<p>Replying to glassharmonica, a few posts back. No dissertation for my D.M.A., so to speak. I had to perform four recitals, and provide a paper of some kind for each recital. Actually as a performer it was really great because I had to study/research/analyze some aspect of the piece(s) I was playing in depth–it really gave us a wonderful knowledge and understanding of the repertoire and made us better performers because of it. Then, in addition to the four recitals, we had to give two lecture-recitals. That, too, was an invaluable experience for the future. Not only did we become better performers, but became more comfortable talking to audiences about the music we were playing. So, I suppose it’s considered more ‘academic’ than the M.M. because of the papers (although I had lots of papers to do for the M.M. as well with history and theory requirements)–but in my opinion I think the D.M.A. was even more performance-oriented that the M.M. was–at least in the particular school I attended. </p>