violadad

Maybe I'm naive, misinformed or insufficiently educated in the discipline, but are not the best performers not only technicians, but artists and intepreters as well?

Can one interpret without knowing the language?

I've sat through technically "perfect" pieces in which I've been unmoved. I've also been blessed in having heard less than perfect performances that have stirred the blood, and left me awed at the emotions the performer(s) were able to convey and evoke.

Perhaps the points to clarify are at what level does more then rudimentary or general survey knowledge begin to impinge on the time necessary to perfect and maintain performance skill?

Most performance programs dictate x number of hours in both theory and history. From what I gather from perusal is that these are fairly basic courses providing background, rudimentary knowledge and some basic applied application.

Specialized focus and more detailed subject analysis is normally pursued by those students wishing to broaden their knowledge of specific areas, and are normally accomplished by taking electives, seminars, upper level courses as electives, not mandates.

Do I completely not understand, or am I missing something?

mamenyu

The notion that the best route for a performer is not to go to a conservatory or even study music, apart from lessons, is hardly the hot "trend" for the "best" of the "best" performers -- though it seems to be the ambition of the poster advocating it. In fact, most musicians who go to Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Cal, etc. (and who don't major in music) end up finding it very difficult to get to lessons and take all those difficult courses in other disciplines (and since when is studying history, let alone art history, "practical" for the purposes of getting a job? any more than studying music theory or history?) and gradually give up music except for chamber music. The attrition rate for kids in these dual programs is high. Outside the dual programs it is also high -- perhaps higher, i.e. very few end up as performers. Taking 4 or 5 academic courses leaves little time for practicing, assuming you can find a practice room, and a social life, which is an important aspect of an undergraduate experience. But whatever works for the particular students is what counts.

Vieuxtemps5

Violadad,

Sorry to tell you this but I've actually heard it from the mouths of the performers you love and consider "great arists". None of them did any of this "language". They studied with great musicians, they read books, they went to museums. The great musicians of our time are lovers of art, history etc... I always ask the same question when i get a lesson with or play for one of my teacher's friends, and it's all the same.

There's so many stories I know of great teachers telling their students that they must start reading great literature, seeing good art and traveling as much as possible. Theory doesn't really figure into this. These aren't people who play like automatons, they are artists.

violadad

My post 16 was crossposted with Vieux's 15.

Vieux wrote:

This is my question: For those coming from a background well versed in theory and history, either formally through early programs, self study, or through absorption from mentors and instructors at what point is college level theory in fact a waste of time?

Personally, son could have and probably should have tested out of all of required theory. He could easily have filled the slots with seminars and music history courses where he had very strong interest, and/or devoted additional practice time. Internal procedures made it time consuming and difficult to test out.

Perhaps lorelei has a valid point.

Vieuxtemps5

mamenyu... I only know about violinists and pianists for the most part. I don't know what trumpet players and clarinet players do, but it is true what I say. Many of the violinists my age playing with top orchestras and getting good careers are going to Harvard, Yale and Princeton (or Columbia) rather than conservatories. They study with a conservatory teacher, but they don't do music as a degree. It's a trend that is noticeable, and it will only get bigger.

shennie

I see much of this from a different perspective. My son would have loved to "have it all". The thought of studying at Princeton and getting an academic degree while continuing to hone his skills as a cellist sounds great. But then you run into walls. How is a kid from the midwest who studies with an unknown teacher going to find a superior teacher on the east coast? How is son going to pay for college and then add the expense of an NYC teacher at $150 a week? How is son, who didn't start playing until 10 and never studied with a high level teacher going to have enough time to develop his skills as well as do another major? The answer for him was conservatory. He didn't have the advantage of a pre-college program or exceptionally skilled teachers while he was growing up. He made the best of what he had and was accepted into the studio of a highly sought after teacher - one who doesn't teach outside of the conservatory setting. He sometimes played his cello 8-10 hours a day between practicing and rehearsals. His skills increased dramatically in this environment. He is a excellent player and has no doubt about his ability to make a career in the classical world. He won't ever be a star or the principal player of a major orchestra, but he will be able to make a reasonable living doing something he loves.

Vieuxtemps - you have an incredible talent and have access to fabuluos ways to develop that. I hope you appreciate the advantages you have had and the innate talent you seem to have. You also are around lots of other kids similar to yourself so you don't always know the struggles of other students who may have your talent but not your advantages. Lots of kids come from different areas of the country and different backgrounds. I truly don't think son would have advanced nearly as much as he did outside of the conservatory environment. Until students have unfettered access to top teachers outside of the conservatory environment, it is going to be difficult for any but the tippy-top 18 year old players to not major in performance if they want a chance to have a career in classical music.

I would also like to say the above only applies to instrumentalists, NOT vocalists.

musicianmom

I hesitate to get into this, but I have a funny story from my student days (ancient history, sorry) that I’d like to share.

I was sitting mid-semester in an 8 AM theory class at one of the “good” schools discussed here frequently. The PhD prof (apparently a disgruntled performer) suddenly looked at us and said, “Why are you all here? How many of you want performing careers? Let me tell you, my college roommate barely passed any academic class, but she’s now playing the piano all over the world!! I was like all of you – good grades, conscientious, and here I am teaching theory! Get out of here now!”

I didn’t take her at her word, maybe I should have! Nothing like this ever occurred again. To this day, I don’t know what precipitated the outburst. Mid-life crisis??

PS. I've also known teaching collegues to tell their college students to put less emphasis on the academics and more in the practice room....

Vieuxtemps5

Shennie;

I come from a third world country, and I don't think I have any more innate talent than any other somewhat gifted young person. The "advantage" I had was a sickness in my stomach and a deathly fear that if I didn't get to the next step I'd fail in life, so to be honest, I created my own advantages. I am lucky in many ways, to have incredible friends and some great family... however, for every great opportunity I've gotten, I've had several crushing failures.

If you're going to try to tell me that a kid in the UNITED STATES cannot go to a decent school (it doesn't have to be Princeton), and cannot find a good teacher (it doesn't have to be Lynn Harrell or Mr. Starker), then I don't have much hope for him. I don't know your son, but I bet he can do it all. In fact, I know he could, it's absolutely possible. Sure, not everyone can go to an ivy league school and study with a world famous teacher, but you can get pretty much the exact same value without as much of the prestige. He might not have the world's most famous teacher for his undergrad, but if he works hard with a very good teacher for 4 years while studying other things, he certainly could get a great teacher. I'm glad he had a good time at a conservatory, and I'm happy it worked out for him.

I just oppose the notion that to be anything in music, that you have to go to conservatory, and I don't like this very PC idea that you're not a well rounded musician if you don't spend 2-3 hours a day doing 4 part harmonies, analysis of Strauss and Wagner Operas, Bach chorals, and clapping out two part rythms from Dalapicula. Yes you have to spend time working on your tools, but great art comes from other places. So many people have said that current conservatories can actually do a lot to hinder the artist in yourself. If you hold yourself up to the standards of not only those playing your instrument, but also to the higher level of thinking and creativity which are evident in other arts, you'll be far better off then just walling yourself up in a conservatory only doing music. If you don't believe me, then consult pretty much any great musician ever. No one cares about any of it. Go read a book Brodsky would tell his students, go to a museum.

mamenyu

Shennie makes some excellent points.
Vieuxtemps, I think you are exaggerating -- there are very few violinists and pianists of the type you describe -- i.e., top talent, who go to Ivy League schools and then become professional musicians. You may be turn out to be one, but you can count them on one hand. Most of the high school age top young violinists and pianists I've seen (at Aspen, for example) will go to conservatories -- for one thing, few have the grades to get into an Ivy League school, and fewer are interested. And most of those who do have the grades and chose to go to a school without a performance program will end up giving up, or modifying, their performance ambitions. Not all. Maybe you will be one of very few. Don't be so quick to disparage those who chose other options.

Vieuxtemps5

with all due respect mam, I don't think you can know that many people if you can count on one hand how many people are doing what I describe. In any case, I know who these people are but I won't say their names because they aren't here to speak for themselves. In any case, it's just evidence that you don't need to go the traditional route, and I am not saying you have to go to Princeton. You can go anywhere that there is a great teacher. A lot of good palyers only do artist diploma's precisely to avoid all the tideous and useless music stuff, so now people are considering getting a university education in another field while practicing. It is a trend that will grow, as evidenced by the fact that several of the top "next big things" are doing this, and the fact that universities are getting much better teachers than they used to have.

lorelei2702

Vieuxtemps, I think Dallapiccola is the fellow tormenting music students. Unless there is someone else out there......

I do think the teacher is crucial, and not every wonderful teacher is in a conservatory. However, the conservatories have done a better job of finding the best teachers in the areas of strings and piano than in the voice area. But most conservatories are not in the business of fixing and developing voices, more in the business of maturing artists. Unfortunately singers are not ready to take full advantage of that until the rest of it is settled, which takes physical maturity and time.

Strings and keyboard are different, so much training can happen very early. Winds may have some of the maturity issues because of lung size and air control issues....??????

Every successful artist has a different path. Who is to say if a different path would have worked as well, or which musicians get lost on the path they choose to follow? We will never know.

musicianmom

Vieux, that PC description is over the top, even for me!!

Conservatories and music depts. do vary in their requirements and expectations - if it's a concern for the student, check on the requirements. We contacted theory and admissions depts as well as talking with current students about their course work at various places before S confirmed his first choice acceptance.

mamenyu

I'm all for the idea of young musicians exploring different disciplines, including getting degrees in those fields while studying music (I don't think the Ivy League schools are necessary the optimal place for that, though Harvard and Yale have lots of talented musicians); but I also believe there is inestimable value for performers to know more than the technique they will learn from their practitioner teachers -- to understand the broader historical and theoretical concepts in music. Music theory may well be boring, and it may well be that it isn't all of direct practical value -- neither is studying calculus, but in any of the sciences, that is part of the curriculum. AP theory, the level you get in high school, just won't be enough to pass out of the conservatory/music department requirements, which typically include 2 years of theory and aural training courses.

Vieuxtemps5

ok before people get too mad at me I'll just say this;

Conservatories are a tried and true method, I know that. If that's what you're into, being at music camp 24/7, then do it. However, there is a larger world out there, and you can accomplish just as much, and learn a lot more but just having a regular college experience. As I've found out, there are many types of college experiences, but I think it's important for a kid to not always be around people who practice, and it's important to have to deal with "the real world" rather than being insulated for 4 years.

So many great pedagogues and artists have told their pupils that they must be interested in things not music related (well, related in aesthetics). Sure a lot of places require you to take electives outside of music, but why not take it a step further and consider more normal options as a student. The reason I bring up great players going to regular universities is because these trends always start from the top down. If you read books by economists or sociologists, even like "Freakanomics" or "Millenials Rising", (the 2nd one touches on our generation), the way in which we think and do things are evolving considerably from the "tried and true" ways. People no longer go to law school to be a lawyer etc... start thinking outside the box, and to be honest, music is one of the smallest boxes available. Before, musicians would have private tuition with a great teacher, then spend a lot of time reading and being around other artists. It was more cosmopolitan. THAT is how you get broader concepts into people. Talk to the old school guys. They can discuss so much more than what 99% of conservatory kids can. Conservatories are factories, to many people. They don't encourage much independent thought. If that fits your personality, I apologize if I've offended you. However, I hope that one day a kid or a parent might read this, and think to themselves that yea, they love music and want to be in it, but they don't want to miss out on all the other stuff that one might miss out on by being in a conservatory.

Mam says this is a small trend. Well, just wait a few more years. It's getting bigger and bigger. Last time I was at these Aspen/Encore things, all the younger kids were eager to go to a great university, not to Juilliard. Times are changing... and with schools like Yale and Rice and USC having great faculty and good academics, not to mention the considerable social benefits, sports, activities etc... there isn't as much of a need for conservatories.

nycm

Mamenyu, I couldn't agree more...I think the reality is that very very few "top talent" musicians manage to survive the Ivy League schools and continue to conservatories and/or careers, but it is true that some exceptions will always prove the rule: Yo-Yo Ma, Gil and Orly Shahan (trying to think of others...), but keep in mind that in many of these exceptional cases, their careers were already launched before they started college; The idea of waiting to go to conservatory for grad school appealed to us (DD and her worried parents) until we had some serious conversations with teachers about the odds of getting into conservatory programs as a grad student in competition with the students who had been in conservatory performance programs for their undergraduate years. One Princeton-grad musician, a well known orchestra player who has recently retired, told us that "those days are over" and that he could never have managed his career in today's competitive world ... both Princeton and the conservatories are so very much more selective (and rigorous) than when he launched his career! The truth is that for instrumentalists, especially orchestra players, being in an undergrad performance program is enormously valuable for many reasons, not the least of which is the opportunity to play with high level peers who are equally serious about their music. DD ultimately chose a dual degree program, which seems to offer the best of both worlds, great academics and great music, but I realize that's not necessarily the best choice for everyone. In fact, I'm sure as Vieuxtemps continues his journey, he will find that obvious choices turn out to be not so obvious, and that there are always more options than one might have imagined in music and in life!