<p>Compmom, this is where it gets tricky in terms of advising students we don’t know, especially composers who have an interest in technology or technologically inclined students who enjoy composing. :)</p>
<p>Musictechdad’s son has ferreted out that composition is his central focus, so rightly, to my mind, that sounds like its going to be his undergrad emphasis. I personally think my son would have benefitted from this approach, but he has and has always had too many fingers in too many pies 
(In retrospect, you can tell this from his transcript…his highest grades and perfect scores we always related to the creation of music. I once noted to him that was a signal that comp should have been his central focus, to which he replied that he went to school to learn things doesn’t know as well!)</p>
<p>But in the case of Musictechdad, it also sounds like his son, through experimentation, has gathered some strong experience with programming languages, music sequencing software, and has a strong technological base which hopefully can be maintained and expanded during his study of composition (eg TIMARA at Oberlin.)</p>
<p>Because at the graduate level, a composition student applying to something like Mills for the electronic and recording masters, will be asked to describe what programming languages, hardware they’ve worked with, what level of experience they have in circuitry, etc. and will submit detailed tech notes with portfolio materials wherein the production values themselves will form part of the evaluation.</p>
<p>By contrast, someone applying to the masters of composition at Mills will be asked about their experience in electroacoustic composition.</p>
<p>Both will be asked to submit three recordings of their work, composers including scores and electronic applicants submitting aesthetic notes, tools and techniques.</p>
<p>I thought this example might be useful because it begins to articulate where the two paths seem to depart. In theory, my son could apply to either masters program at Mills, and in his case conceivably have a shot (we’re not likely to know that de facto until well after he’s moved to SF and determined whether he even wants to continue or whether he’s content to work without further study…his gf has this year yet to finish her performing arts degree and he’s signed on to her lease :)) </p>
<p>But in his case, he’ll wonder whether his composition background is adequate, and on the flip side, whether his programming and circuit work is similarly as polished as fellow applicants, considering he has truly been hybrid all along and ergo is not as highly specialized in either as a straight comp undergrad or an Eng music grad from his university.</p>
<p>However, he did not choose his undergrad path with the notion of specialization Frankly, he chose it the way a hungry Hamlet might order a pizza…every available discipline mixed in…and of course when he started, he was also a dual degree student in film, which he later abandoned only once he realized his degree gave him access to all the upper level film production courses…and all of which he took :)</p>
<p>So perhaps the most germane question of all for a prospective music technology student might be “if you were locked in a room for 24 hours with every instrument you can play, every daw or capture hardware you know of, every conceivable controller, sequencer, software relating to music, unlimited computing power, what percentage of time would be spent writing a song?”</p>
<p>If the kid were too geeked by the equipment to write a song, they’re straight up tech and just don’t know it yet. If they spent more time composing a song than exploring the tech, and used the tech in service of the song, they’re a composer who’s technologically inclined 
And if they created a song via exploration of what the tech could do, well then they’re probably what you call a “sound artist.”</p>