, and how to judge it, varies, but that is the reality. Voice may be a bit different, because of its maturation cycle and how late it is, but for example, in the string world, there is a time period that if by that time, you haven’t shifted into the serious music student mode, you aren’t going to make it, it is both time and also physiological reasons for it. In prior generations, this wasn’t a big deal, except for some exceptions the level entering college hadn’t been pushed that high. Even a generation ago, someone could play casually in high school, get into a good school, and then work their tail off in college and come out and ‘make it’, and back then a kid probably could go to a less competitive school, work their tail off, and make it…these days it is next to impossible, too much high level competition for too few jobs, and even when freelancing, being creative, students are up against incredibly trained and talented people when they come out. </p>

<p>The problem is the starting level at the college level is so high, even assuming the kid really worked at it, the others are so far advanced that they won’t catch up,. it isn’t the tortoise and the hare, it is that there are a lot of serious music students who are grinding away for years, doing the incredible hard work, long before they audition for music college/conservatory…</p>

<p>Music is very different than academic study, a kid could go to a community college, maybe go to a decent state school, and found a new industry or become a decent programmer, etc, by force of will and hard work, but that leaves out something. When you go out into the work world from college, you aren’t expected to be working at a high level, there are reasons why it is called entry level, and you learn skills as you advance, you work hard, and quite frankly, what you learned in college is bupkus in many ways compared to what you learn on the job, there is no comparison. With music, while obviously on the job experience is going to play a role in someone’s career path, it isn’t the same way, by the time you come out of ug/grad school, you are expected to have the skills, the mastery, the technical skill, musical skill, to play with other high level players, when you audition for an orchestra or play in an ensemble or solo, there is really no such thing as ‘entry level’ per se. Kids in voice auditioning for YAP programs or for something like an Opera company as far as I know aren’t looked at as ‘entry level’, they compare the kids voices and such and pick who they think is best, and the same is true with instrumental music…</p>

<p>And while ‘natural talent’ is overrated in one sense, in music, vocal or otherwise, there is a natural talent base kids start with, and the idea that you can take anyone and with enough hard work and more work you can turn them into Renee Fleming or Itzak Perlman is simply untrue, or for that matter, perhaps even a violinist or trumpeter in the NY Phil. There is such a thing as musical ability, natural talent, proclivity, and while that is the starting point (still takes a ton of work), if you don’t have the voice or the proclivity to start with, it isn’t going to happen, no matter how much you practice, the idea of grit and determination alone producing things also got dismissed by gladwell (in the sense that other factors play into it, including someone’s opportunities, intelligence, interests and so forth). There have been lots of arguments about this about genius, and the answer is someone’s creativity is not created by rote hard work either, creativity and genius flow from something else, though wirhout hard work again genius is meaningless (MENSA is full of really bright people, who haven’t done all that much…). So a kid might be obsessed with becoming an opera singer, but if their voice doesn’t have the potential, no matter how much they practice and work, it probably won’t happen. A tone deaf kid practicing violin 10 hours a day or a kid without the dexterity in the fingers isn’t going to make it on Piano, no matter how much they practice…</p>

<p>There are always exceptions and if the student knows that the odds if they go to ‘normal U’ because that is the only place that will accept are a tiny fraction of the small odds someone going to a Juilliard or Curtis have (note, I am not talking about the kid with the chops to get into a competitive school but choose to go to another program, for financial reasons, for example), then fine, but the idea that someone can go to a relatively low competition program, and work hard and ‘catch up’ is of dubious truth IMO. There can be exceptions, perhaps with voice it is different (I don’t know it well), but in instrumental music, especially in strings and piano, I strongly doubt someone will make it with grit and determination and catch up…</p>

14

<p>We are talking specifically about voice. More often than not, the sort of early exposure you are referring to is irrelevant. That’s why one vocalist we know who was featured on “From the Top” at 15 is not doing half as well as vocalists who did not start until they were in their late teens. My D was, like your student, exposed at a very early age and at a very high professional level. Her first juvenile role at the LA Opera was at 12. Now, vocally, that has very little to do with who she is now, but it did get her into a professional competitive mindset. This does not to be explained to me. I fully understand what talent is and what hard work is and how it plays in vocal performance. My issue is with the litany put forth by MM on those whom she assumes don’t stand a chance, or from what I understand don’t even deserve a chance.</p>

<p>And though voice departments or music schools are not “supposed to be hyping a product” or operating as marketing institutions. They are. They have budgets, they need money. They need the talented students to be attracted by funding and the “not as” talented students to pay full board. That’s why they go to college fairs,hype their successful alums on line, send out flashy brochures, visit performing arts schools etc etc. If that’s not marketing, then I do not know what is. </p>

<p>“but the idea that someone can go to a relatively low competition program, and work hard and ‘catch up’ is of dubious truth IMO.” I am telling you. This happens in voice a lot. Not ALL the time…but more often than the directors of expensive conservatories would care to admit to</p>

<p>I know that you are not a big fan of brevity, but here it is:</p>

<p>Voice is different.</p>

15

<p>woops errata : This does not have to be explained to me. (first para.)</p>

16

<p>I realize that voice is different, I understand it happens later and so forth. Still, voice is facing what the rest of music does, the number of slots is diminishing for classical singers as opera companies fold, as YAP programs take fewer students and so forth, and it is as a time when the levels are also going up. Put it this way, my S went to a top level pre college program and I saw the vocal kids, and while they obviously were immature, they already had done a lot…so when they move onto college they are already advanced, and so forth. I obviously cannot speak of voice with much authority, but if the pool of available opportunities shrinks, that means competition ratchets up, and it means that a relatively small handful of elite singers will get those, if you have few openings and a ton of applicants, they can be really picky (it is why schools like Juilliard and Curtis and so forth have kids who are up there across the board, where the variation between best and worst is relatively small in terms of talent, because they can pick and choose).</p>

<p>And yes, programs do have kids paying full freight who pay for the more talented ones to get a scholarship, that is SOP. Where there is a problem with that is to attract more talented students, the program needs teachers and facilities and such to support them, a talented student is not going to accept a free ride if the program doesn’t have good teachers, it would be suicide to do so. Generally IME the kind of schools you are talking about are the ones just below the top tier,who will offer inducements to more talented kids to go there and have good teachers, while the more mediocre students pay the freight. The problem is there are a lot of schools out there that have pretty much entirely mediocre students and faculty,the ones in the second and third tier where pretty much anyone auditioning gets in and where in reality most of the kids are paying full freight, and given the general level, have no chance of succeeding, and that is what I am talking about. Look, even at the best programs, there are kids paying full freight, that is a given, but the reality is the range between the kids paying full freight is not all that much from the high end talent, whereas at many schools I am talking about the kids are uniformly mediocre…and even if the kid has talent and desire, how can a program without decent teachers and where the students aren’t exactly barn burners going to propel the student with potential forward? and while I can’t speak directly about voice, I would be very surprised with voice if there weren’t a lot more programs with mediocre teachers and students, then programs that have some decent students and some great teachers; at the former, a kid would have no chance, at the latter, they might do okay, but I think the former outweighs the latter…and those schools are selling a bill of goods, they have neither the teachers or the top level students to drive a student with potential folder, they are selling an empty dream in other words. Music is changing so rapidly that even what was true 10 years ago is no longer true, the existing music world is morphing and changing and making it difficult even for the tip top to make it, and what may have once been true may not be today. </p>

<p>There are always exceptions, but they come out of specific instances, and they are instances that a lot of these music programs are not going to do, hence my original post. I was also careful to say that it varies, based on the kind of music, the area of music and such, but one thing I have learned, while voice is different than strings which is different that brass, they are all being driven by the same forces, albeit at different rates and ways.</p>

17

<p>musicprnt - I was speaking from the voice prospective only. When there are 5 year old prodigies in violin and piano on tour around the world, you can not hope to compete without early training, hard work and dedication. The voice is limited by maturation which comes at different ages. Starting too young can be very detrimental (often irreversibly so) without the help of an excellent voice teacher. Broadway is a different story and it is not easy for the female voice to cross over into opera after spending years belting. How many young Broadway stars have a career as adults?</p>

<p>I am very glad that there are a lot of undergraduate colleges out there providing music majors to varying degrees of experienced singers. When most good voice teachers will not accept you until you are 16 years old and you need to be able to sing in three languages, minimum and have skills in solfege, music theory, music history, acting, keyboarding, diction, how experienced can young singers be at 17 when applying to undergraduate conservatories? There is a reason why A house singers come from a very wide variety of undergraduate schools - because there is no one correct path to success and no certain way to ascertain who will be a “star” at 17 because there is not only natural talent required, but hard work and dedication as well. I’m sorry if I came across as saying it’s not about talent. Of course it is - if a singer can not hear and replicate a pitch, there is absolutely no way they can become a singer. Likewise, a very talented freshman from Juilliard can be selling real estate 20 years later. There are no guarantees or crystal balls, so affording singers the opportunity to try is wonderful. It doesn’t mean that the music degree is worthless if you don’t make it to La Scala. I agree that teachers that admit students that do not have the minimum level of natural talent/ intelligence to learn what they need to survive in this field are reprehensible. But I like to think that they are a small part of the population and it’s a problem in every field, not just music.</p>

18

<p>ablestmom-</p>

<p>I understand your point and as I have written, voice is not my strong point. I think the key to all this is looking at the potential of the student and also I would guess how a teacher shapes them and stuff. What I was trying to drive at is not so much that vocal students coming into colleges are anywhere near polished or in any kind of form where they would be ready to go on stage and perform opera (where 16 year old violinists can be veterans of performing with orchestras and such), but rather that I would assume that there are kids who dream of getting into vocal music who simply don’t have even the potential…and that no matter how hard they work, no teacher is going to get them by the time they graduate into graduate school and so forth on any kind of level, yet these kids are getting into programs. There has to be something distinguishing the voice kids who get into the really competitive programs and those who don’t, they have to be using some criteria, and I guess what I am concerned with voice is there are these programs out there who basically, if the kid is alive, breathing and able to pay tuition, they are telling them “of course you have a chance”, when they don’t have even the potential. </p>

<p>With instrumental music, teachers will see something in a student who isn’t as technically polished, but has something they see, as some of the students who have been bred for battle, and I would assume music teachers use the same criteria with incoming voice students, it is in the potential. As you point out, kids with whatever it took to get into Juilliard land flat, never making it…but where I would strongly argue is that the kind of kid I am talking about, if they miraculously got into Juilliard, would have no chance even with a " best in the world" teacher…and I think even with vocal music, some of these schools are using the fact that vocal takes a long time to mature into anything of a ‘real voice’, to say "oh, you are not mature yet, you will get much better’ when it isn’t that, the potential isn’t there, and that is what I worry about. </p>

<p>The kind of schools I am talking about, could the teachers there take a kid with real talent and help them get to the point where they have a shot? If a school is full of failed singers who are using this as a job, then will the be getting students with potential or simply filling up the slots with kids who sadly really do love singing, but they know don’t have a chance? One of the reason I ask this question is I have seen kids from the top level pre college programs with voice students, and while their voices are nowhere near where they will be, they already (to me) are singing incredibly well, they aren’t going to perform at the Met or even a local opera company (and I hope they don’t try!), they are already pretty well developed to my ears, they have something to them…like I reiterate, I am not even a minor league expert when it comes to voice, but when I see so many programs out there for voice, having seen these kids (who seem to get into the competitive programs), are all those other programs selling reality, or a dream, given that even Juilliard, Curtis et al are selling a dream, too, for many of the kids who go there. </p>

<p>I can’t speak from experience with voice as much, but when I see how many programs there are out there, and have seen what is in the top schools (where many of those kids fail), and it makes me wonder about the kids going to these rapidly multipyling programs out there, if the kids in the top schools are not making it, what chance do they have? Is it just that these kids are raw talent and the kids getting into the top schools are a bit more polished? Or are schools selling a dream? Given the explosion of programs, I can’t believe that they are honestly admitting kids believing they have the potential to make it as classical singers, the number of programs and slots added up (to me) exceed probably the number of kids interested in music who have some potential (and yeah, i could be dead wrong). I can tell you in the instrumental world that the same scenario plays out, a lot of them claim to be preparing these kids for being musicians in the ‘real world’, claim they can turn them out to compete, but having seen the competition, given how many instrumental programs there are out there, most of them are selling a pig in a poke, a dream that they know darn well is just that, and the ones that are not auditioned quite honestly if they turn out a great student, are doing so simply based on statistical oddities…</p>

<p>It is also why I am careful when I phrase things, because what applies to violin doesn’t apply to the tuba, for example, given the relative level of polish kids auditioning for conservatory on tuba are at, versus the violin, a kid could start tuba in high school and make it into a decent music program, a kid on violin doing that would be a freak of nature statistically…so it always varies. I just think given how small a number of singers end up having the chops to make it out there, that the proliferation of programs out there for voice, as it is for instrumental, makes me think they are filling slots to collect tuition and accepting a lot of kids without any reasonable hope, simply as a numbers game.</p>

19

<p>We all have harped on this board about not incurring school debt. So in order to do this a student has to figure out different ways to make this happen - academic/ talent scholarships, gap year of working, parental/family contributions, low tuition state schools. We have all talked about for voice the need to have a varied education which would not happen in a conservatory only atmosphere. We have talked about having lessons with various professionals to get evaluations about talent. These are all thing that should occur before the application period begins. So if all these things fall into place, the singer is getting a well rounded education and getting to experience different career paths. I don’t see the problem with having a lot of schools offer music degrees. On the average, college students change their majors three times during their undergraduate careers. Why should music be limited? Just like sports, the best music teachers are not the best singers and vice versa. Many singers who start out dreaming of a performing path end up loving the stability and joy of teaching. They would not realize this without first beginning the path in music.</p>

<p>As with most things, the burden is on the families to decide how viable a path this is for their own child and how much the child really wants this and will sacrifice to survive in this crazy field. Limiting the education possibilities is not the answer. This country works on a supply and demand scenario. If the students do not attend these school where they will incur huge amounts of debt and enrollment goes down, the programs will no longer exist.</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think this is a universally agreed-upon rule of thumb.</p>