Interesting reality check for singers

<p>@musicamusica: I am in agreement with your points that fantastic performers can and do emerge from a variety of schools, including state schools, and especially that going into debt to attend a conservatory is a bad idea. Whatever button I pushed was not intentional. For goodness sakes, my own daughter chose to attend a lesser ranked school (she’s at Hartt, to save you the trouble of looking it up) in order to take advantage of the full scholarship they offered her, and she’s having a fine musical experience.</p>

<p>And no, I don’t think that

although I use the word in its original meaning, someone who does something for the love of it, and not pejoratively as you seem to. I don’t know where you’re getting this bizarre interpretation of my words and I certainly don’t appreciate your insulting me along the way…especially since I was trying to support your point of view in the first place!</p>

<p>Well----I will admit I keep rereading what you posted and apparently I am STILL not reading into that post what you intended.That’s why I posted the words “what I understood” and not “what you intended”. I apologize that I must be a little slow on the uptake. I will just have to take your word for it that you in no way are disparaging state schools.</p>

<p>This isn’t about knocking state schools or other so called ‘lower tier’ music programs, they can give a good music education and propel a good or great music student forward, there is no doubt. There are plenty of musicians out there, today and yesteryear, who went to less prestigious programs and made it, but the reality is many of them already had tremendous actual/potential ability when they went there and the school gave them a good education.</p>

<p>The problem is those programs have a lot of seats to fill, and for every great player they get or even kids who are decent, they have to fill the seats and as a result they also are admitting kids who frankly don’t have a chance but selling them the idea they do and that is my problem, because quit honestly the kid is being had, big time and if they are spending significant money and/or accumulating debt to go after a dream that way, it concerns me.</p>

<p>Does that mean unless a kid gets into a top program forget it? No, not at all, as long as they go in with their eyes wide open and realize the reality of what is out there, I will cheer them on. If they realize what a long shot it is and simply feel like they are willing to take the shot, good for them. </p>

<p>And that is auditioned programs, what about non auditioned ones? What odds do those kids have even with a non traditional career? The world of music has changed a lot, and the kind of jobs that an "ordinary’ music student could get after school, cobble together a living, have become either extinct or more difficult to get. For example, solid musicians used to be able to count on gig work, they used to be able to do things like work the orchestra pits of musicals and so forth, or do music for ads and tv shows and movies, there were a ton of professional and semi professional gigs…and all of those have dried up. A lot of musicals these days use recorded music or small synthesizer ensembles and broadway producers and those in other big theater cities have been trying to cut back or eliminate live musicians for years. Session work for the recording industry, as that has shrank, is now extremely competitive with relatively few musicians getting those gigs , and the local music groups, the paying ones, have either been reduced in scale or disappeared, and these were the mainstay of many musicians. Likewise, with the number of music graduates, in many places there are a flood of private teachers, that is competitive, and usually the teachers with the most students are those who have achieved some sort of prominence already i.e they were top level players.</p>

<p>Put it this way, what would you tell a C student in college, or even high school, about their chances of going to medical school and being a doctor? What would you tell the kid struggling at the local community college about their dream of being president? Would you tell them “sure, go ahead, lot’s of people do that” or gently give them a reality check? If a kid was going to a state school and told me he was dreaming of working for an investment bank I would give them a big dose of reality, that they were likely wasting their time if that was their goal, or at least tell him/her they better have the grades to get into a top level grad business program, a top 10 or 15 school, and be willing to pay for that in the hopes of getting a banking job. </p>

<p>If a student wants to pursue music and knows the odds, knows where they are it is a long shot to make it as a music, then they should do it, but they need to know the truth and about how competitive it is even for what used to be the domain of ‘good’ musicians, and they have to know that if they are willing to spend X thousands on tuition and/or loans that they may be spending money on a dream mostly unlikely to happen so they can decide if they still want to do it.If a kid knows that, and wants to plug on, I will personally cheer them on, because if they pursue it, find out they won’t make it, they are likely to look back and enjoy the experience and find what they need to do in their life, and music will probably always be a part of it and that will be cool. On the other hand, if the kid goes in expecting that if he graduates he will be able to audition and get into the Chicago Symphony and therefore is willing to pay 50,000 cumulative in tuition and have loans, what is going to happen to them? Again, I am talking the average music student, not the superstars, going into the many music programs out there.</p>

<p>The truth of the matter is top school, state school, super star etc. very few of these students will have a career in their intended field. Only a fraction will see a professional stage. It has always been this way and is now worse ^.</p>

<p>It seems with the proliferation of music schools/departments that most anyone can get into a music program. There seems to be no system of reality check for students and they all seem to think that they will work.</p>

<p>There’s tons of wonderful singers with wonderful educations that are not working. That’s why I harp on getting a good teacher and knowing the steps toward a potential career. (I only have knowledge of singers, but I imagine it is similar for other instruments as well.)</p>

<p>I don’t think that it is right that so many students go into this with their eyes closed. On the other hand if a students know the odds and still wishes to pursue music then more power to them.</p>

<p>I once made a comment that a singer should not pay for grad school as a rule of thumb. By this I meant that if they are not good enough at this point to have a full ride that they should look into another career. </p>

<p>I know this is not a popular approach and that parents/students feel that they can beat the odds, but do they know the odds really? It would be devastating to put your all into something only to have the door slammed in your face. We regularly remind our son that he is more than a voice. While we do support him totally in his endeavors we do talk about alternative careers. An while he is very serious about music he has thought about other careers and understands the situation.</p>

<p>Very interesting article:</p>

<p>[The</a> Juilliard Effect: Ten Years Later](<a href=“The Learning Network - The New York Times”>The Learning Network - The New York Times)</p>

<p>It’s hard to pick out the exact number, but it seems like half or less of the (non-piano) instrumentalists who graduated from Julliard were making a living by performing, 10 years later.</p>

<p>“I once made a comment that a singer should not pay for grad school as a rule of thumb. By this I meant that if they are not good enough at this point to have a full ride that they should look into another career.”</p>

<p>Someone said: "By the time you are ready for grad school–don’t look for a good school you believe in, find a good school that believes in you. "If you do find that school, the money and opportunities should follow. When students look for that grad school, don’t only chat with potential teachers, but try and meet with the opera director and get a feel for what specific opportunities may come along. If they do not envisage him in specific roles, then that school is probably not for him. Grad school auditions are about casting. That two years pasts by fast and singers need to sing on stage from the get go.</p>

<p>SRW, nicely put, succinct and to the point. One of the reasons I have been posting what I do is because I know how little information there is about music and getting into it is out there, even people who supposedly know about the ‘reality of music’ often don’t have a clue as to the reality, and I have seen enough music students who are studying music in college who quite honestly went into it with eyes closed, assumed because they had a degree in music that they would be able to work as a musician and be successfully…and also saw what happened to these kids as young adults, and it is sad because many of them end up bitter when they hit reality. I have a good friend who went to IU majoring in music, and in the middle he realized seeing the level of the top kids in the program was nowhere near the level these kids were at and that he wouldn’t have the chops to make it, and went on another track. He and I once talked about it, and he said if he had gone to another program, where many of the kids were the same as himself or maybe even less talented, he might have gone through, gotten the degree and then been wiped out…</p>

<p>The other factor is that there has been a seismic shift in music in the past 15-20 years, the recording industry has collapsed and much of what used to be grist for the working musician, the ‘good but not great’ players has dried up, and not to mention that at a time when professional music has been contracting/changing, the level of competition has gone skyward, the level of playing of musicians has increased exponentially from where it was 30 years ago. One of my kids prior teachers is a principal player in a fairly high level orchestra, one that pays a decent salary and benefits, they got into the orchestra right out of conservatory after having ‘gotten serious’ in college, but if they had to audition today with the skill set they had coming out of college, they would admit quite freely that they wouldn’t get a position based on the competition today, and the competitition is such that top level players are taking the kind of jobs ‘average’ musicians once would take. </p>

<p>I think part of the problem is we all love the story about the ugly duckling who talks into a swan, we love stories like Susan Boyle or the person who ‘makes it’ through hard work and passion and determination and love to believe that opportunity is there for whoever wants it, and that isn’t always true, and the exception doesn’t prove the rule</p>

<p>One other venue for underemployed musicians would be church music. This can be traditional or contemporary. At my local church, the worship team leader (ie music director) makes $30,000/yr for a part time job. Son’s choir teacher in high school was the director of a local church choir for pay. Most churches will still pay for an organist. Both sons’ piano teacher was the music leader for her church. Another friend, tunes pianos for his day job and gigs in the evenings. The local colleges and high schools also pay to bring in musicians to help fill out their pit and regular orchestras. And they can always substitute teach in the daytime and take gigs in the evening. So, it is still possible to cobble together a living as a musician but it will take some flexibility whether they are waiting for the “big” break symphony job or simply want a job as a school music teacher. Plus on another thread they were lamenting that even some engineering students are finding themselves unemployed in this market so they might as well pursue their passion and dreams while they are young.</p>

<p>And as if there weren’t enough barriers, look at age of the musicians in the major orchestras now; they are not retiring, so seats aren’t opening up. More opps in the string sections, but there are amazing woodwind players who can’t catch a break, and then there are the poor harpists… Even if the very best schools only have 7-8 undergrads,top orchestras only have 2 harpists on the roles. But the instrumental system does “self-weeding” at least;So many singers head off to schools clueless and can’t see reality until its too late.</p>

<p>In related news, Aretha Franklin is looking for young opera talent. [Aretha</a> Franklin Is Looking For The Next Great Star … Of Opera - WNYC](<a href=“http://www.wnyc.org/npr_articles/2012/jan/03/aretha-franklin-is-looking-for-the-next-great-star-of-opera/]Aretha”>http://www.wnyc.org/npr_articles/2012/jan/03/aretha-franklin-is-looking-for-the-next-great-star-of-opera/)</p>

<p>I saw that article earlier today, stardom! I find the whole idea wrong in so many ways…
Just because Aretha once sang “Nessun dorma” doesn’t mean that the aria was written or should be sung by a woman. Just what classical voice needs is to be “judged” by someone with absolutely no knowledge of it-not!</p>

<p>Hey, at least she is providing an opportunity to someone. That has to be a good thing. And she is providing exposure to a what is a virtually irrelevant form of music to most of the world. Remember, opera was the pop music of the past. There were plenty of people who thought Edward Hopper or Picasso were hacks when their work was first seen. Now they are revered as masters. Likewise, I suspect people will be singing Beatles songs 200 years from now. One man’s Puccini is another person’s Radiohead.</p>

<p>I am probably dating myself here, but this thread brings to mind Harry Chapin’s “Mr. Tanner.” </p>

<p>(About a singer, but I always loved the fact that it featured a cello.)</p>

<p>I usually agree with mezzo, but on this one I am with K8, I have to think anything like this a good thing. Yeah, it is likely that whoever Ms. Franklin chooses may not be at the tippy top level of performance, may not be someone who is chosen to sing at the Met or Covent Garden, but at least it is exposing people in some way to a form most people would rather get root canal without novocaine then go to. Maybe just maybe having Aretha Franklin saying “hey, folks, I find opera cool” might get new people checking it out, it sure can’t hurt. </p>

<p>The whole “classical” world gets so caught up in purity and propriety, they kneel at the altar of “musical perfection” IMO that they forget that there is a little thing known as building an audience and catering to an audience. A couple of years ago Anna Nebtrenko did a music video that had the typical dazzle of pop videos but she was singing legitimate Arias, and it became a major smash, it was getting more airplay and hits on the net then almost any other video out there. It happened because she is a good looking young woman and in many parts was in a bikini, but so what? It actually got people listening to the music. </p>

<p>I see this in instrumental music, where the cult of musical perfection has reached new heights, and I also see the downside of this, many of the best technical musicians I see have the stage presence and charisma of a rock in many cases, but the teachers and judges love them because they play “perfectly”. Well, great, but most audience members don’t care if intonation is off, they go there to enjoy the performance and performers. Stowkowski used to be greatly criticized for his theatrics (brilliantly portrayed by Bugs Bunny in “Giovanni Jones”), but he turned the Philadelphia Orchestra into a force and Fantasia introduced Classical music to a lot of people who otherwise wouldn’t have been exposed to it yet the purists sneered.</p>

<p>Walter Damrosch knew this, in a book on conductors (c1941) it talked about how he used to tour with I believe the Philharmonic society (later to become part of the NY Phil) and would go all over the country, where he would mix Beethoven with “the Camptown races” and other popular songs, and according to the book, after these tours orchestras sprang up all over the country…</p>

<p>To be honest, if the idea is to introduce “Joe Everyman” to Opera then Ms. Franklin doing it is probably the better way, if she used the ‘professional judges’, the ones who adjudicate competitions and such, we would get the highly talented and trained singers I am sure, but I suspect they also wouldn’t appeal to Joe Everyman very much either, it would just reinforce the idea of Opera as this stodgy, stuffy art form that you need a million bucks in the bank and be on a corporate board to enjoy.</p>

<p>Power to the people, musicprnt. RIGHT ON.</p>

<p>I stand by my original comments re Ms Franklin’s “competition” and after reading more, I’m pretty confident about the way it will turn out.<br>
And I don’t agree with the sentiment that seems to equal getting people to listen to " opera" is preferable to having them never explore the art form. This results in the general populace believing that Jackie Evanco, Andrea Bocelli, Sarah Brightman and Katherine Jenkins are " opera" singers, which they most assuredly are not.
My big gripe comes because these types of things always occur around vocal competitions ( because anyone can sing, right?). It’s as absurd as having Mick Jagger offering to adjudicate a competition for violinists.</p>

<p>Totally agree musicprnt! In a world where addiction to reality T.V. is so prevalent, anything that exposes the masses to opera is beneficial. With the enormous loss of funding to the arts recently, we cannot afford to be opera snobs. Best of luck to all who chose to apply!</p>

<p>Here is a reality check for all of us musicians and parents who have invested a lot of time and money into the serious pursuit of serious music: The majority of audiences do not want to be serious. They just want to be entertained. </p>

<p>I believe that anybody who wants to make a living in music nowadays is going to have to think way outside the traditional box. Performers of the future are going to have to understand that for better or worse, young audiences of today crave entertainment, especially if it is visual and interactive. And they have a lot shorter attention span than their parents and grandparents. Sadly, I don’t think this is going to change any time soon, or ever at all.</p>

<p>So, Mezzo’sMama, I think it would be a great idea for Mick Jagger to judge a violin competition! That is exactly the type of thinking outside the box that is needed. I agree with the posters above: Think how many more people might learn to appreciate the violin if that happened? Then maybe once we hook them we could get them in to see the symphony, or just continue to find ways to keep them entertained. Bottom line: they are buying tickets.</p>

<p>I’m going to weigh in and agree with Musicprnt … if Aretha can bring classical singing back to the broader audiences, more people will also be interested in seeing the real deal operas when they come to town or when they have CDs to sell, and that will lead to more demand for musicians in general. Go Aretha!</p>

<p>I don’t think Mick Jagger should be adjudicating the Queen Elizabeth competition or whatever, but if he did a music program that had instrumentalists, then yeah, why not? Even if the person on the violin who won wasn’t at the level of Hillary Hahn it would get people realizing that ‘classical’ music had the potential to touch them, move them, etc, that it isn’t what the popular perception of classical music and opera is, a stuffy pursuit for the superannuated.</p>

<p>I talk to a lot of younger people where I work, and there is a lot of curiousity there about classical music and opera, and I have gotten some of them to go to performances I thought they might enjoy, and they did, but the barriers were high. I am not suggesting that classical music or opera should degrade itself to the level of pop music, where they need to use autotune to bring them into any kind of tonality, but that doesn’t mean that orchestras and operas cannot take ideas from popular music. It is funny, I was just reading something about the premiere of Gershwin’s Rhapsody in blue, where Paul Whiteman a jazz band impresario, put together an evening of ‘experimental’ music, there were something like 23 pieces played that night and because Whiteman was doing it, they drew a large audience, while the classical purists of the day sneered that this was a ‘jazz concert’ and some of which was deriding Gershwin’s and the other music as an ethnic slur…</p>

<p>What is kind of funny about Opera is if you look at the stories, if you look at the settings and the costumes, it is kind of hard not to have cognitive dissonance, because the stories and such are so over the top, especially when you get to Wagnerian Opera, bold music, over the top singers, etc, Opera and soap operas are pretty closely aligned, yet it became in effect soap opera for the 1% to use a popular conception. Peter Gelb of the Met knew that, when he decided to simulcast performances the purists grumbled, that it was going to turn Opera stagecraft to be aimed at the HD video, that things like how the performers looked or acted would matter more then musical purity and so forth, and know what? The guy hit on something, they have an audience about 3 million people viewing the operas each season, versus maybe 100,000 in the house at most… Opera is theater, and when Broadway musicals cast their musicals they do so on many bases, how well someone sings and dances and also stage presence/believability in the role. You wouldn’t cast Patti Lupone as Fantine in Les Miz, why would you cast someone as a starving artist who weighs 300 pounds or a consumptive with similar size, it makes no sense, putting someone out on the stage simply because they sing perfectly according to technical standards, the old ‘plant and sing’ and so forth isn’t going to fly (and yes, Opera has changed, you have people like Nebtrenko, Ramon Vargas, Placido Domingo, Susan Graham, etc, etc who have the whole package). </p>

<p>Make fun of Andre Rieu and his program, which combines a lot of different things but guess what, he fills arenas with 20,000 people of all ages and so forth…but it is getting people to listen to music they never listen to.</p>

<p>It is ironic but in a sense the die was cast about 100 years ago (thanks again to the wonderful book on conductors I found for a couple of bucks, written c 1941). In effect, to be able to artistically be able to program what they wanted, orchestras went to the model of building huge endownments and not relying on ticket sales (the Chicago symphony was one of the first) to keep themselves afloat and to remain artists and so forth…the problem with that is when you do that, you can become isolated from your audience, you stop in effect trying to build one or appeal to them. Opera and Classical music were never mass appeal forms in the US, but over the decades a variety of factors have made it dwindle. The cold war era didn’t help much, when the US decided the arts was part of the cold war, government funding further isolated the performing groups, as did the large corporate giving to the arts…and now they alll are struggling and trying to build audiences. </p>

<p>I hear all kinds of solutions, that we need to program “new music”, a lot of which is not audience friendly, that if we had music education in the schools it would build audiences, etc…and like anything, it is a multi faceted approach and anything that can help is potentially worthwhile. Joshua Bell and Lang Lang are often derided for their theatrics on stage, but want to know something? When either of them play, they draw large audiences (as can Yo Yo Ma, in part because of his visibility) and while are both technically at the best levels and are playing ‘real’ music, they also have audience appeal. This idea of “Ars Gratia Artis” (art to please artists) is great, but probably more people were attracted to music by Bugs Bunny and Fantasia then anything else…</p>

<p>And I agree, I think that going down the road musicians and performing groups are going to need to be a lot more flexible, they are going to be managing their own careers and finding their own audience, there is no doubt. The recording industry is morphing and changing, orchestras and opera companies are learning they have to change or die, and the old ‘managed career’ nonsense where you get an agent and solor, or careers in an orchestra or permanent group has become much more difficult, and musicians are going to be more and more their own agent, their own contractor, whatever you call it and in one sense that isn’t a bad thing because it forces musicians and music to adapt, there is a lot more sense of needing an audience, etc. When you are a member of the NY Phil, make 150k a year, when it is funded by huge endowments and so forth, you are isolated from the audience, if you are a musician or ensemble trying to build an audience, you have to find ways to attract it. That is why you are seeing ‘classical’ music being done in clubs and other unusual venues, it is why more and more ‘classical’ artists are not afraid to try more popular forms and so forth. Nigel Kennedy still holds the record for a classical recording, he sold 3 million copies of his version of the 4 seasons, and to a large extent it was because he was a maverick, was in the public eye…Sarah Chang, doing it much more conventionally, releases a version of the 4 seasons recently and sold maybe 10,000 copies…</p>