Musical Theater Major or Acting Major?

<p>I agree with CoachC (which goes back to NotMamaRose), that internet writing is different than writing an essay. In my work, I help with revisions of essays (am in the thick of it at this time of year) and talk to students about taking out “I think”, “I believe”, “I know”…from their essays. But on a message board, it works well to make a distinction of whether you are posting an opinion or stating facts. So, I know in my own posts, I often use “In my opinon” or “in my view”. In fact, did you ever see people use the shorthand, “IMHO”? That stands for “in my humble opinion.” Another difference, at least for me, when I write on the internet, I do so in a very casual conversational tone. I write and post and don’t edit for real good writing. It is more of a conversation that is typed. I also think it is easy to be misinterpretted in posts as they are not “live” in “real time” and no tone of voice or facial expressions, etc. And so a lot of times, if someone misunderstands the meaning of a post, that person would do well to clarify what they truly meant if they feel their post was not interpretted in the way it was intended.</p>

<p>Michael, thanks for post #117. I feel as you do about what we share here and how. You articulated that so well. I think it is better to share information, pros/cons, personal viewpoints and experiences which would include why you personally chose a certain program, etc. It is when comparisons are made in terms of what is “better”, is when problems seem to arise on the forum, particularly when the comparisons are made between one another’s choices. The choices have personal rationales. It is good to share those. That is not the same as describing what is better. It should be why one chose a certain thing for reasons of their own, which is really all it is about anyway. And Michael, I have to admit, I remember the Kennel Ration jingle. :D</p>

<p>NMR,

True. With a snowball effect at that! Seems like Michael thinks I was belittling Sooz with my first two responses to her. I didn’t intend that at all. I was just busy - and sick with a bug now going around my class - and didn’t have time or energy to engage in a lot of verbiage. So, in turn, he made a sarcastic post ridiculing what I thought was a perfectly reasonable hypothesis and I returned fire. I really should have just let it go, but it did rub me the wrong way. </p>

<p>Sooz,

And, given our history, I was surprised that you thought I was casting aspersion on other paths. After all this time, you should know that’s not my style! LOL In my comment about liberal arts, I was just expressing how I - and many others - feel about having to be bothered with them while engaged in intensive training. It wasn’t supposed to be a blanket statement for everybody although I can see how it could have been interpreted that way given the statement preceding it.</p>

<p>Now here’s something else that might surprise you. I don’t think you really intend it, but the way some of your posts read, one could come to the conclusion that all those extra hours spent in conservatory acting, voice & speech, and movement classes don’t count for much in building one’s skills as an actor. If I were sure that’s what you meant, I would be a bit insulted. As it stands, I only find it slightly frustrating and perhaps some of that has come through in the tone of some of my previous posts on this thread. </p>

<p>

See … That’s a problem for me. I no longer have the time for that. If/when I decide to engage in conversations here - especially when it’s on a controversial topic- I guess It’ll generally need to be when I’m on break.</p>

<p>Must be back in class in … five minutes.</p>

<p>Fish, it is beneficial that you came back to clarify things. </p>

<p>An example of how things can be misunderstood is that you wrote above about “belittling Sooz” but I never ever once thought you were doing that. I can’t speak for Michael but I don’t think he thought that either. I never once thought anything you wrote was personal. I was commenting more on how some ideas you posted came across and may have been misinterpreted. </p>

<p>You are now saying:

</p>

<p>HERE is a good example of how posts can be misinterpreted. I don’t think AT ALL what you are saying you got from my posts. I definitely think if you spend more hours in acting training, it helps build your skills as an actor. I don’t think it is a “worse” approach in any way, shape, or form. Likewise, I was saying that skilled actors come out of conservatories with lots of studio time but also some liberal arts. For that matter, some skilled actors have gone to BA programs. I’m not judging which is better. I don’t think one kind IS better. I was saying I understood your desire to ONLY take training classes. I work with students who want that and want no academics. They hate academics and can’t wait to not have to take them. That’s cool…we look for programs suited to what they want. I also have some who want a little liberal arts and some say this as a “fallback” like you indicated, but when this discussion started, I ONLY was saying that SOME who want a BFA with a little liberal arts, don’t want it for a FALLBACK but they want those classes to build breadth of foundation/knowledge to be educated for life and desire for learning and some also feel it enhances their work IN theater/acting. Likewise, I have worked with students who are qualified to enter top BFA programs (or have gotten in them) but PREFER a BA school strong in theater. In all these cases, the students may be talented but simply want a different educational experience. The main thing is to find what fits them. So, I do not doubt one iota that your extra hours in training instead of academic or theater studies classes benefits you and builds your skills. But likewise, I happen to think that those who do intensive BFA programs that have a little bit of academics, can turn out just as skilled and the idea is to find the educational experience that suits your own needs and purposes. </p>

<p>I don’t want to speak for Michael but I have a feeling that what you said about UArts came across a certain way, even if you never meant it. </p>

<p>Again, some interpret your comments in ways you never intended (and THANK YOU for coming back to clarify) but likewise, in my example above, you read into my comments in ways I never intended or even think. As well, I never once felt you belittled ME, not at all. I thought I explained how posts came across as which type of education/training is “better” and I am not really into comparisons. I’d rather compare a student’s personal college criteria/preferences and match up which schools more closely fit those needs and interests. In that regard, I am very happy for you as you have found a school more suited to what you want…a stand alone conservatory compared to your first school (also a fine one!) that had an academic component. Likewise, as a parent, I could not be more pleased that my D found a school that matched what SHE wanted perfectly. I DO NOT think her school is any better than other ones out there. But I do think she found a perfect match for HERSELF, as I believe and am happy you have found for yourself. </p>

<p>Best of luck for the end of the semester.</p>

<p>"
Yep. Not too take this too far off the topic and into healthcare, when you say “expensive,” how expensive do you mean? My brother-in-law pays out of his pocket for insurance for his family of four, and the cost is about $1100 per month. Is that what you pay?"</p>

<p>So that’s like $250 per person? Hm…sort of. Mine is about $160 a month, so a bit cheaper. But then it’s only part insurance, doesn’t involve everything…</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Not exactly. There’s usually a discount as you add people. My wife buys her own insurance at an HMO, and pays a bit over $500/ month.</p>

<p>Since we were talking about British acting, I thought I would mention Cranford, a 6 part mini series currently running on television in the UK on the BBC with Judi Dench, Imelda Staunton, Julia McKenzie, Michael Gambon and loads more of the “best of British” actors. It’s a really fabulous series and being hailed as the best thing since the BBC’s 1993 Pride and Prejudice. Definitely a must see, I absolutely love it and it comes out on DVD next year. :slight_smile: </p>

<p>[Amazon.co.uk:</a> Cranford: Complete BBC Series: DVD: Judi Dench,Philip Glenister,Francesca Annis,Michael Gambon,Lesley Manville,Imelda Staunton,Julia McKenzie,Greg Wise,Julia Sawalha,Simon Curtis](<a href=“http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cranford-Complete-BBC-Judi-Dench/dp/B000Z1TYT2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1197024098&sr=8-2]Amazon.co.uk:”>http://www.amazon.co.uk/Cranford-Complete-BBC-Judi-Dench/dp/B000Z1TYT2/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2?ie=UTF8&s=dvd&qid=1197024098&sr=8-2)</p>

<p>There was an article posted on the Theater/Drama Colleges thread that I was surprised nobody ever commented on. Maybe it was because nobody read the whole thing because it was so long. Here is a link to the whole article. <a href=“http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/3952758-post171.html[/url]”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/3952758-post171.html&lt;/a&gt; Here is a quote from it</p>

<p>

My dilemma is that as an artist I want to be one of those actresses with nothing ‘they can’t do and do at a moments’ notice’ but (sorry if this sounds arrogant) I am also one of those ‘types’ he talks about and I feel like a BFA is a compromise that could hurt my career chances because I would be 22 starting full time in the business AND my acting might still be shallow compared to an MFA with more education and life experience. I asked the artistic director at the LORT theatre I intern at about BFAs and he said the best YOUNG actors he sees come from NCArts and DePaul and more recently Minnesota. However, I notice from looking at years of programs that he hardly ever uses BFAs. Most of the actors have MFAs from many places and they even get most of the young roles. I almost feel like it could be best for me to go ahead and move to LA after graduation and do the model/actress thing (already have those cards) while auditioning and taking classes with plans to go to college later if it doesn’t work out by the time I’m 25. A good BFA is so expensive and will be a burden on my family if I don’t get a big scholarship and lots of aid since my dad is STILL deployed in Iraq and not making as much money as he used to. Do any of you who work in the business have any advice to offer? Am I just thinking too much?</p>

<p>PS Don’t fight. I always cringe when I post here because I am always scared somebody will bite my head off.</p>

<p>All I can say about this is - you can have 200 monologues prepared and done 2000 classes with the best teachers but if you don’t have IT and the natural talent and the “x factor” and starb quality - then even all that can’t help you. Yes, knowing many monologues and having trained in detail is certainly a good thing and a plus, however it doesn’t mean those people are going to be more succesful than an actor who has only 4 monologues in their rep and took only 20 classes. There is no rhyme and rule to this business, loads is down to your look, who you know, luck, your personality and - your personal style. People get jobs who are late, irresponsible and unkind. People who are the perfect example of a professional actor - don’t get work. I see it all the time. As much as it generally pays off to “follow rules” and behave professionally, it is NO guarantee that you will succeed. If it was as simple as training day after day and learning 60 monologues, attend a certain college programme and then everyone would be an Oscar winning actor in no time.</p>

<p>Also - as much as you should have a general amount of different types of audition monologues and songs prepared and “perfected”, they won’t expect you to know everything. I think knowing 5 or 6 monologues if fine, maybe 10 after a few years of gaining professional experience. Noone in the UK anyway will expect you to know more. Also, it’s the QUALITY of the monologues and the performance, rather than the quantity. </p>

<p>Someone can walk in, know everything about plays and playwrights and do 60 monologues one after the other and be - a good actor. Someone else may walk in, do 3 monologues and that’s all they know and be averagely educated about plays, etc - and be amazing and just command the stage. </p>

<p>It’s as simple as that really I believe. No rules you can follow. </p>

<p>So my advice - follow your gut instinct and have as many strings to your bow as possible (you don’t sound arrogant at all for wanting that, you sound smart :)) and work on finding YOU what makes YOU unique as a performer and will get YOU the job rather than the 50 others who look like models and can also act well. You have to stand out and whatever route/class/town/teacher/etc you think will make this happen for you - you have to follow. Good luck!</p>

<p>Before I go any further, let me just say I am the Chair of a Theatre Dept. I read this forum on a regular basis. I am not a Chair of any school that is currently being commented on, or discussed in any way on this forum. That was a disclaimer. </p>

<p>Within the academic community, the push over the past 15 years has been to train students to get jobs. (I know this sounds ridiculous, but please give me a moment.) As you all well know, there is a difference between “getting jobs” and being a great actor / singer / dancer / performer / artist. In fact, there is a huge difference. Many programs, particularly in MT focus on the audition process, and not on complete training. Everything begins and ends with acting. </p>

<p>Everything.</p>

<p>If you don’t have the physical mental and emotional skills, combined with a solid grasp of the CRAFT of acting, you won’t have any serious career. Yes, you may get cast. Yes, it will probably happen often early on. However, you won’t be hired back very often. </p>

<p>I’m not posting this to denigrate any single program. There are many excellent MT programs that have solid, excellent acting programs. I would suggest to anyone looking for a MT BFA to look at the credentials of the acting faculty. The hard reality is, if you can’t dance now, no four year program will be able to teach you to do anything more than be a credible “mover.” Vocal training is very important, but I believe it takes a huge back seat to acting training. Many people can sing very well, few can sing and ACT (really ACT) at the same time. Look for programs that teach that.</p>

<p>Strange how after reading this forum for several months, this is the thread I post to. That is how important I think this topic is. I just finished a show at a LORT C house. It included several new grads from programs mentioned in this forum as “excellent.” </p>

<p>While this is anecdotal, the best of the EMC (Equity Membership Candidate ) interns in this particular production, the one that really shined was the student that had come from a program that did not offer MT at all. Just a Theatre degree, and he minored in Vocal Music. Again, all anecdotal, but I do musicals all up and down the east coast. I see the ravages of too much teaching “performance” and not enough teaching the actual craft of acting.</p>

<p>Finally, look for programs that make certain you are aware of the history and literature of the theatre. I have never met a great actor who didn’t love the lit, and had a strong understanding of the history of his or her craft. And that certainly is true of MT. You simply can’t be a great actor without reading everything you can get your hands on. (I guess that borders on obsessive opinion… but I really do believe it.)</p>

<p>I’m done. I got through this without once specifically mentioning my program, nor plugging any part of it. I hope you let me stay. But this is a really important part of the future of our art form.</p>

<p>

LOL!! LET you stay? I have a feeling you will be hounded with PMs asking advice.</p>

<p>Other than checking the credentials of the acting faculty, and checking for programs that cover history & literature of theatre, could you post other ways to evaluate programs?</p>

<p>kjgc, thanks so much for taking the time to post here. Unlike you, I am not an expert (just the parent of a student who hopes to get admitted to a good BFA program), but I agree wholeheartedly about actor training being the absolute key/heart of any good MT program. If I want to hear an absolutely superbly-trained voice, I can go to a vocal music concert. But at musicals, I want the singing to seem to be an organic part of the story being told and to be able to deliver that kind of performance, a performer needs to be a good actor first and foremost. (Note that I am assuming here that the performer can sing and sing well. I am just saying that the performer doesn’t have to be Barbara Cook.)</p>

<p>kgjc - great words.</p>

<p>It would be great to have the luxury of looking closely at faculty qualifications and courses offered and then making a choice about where you go to college for acting. . .However, with acceptance rates into BFA programs the way they are, I can’t imagine having too many choices to make at all. While my son (the one who is applying) sometimes runs across something interesting in what’s posted on the various websites, to me, most look pretty similar. CC has been the most helpful tool for getting a “feel” for the various BFA programs. Next best has been chatting with the current students when on campus visits, for they can often present their school’s program, including why it’s designed the way it is and contrasting it to other places they know about. (Often faculty can provide this info, too, but they may have more limited time for discussion.)</p>

<p>It has been/would be interesting to “hear” established actors “talk” about the characteristics in young actors they feel are most important, and about the training programs that are most likely to produce such characteristics.</p>

<p>I cannot speak to the competitive nature of the audition / acceptance process. I can tell you that there are excellent programs out there that offer the B.A. and there are dreadful programs that offer a B.F.A. The nature of the degree offers nothing more than an indication of number of credits received within the major. There are no guidelines by which the designation of the degree is determined. N.A.S.T. (National Association of Schools of Theatre) does offer guidelines, but the majority of schools who offer theatre degrees are not accredited by N.A.S.T. </p>

<p>If you want to know how good the faculty are, have your student contact the acting teachers. Email them. Ask simple questions about training, about amount of time spent with students, what method(s) do they teach, etc. Also, have them ask what kind of professional work they do. Most of the best teachers will write back, and answer the questions. Teaching acting, for that matter teaching theatre, is about collaborative relationships. If an educator does not answer, give them another chance (production schedules can be brutal.) If they still don’t answer, chances are they won’t be that receptive in and out of the classroom either. </p>

<p>All websites are designed to accentuate the positive and hide the programs flaws. We all write them to draw in students. That’s why those emails are so important. I submit that the relationship between mentor and student are at least as important as the name of the school on the degree, or for that matter the letters that precede the major. You want to make certain that your student gets good training, and gets the opportunity to gain connections in the professional world. The first, is a bit of a crap shoot, and is difficult to determine. The second can be gleaned by the amount of professional work the faculty are doing. </p>

<p>Speaking to the students already in the program is extremely important. They know more, and have a better feel for, the faculty / student relationship. Talk to them at length. But you can always talk to the faculty, too. Call them and ask them questions, email them and ask them questions. The vast majority are happy to help. If they won’t speak to you, that should tip you off. </p>

<p>I guess I’ll leave you with this. You are less interested in what other actors have to say than in what directors have to say. Actors don’t cast, directors, artistic directors and casting directors do. Most will tell you that there are programs that are dependable (I will not name any of those) and will graduate students with a specific skill set. (They will also tell you that it isn’t the name of the school that got them the job.) </p>

<p>Directors are looking for good actors. I know that sounds completely simplistic, and probably maddening. Acting is an art form, and if I may paraphrase Picasso… “I can teach any idiot to draw, I cannot teach anyone to be an artist.” You are looking for a mentor to teach your student to “draw.” Each student is different, each teacher is different. The difficult part is getting those two things to come together. Check the relationship first. </p>

<p>I hope this helps. If it sounds like I’m advocating a B.A. over a B.F.A., I am not. There are excellent versions of both degrees, there are awful versions of both degrees. I have taught in both, and have students from both programs who are very successful and make a living in this rather difficult business. I also have students from both programs who have never made any money in professional theatre. So does every program. </p>

<p>Finally, please remember that this is undergraduate education. The overwhelming majority of college graduates never work in the field in which they obtained their undergraduate degree. This is very, very true of theatre students. The percentages are brutal. </p>

<p>(Oh, and that “percentage of acceptance” thing you mention isn’t really true. There are MANY B.F.A. programs that will take most every student that has even reasonable talent. Except for the elite programs - and there are only a few of those - the rest deal with numbers. They have x amount of faculty who need to generate x number of credit hours. Math and money dictate large incoming classes. The key of course, is what is “reasonable talent.”)</p>