mamenyu

The idea of this being a new idea, i.e., young musicians not going to conservatories and simply studying with a master, is naive -- there is nothing new under the sun of course...
A fair number of the faculty members at places like Juilliard, or in established ensembles, grew up in NY and went to Columbia; they see the limitations of a conservatory-only education, or think they do, because they find that many of their students are not only not knowledgeable about music, but more significantly, don't care to be knowledgeable. They rightly encourage their students to broaden their cultural and intellectual horizons. So, indeed, it is an old idea. It is a lot harder nowadays though. The alma mater of many of these wise teachers, Columbia, is now one of the hardest schools to get into, and once there, students take 5 courses a semester and have little time to devote to practice, let alone travel back and forth to Juilliard (MSM is an easier commute, but only available for Barnard students) -- one pianist, in the C-Juilliard program, recently said in an interview that finding a practice room was like being a homeless person looking for a dumpster. Also, when those around you are not doing what you are doing, and don't even come to your recitals, you might begin to feel a tad isolated. That is why conservatory and dual degree programs are an easier route for performance majors.

BassDad

To answer violadad's questions, it is my experience that what is typically covered in the first two semesters of college-level theory is useful for pretty much everyone. After that, the material gets a bit more esoteric and is more useful for musicologists, conductors and composers than it would be for performers. There are certainly exceptions for people who want to specialize in particular periods or particular forms of music but, for the general performance major, the latter portions of the required theory courses are kind of like making an aspiring accountant take a second year of calculus. Great mental discipline, highly useful for anyone who wants to become a theoretical economist, but something that someone making a living by preparing corporate tax returns is not going to be using or even thinking about after completing the required classes.

I have a harder time blowing off the music history aspect of things. I think all performers should have a strong appreciation for the music of other times and places, even if they are not going to specialize in them.

Vieuxtemps5

I don't have a problem with music history. My problem is with the theory and stuff like that. In any case, music history only tells you about music history and SOME history peripheral to that. In my mind, that's way too little.

-Allmusic-

Make certain that you don't want to play in ensembles while you are at a regular university, because the level will be very disappointing. As long as it is only solo lessons that a student is seeking, the undergraduate university experience isn't surpassed by the conservatory one. However, for collaborative or ensemble work, it is simply not true that all those high level musicians are playing together in any meaningful way at Harvard, etc. They aren't. Kids who want decent collaborative experiences have to travel to NEC, because they won't get that at Harvard.

That's why there is no "one size fits all". I hope Viex finds what he is looking for at Princeton.

librarian377

VT5--
You lost me back at post #29

"People no longer go to law school to be a lawyer etc... "

Yeah, they do.

And if the Ivy League could fill all the orchestra jobs, how come so may seats go to people from foreign conservatories? I have one professional violinist friend. She plays with the NYC Ballet orchestra. She's from Russia. Studied at Moscow Conservatory. Her description of her education sounds even more narrow in focus than what is offered in American conservatories. But this lady can play.

She's lovely, talented, interesting. She has pursued other interests along the way. She locked down her violin skills early. She has the rest of her life to learn everything else.

Your education is about YOU. Do what feels right for YOU. Don't worry about the others. They will take care of themselves.

Vieuxtemps5

Librarian... there's been quite a bit of research on career paths taken by the current generation, and they are seeing a lot more people who go somewhere like law school or business school to get a degree that will open doors for them, and not necessarily in traditional fields, so "yea they do" isn't exactly very enlightened. Of course a lot of peopel want to be lawyers, but the point is that the youngest generation will not be like the older ones. My brother is at Harvard Law, and he says only one of his friends plans on doing new york city Big law or just a few who wanna do the D.C. thing. People are changing. And I'll say it again, I didn't mean that everyone should now go to harvard and study with Weilerstein, I meant that you can go to a good school (and there's too many to count), and just study with a teacher once a week. Obviously some of you can go to Harvard but like I said, if you're not into all the things you have to do at a conservatory, don't feel like you have to just because that's the conventional wisdom.

librarian377

VT5--
OK. Turn it around. Suppose someone actually WANTED to be an attorney.
Wouldn't law school make sense?

You admit people go to some schools to get a degree that will open doors for them. Isn't that networking and making connections? Don't you think one might meet more performing musicians at music schools than at other colleges? Aren't local gigs posted on conservatory job boards more often than on non-music school boards (who you gonna call for an organist? Juilliard or Cooper Union?)

So how is it that these "changed people" you know go to law school to study law so they can do other things -- and that's a good thing, while going to music school to study music to be a musician is not?

Again, pursue the education that's best for you. But don't worry about the entire generation.

And welcome to Jersey, where we don't pump gas.

Vieuxtemps5

Umm yea, like I have said many times (perhaps you should do some reading excercises), if people are into the conservatory, then they really should. All I'm saying is that it isn't the only option, and that it isn't this terribly difficult and esoteric thing like people are making it out to be. Like I say, it's becoming more normal to think outside the box when it comes to getting an education, and since this place is about advise (which people offer often and in great quantities), I am stating that it is possible and is something people should consider.

You can still get all those connections and what not by going to a university like USC, Rice, or Yale, not to mention an amazing education on your instrument. You just won't have to be totally in the music environment if you'd rather be a more normal college student.

mom4

Vieuxtemps, you keep tipping into arrogant nonsense. Noone here has any problem with the path you are choosing to take. I think you're fighting your own ghosts.

And if you're going to admonish the rest of us:

"Umm yea, like I have said many times (perhaps you should do some reading excercises), "

likewise, you could use a little improvement in your spelling. What is bugging you? Start listening to yourself (in this case reading your own postings)--it really appears that you're trying to work out something personal, and in the process you are coming off as mean-spirited and intolerant.

mom4

And by the way, so many people who go to law school these days go into such great debt to do it that they have no choice but to go into corporate law. Harvard Law is so concerned about this that they just announced a program that would make law school cheaper in exchange for a commitment to public service.

Vieuxtemps5

mom;

English is not my first language, and not my second. Despite that I got into many good schools, so give me a break.

There's nothing I'm trying to work out, I just read a lot of different things here and it seems that many people have an unrealistic view of doing music at school. I've addressed a number of issues with regards to that, and here in particular, I was sensing that the original poster just wanted to practice his instrument and study normally, and look what happened, he corroborated my assumption by saying that he really doesn't care much for music courses.

The reason I've said everything here is that I have so many friends in music who regret going to a conservatory when they should have just gone to a normal school. We're sort of raised to believe that the only thing you can do is go to a conservatory to be a musician, which isn't true. Personally, if you ARE going to one, you might as well do it right, but if your instrument is the only thing you're interested in (which based on my experiences, constitutes a lot of kids who are good in music), then they'd be better off somewhere else.

I'm not going to press the issue anymore, because clearly people are offended by the idea that you can be a good player and not do all the other stuff that they force down your throat at a conservatory.

violadad

BassDad, thanks. from a layman's standpoint, it confirms what I suspected, and had been told by a number of performing professionals as well as serious students. As in most disciplines, an understanding of the foundations and mechanics is important in putting "theory into application".

I'll agree also that beyond a certain point, the higher level specialized area courses may not be necessary for many. I think a lot will depend on the individual, and how they use it.

There is a major difference in knowing the how's and why's versus dissecting each piece as in Vieux's example.

I do think lorelei has a valid point with some of the required theory curriculum expanding beyond what actually may be necessary or many students.

Just my $.02 as an observer, with no musical background or training.

mom4

Vieuxtemps,
Thank you for your leveled response. I worried that I spoke too harshly above. You should know a lot of us parents are reading your postings with interest. I think I can wager that most of us are a little insecure about the path our kids are taking--but we also know there are no guarantees with any academic focus except perhaps accounting.
My point about law school is that because of the financial burden, many law students lose their chance to choose a direction and have to go for the big bucks, which can be fun for some and crushingly oppressive for others. I know A LOT of unhappy lawyers.
I certainly admire those few who can balance a top academic program and continue to mature as a musician, but that's pretty rare. If you are one of them, I am very happy for you.

Vieuxtemps5

Well that's also part of my issue. It's not like studying music is cheap. A lot of these programs are really expensive. Juilliard, MSM, NEC, CIM... they're all really expensive. Factor in tuition and living in Boston or New York City, you are paying Harvard prices, and if you need loans, just consider that the bank or whomever is loaning it doesn't have the security of a big law job like you'd have if you graduated from Columbia or Harvard law.

It's terrible to say but even if you make it into the New York Phil or LA, Boston, and San Francisco, you'll be underpaid. Especially in New York and SF, due to the cost of living. Even with a seemingly impressive salary, you aren't in the clear at all.

I think emotionally people are very secure with doing music. Realistically and rationally, I think many kids, especially parents are quite insecure about doing it. In a material sense, to be able to raise a family, send YOUR kids to school and retire, is incredibly hard next to a person who entered one of the other professions. So, that's why I suggest the option of going to a good school like USC, Northwestern, (Or even a bunch of state schools where there's a good teacher. There's so many options and you shouldn't feel limited to just a big name school) or even Yale/Harvard/Columbia if you can swing it. It might not be an option for some, but I believe you'd get more value out of the large chunk of money you're spending. I was lucky and got a Starling scholarship, but I have friends who are extremely good players who didn't get so much help, and some none at all.

shennie

Vieuxtemps - I agree with what you are saying in principal. It is possible for SOME students to study musically seriously by the route you are suggesting. The problem is that many of the non-conservatory schools you mention restrict access to the best teachers to those students who are performance majors. If you go to Rice but are not in the Shepard School, you can't take lessons from those teachers. My guess is that it is the same as Northwestern. The only way you are going to get in is if you have a long standing relationship with the teacher, have amazing talent and the teacher agrees to take you on. Even then, with their teaching load at the music school and their own performance schedule, many teachers refuse to teach outside of their regularly assigned studio.

Our flagship state university has several outstanding teachers. Some teachers will occassionally take on an extra student or a student who is not a performance major, but this is not common practice. So for most applicants the best way to access the best teachers is to go the performance route. For students who are at the very top of their game, they can likely take the route you suggest, but for most students it is not going to be possible.

You mention going to Harvard to study with Weilerstein. That's great IF you can get into Harvard and IF Weilerstein will take you. My guess is that if Weilerstein is your goal you might have a better shot trying to audition into his studio at NEC.

Yes, some musicians will find other ways to get to where they want to go without going by way of the conservatory, but I think that you will find that a large majority will still find it the only feasible way to meet their goals.