<p>Hi, </p>
<p>I was wondering which top music schools primarily have an emphasis on orchestral playing, as opposed to schools that train their students to be soloists…</p>
<p>I am currently looking at these schools:
Oberlin
Boston University
Boston Conservatory
Eastman</p>
<p>You can probably find how many orchestras the schools have and how many hours of orchestra+orchestra rep students have, but isn’t more about the teacher ? Studying with an orchestra player you can teach you to have a good orchestral sound, study excerpts, ect… ?
Wouldn’t a good school train you to do both ?</p>
<p>Agree with Bassplayer08. My understanding of Rice for instance is that not only do the students study individually with some great teachers, but that the orchestra experience under Larry Rachleff is phenomenal. From their web page: “From its inception in 1974, The Shepherd School of Music at Rice University has emphasized orchestral training as a central element in its performing curriculum.” I do not know which programs you refer to that do not have good programs in both. I don’t think you could have a good orchestra experience if the students weren’t studying individual works also for technique, style, etc. .</p>
<p>No school merely trains its students to be soloists: even schools with the very best students recognize that only a very, very small fraction of their students will ever have full-time solo careers. </p>
<p>Hence, the most selective schools like Colburn, Curtis, Juilliard, CIM and Rice have extensive and intensive orchestral programs. The incredible quality of their orchestras isn’t just due to the talent pool, rather it is due to the schools’ emphasis on orchestra: lots of weekly time devoted to orchestral rehearsals, excellent conductors, excellent sectional leaders, teachers that understand and work to meet the needs of orchestral players, and the cultivation of an atmosphere that takes orchestra seriously. </p>
<p>As Singersmom07 notes, private lessons are not so much designed to produce soloists (although solo repertoire is studied), but to produce the chops in players so that they can handle any repertoire they will face in their careers: orchestra, chamber, solo.</p>
<p>In general, the better the school is overall, the better the orchestral player they will produce on average. With that in mind, you might want to consider Oberlin and Eastman more seriously than Boston University and Boston Conservatory (with the usual provisos that there are excellent individual studios at any school and even the best schools have some duds).</p>
<p>A couple of further thoughts: try to listen to the orchestras at any of the schools that you are serious about. While a live performance is best, many schools have produced fine CD’s that will give you a very good idea as to the calibre of the orchestras. Recordings on the internet are of varying qualities and often do not give a very good idea as to the orchestra’s level (although a mediocre orchestra will usually be obvious even on a low-quality recording).</p>
<p>Also consider how many performances the orchestra does in a year. If the orchestra does only two performances in a year that suggests that either not much time is being devoted to orchestra or the level of player is so low that it takes months to learn the repertoire. With only 8 performances during a four-year degree, you will not be exposed to enough repertoire to adequately develop your stylistic chops.</p>
<p>Look at the concert programs for the last couple of years (these are often/usually online). Is there a wide range of repertoire? Does the orchestra play the most difficult pieces in the standard repertoire? Does the orchestra occasionally commission new works to give its players experience with brand new rep?</p>
<p>More thoughts: Most people landing jobs in orchestras that pay enough to live, land these jobs only after fairly extensive graduate training. A bachelor’s degree is mostly about solidly developing basic playing skills and these are primarily developed in your private teachers’ studio. After all, in orchestral auditions, you will not only play some excerpts by yourself, but will almost always be asked to prepare at least a couple of solo pieces (often concerto movements, if your instrument has an adequate concerto repertoire). So I would tend to rank the individual studio teacher as a more important factor for the bachelor’s degree (but of course, every situation is unique). </p>
<p>If you end up at a school with a less-than-ideal orchestral program, you can make up for this deficit by attending summer programs that will give you fantastic orchestral experience (for example, Aspen and MAW).</p>
<p>I’ve always heard that the orchestra training at Rice is fantastic, just to chime in with Singersmom07. And I agree with violindad, that you might consider looking into a summer program emphasizing orchestra, such as Tanglewood, MAW, or Aspen. My daughter has always gone to programs emphasizing strings, solo/chamber. This year she is at Aspen and is thrilled by the level of orchestral playing.</p>
<p>violindad covered just about everything. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And post masters opportunities in specialized programs, the various training orchestras like New World Symphony, Chicago Civic Orchestra, the highly sought after fellowship festival orchestras. </p>
<p>And there’s no guarantees.</p>
<p>I agree with what others have said, the music schools I know of, from good to the so called ‘top tier’ all have orchestra and ensemble programs. There are at the grad level specialized studies in orchestral performance that I have heard about, but usually those are focused on those who are looking to move into principal roles (and the ones I am aware of generally are aimed at people looking to gain the skills required to be a concertmaster)…but it would be kind of ridiculous to have a music program that doesn’t emphasize ensemble skills, since that is the bread and butter of most musicians:). </p>
<p>About the only thing I can think of that might give this impression might be complaints I have heard about some students from certain schools being not great ensemble players.For example, I have read reviews of a certain high level conservatory orchestra in the NY Times, and a common complaint was that some of the orchestra played like a group of soloists rather then as an ensemble. That, though, isn’t because of the school not emphasizing it, it probably has a lot more to do with the attitude of the students playing like that. Yes, students learn solo repertoire (with varying degrees, it is different when you are a violinist which has a huge solo repertoire, versus the French Horn which is more limited), but as others have pointed out, that is to build the skills needs to be a musician on the instrument, not necessarily emphasizing being a soloist.</p>