TubeNet

i guess what is your opinion. I am graduating from high school next year, and ive been told 2 different things.

At Penn State there was a faculty seminar about "SO you want to be a music major?" And they recomended four year schools like themselves over conservatory.

And i have heard different from my band director. who is telling me Conservatory would be my best bet.


so yeah...a little help?

I believe it doesn't matter. You should just be at a place where you're comfortable!!

That is the most important thing. You need to be happy with where you are. However, I think it would be harder to focus on strictly music if you are at a 4 year college. There is just so much other stuff going on, including general education classes that you don't need to take at a conservatory and also more partying than at a conservatory . It all depends where your priorities lie. If you know you want to do nothing but music, then audition at a couple of conservatories and if you get in, go for it. If you aren't really sure yet, there are more choices at a 4 year university. But most importantly you need to be some place that you are comfortable.

DISCLAIMER: I dropped my music major (North Texas State University, since renamed University of North Texas) after one year, and I'm no expert on the subject of making a living in music. What I know is the result of listening to others with more direct experience over the last 20+ years. I'm sure someone will disagree with me. Perhaps someone whose opinion is better informed will disagree with me, but I'm guessing "not".

There are enough full-time orchestra jobs in the U.S. to comfortably support -- what, 25 tuba players? Let's say it's 40. Add in another 50 or so freelance & studio players, and another 200 or so military jobs, and that's about 300 people in this country that make a good living playing tuba. Oh, and Joe Exley; make that 301 . Note that I'm not talking about 'playing and teaching', or 'playing and repairing instruments' or 'playing and selling real estate' -- all of which are fine and enviable situations to be in; I'm talking about making the vast majority of your living with your face on the horn. The average career probably lasts about 40 years. That means each year there's room for seven or eight new players to join the ranks. And colleges, universities and conservatories are graduating HOW many tuba majors each year?? I believe the answer is "hundreds".

Those are some long odds. Not to say people shouldn't go for it, but facts are facts and most tuba majors will wind up in another line of work. Someone above made the statement that he 'couldn't survive' unless he was playing a tuba. Someone who fits that description, who just simply can't imagine earning his living ANY other way, is the ONLY person who should take the risk of putting all his eggs in one basket with such a small chance of success. That person, it seems to me, may have to forego taking calculus, biology, sociology, chemistry, English lit, etc. and focus solely on music, to give themselves the best chance of 'survival'.

But the reality is that even conservatory graduates seldom make their living from playing alone. Anybody remember that story someone did a couple years ago where they followed up on a dozen or so conservatory students, 10 years after graduation? These students had been the subject of a story when they were still in school, and all showed great promise. As I recall, two were making a full-time living playing. TWO.

So anyone who WOULD be able to SURVIVE doing something else should at least be laying the groundwork for that 'something else'. Our esteemed host is an excellent example: he got his degree in the computer field, and worked as a programmer for some years while he practiced mornings, evenings and weekends, honing his skills sufficiently to make a DC band. This, to me, is a more sensible approach for ALMOST everyone. Study music, but study something else. Balance your DESIRE to make a living in music with your NEED to MAKE A LIVING.

And that means going to a University.
_____________________________
Joe Baker, who didn't even address the fact that illness or injury can end a playing career at any time.

PS -- As a university student you MIGHT also learn that there ARE other aspects to life than music -- philosphy, literature, science, history -- and become a broader, more educated human being. This is a good thing, and will allow you to bring some new dimension to your music-making, even if it doesn't specifically hone your technical skills.

Joe Baker wrote:DISCLAIMER: I dropped my music major (North Texas State University, since renamed University of North Texas) after one year, and I'm no expert on the subject of making a living in music. What I know is the result of listening to others with more direct experience over the last 20+ years. I'm sure someone will disagree with me. Perhaps someone whose opinion is better informed will disagree with me, but I'm guessing "not".

There are enough full-time orchestra jobs in the U.S. to comfortably support -- what, 25 tuba players? Let's say it's 40. Add in another 50 or so freelance & studio players, and another 200 or so military jobs, and that's about 300 people in this country that make a good living playing tuba. Oh, and Joe Exley; make that 301 . Note that I'm not talking about 'playing and teaching', or 'playing and repairing instruments' or 'playing and selling real estate' -- all of which are fine and enviable situations to be in; I'm talking about making the vast majority of your living with your face on the horn. The average career probably lasts about 40 years. That means each year there's room for seven or eight new players to join the ranks. And colleges, universities and conservatories are graduating HOW many tuba majors each year?? I believe the answer is "hundreds".

Those are some long odds. Not to say people shouldn't go for it, but facts are facts and most tuba majors will wind up in another line of work. Someone above made the statement that he 'couldn't survive' unless he was playing a tuba. Someone who fits that description, who just simply can't imagine earning his living ANY other way, is the ONLY person who should take the risk of putting all his eggs in one basket with such a small chance of success. That person, it seems to me, may have to forego taking calculus, biology, sociology, chemistry, English lit, etc. and focus solely on music, to give themselves the best chance of 'survival'.

But the reality is that even conservatory graduates seldom make their living from playing alone. Anybody remember that story someone did a couple years ago where they followed up on a dozen or so conservatory students, 10 years after graduation? These students had been the subject of a story when they were still in school, and all showed great promise. As I recall, two were making a full-time living playing. TWO.

So anyone who WOULD be able to SURVIVE doing something else should at least be laying the groundwork for that 'something else'. Our esteemed host is an excellent example: he got his degree in the computer field, and worked as a programmer for some years while he practiced mornings, evenings and weekends, honing his skills sufficiently to make a DC band. This, to me, is a more sensible approach for ALMOST everyone. Study music, but study something else. Balance your DESIRE to make a living in music with your NEED to MAKE A LIVING.

And that means going to a University.
_____________________________
Joe Baker, who didn't even address the fact that illness or injury can end a playing career at any time.

PS -- As a university student you MIGHT also learn that there ARE other aspects to life than music -- philosphy, literature, science, history -- and become a broader, more educated human being. This is a good thing, and will allow you to bring some new dimension to your music-making, even if it doesn't specifically hone your technical skills.

Joe said what I was thinking even more eloquently than I'm sure I could have. I just wanted to add that didn't Carol Jantsch attend a University? Yes it was a university with a well known tuba faculty, but I think the point is that success in performance is certainly possible attending either. the broader "life skills" possible to attain at a university, as long as it's one with a strong music faculty, are what make it a better choice.

I got my Undergrad from a 4 year University, and I'm now at a Conservatory getting a Master's degree.

Here's my question for you. Why are you going to go to college? My answer to that question is that I wanted a college degree. If your answer is the same then I think you should have no problem choosing to go to a 4 year school. Take someone who "graduates", as an undergrad, from Julliard or Curtis or some other Conservatory. I don't know if they have a college degree, they have a certificate. I liken the idea to getting some type of HVAC certification at your local tech school.

My point is this, I feel that I can go apply at a bank for instance, and have on my resume the completion of a college degree, the bank then knows that I have general knowledge of things. Someone with a degree from Julliard walks in and if the bank did some research they would discover that more than likely the Julliard grad. would likely not be able to tell them the difference between simple interest and compound interest.

There's my $0.02, I hope I didn't piss anyone off....

.

winston wrote:Do you want to play classical music for the rest of your life?

absolutley, in hopefully an orchestra, or maybe even a wind ensemble.

My niece, Phaedra Mc Norton graduated fom the New England Conservatory of Music and got a gig at Busch Gardens in Virginia as a vocalist in the Italian sector of the theme park.
We got up to see her one summer and we new she could sing but had no idea she could dance like that. My wife and I were bowled over. Phaedra would do a half hour show and then take me on one of the world famous roller coasters in the park. It was so much fun that other members of the cast would ride with us between shows. Big fun for old uncle Dennis.
After a few years of performing and disillusioned by Broadway, she trained and filled in for singers and dancers in all sectors of the park.
I could not say if colleges are better than conservatories. I just like the way Phaedra turned out.
She's marrying one of the theme park managers on the island of St. Johns in the Virgin Islands this spring. I wish I could block out the time to sail my own boat down there. That would be so cool.

winston wrote:Do you want to play classical music for the rest of your life?

All it takes is one fall on a bicycle or a car crash and your playing career is over. Any degree from a comprehensive university can be good insurance against human frailty.

A liberal arts university is designed to educate the well-rounded person. Graduate school is for specialization. Why not learn something about math, science, literature, art, music, and physical education along the way; many of these fields will contribute to your ability as a musician.

The practice rooms are the same at any institution. Find one and enter. If you attend a comprehensive university, be sure to broaden your musical education by attending international festivals, take outside lessons with top pros, and travel to see the best live music you can. Save some money to help with expenses for graduate school. (Then again, if you can't get a nearly free graduate education, you may not be in the right field.)

A real crime is a student coming out of music school $80,000 in debt. Entry level college jobs pay around $40,000. Most orchestral gigs are much less than that, not to mention the expense of living on the audition circuit. Is it worth such a financial burden to study music at an expensive school when a dedicated player can achieve the same results without spending any money? (For a few people, it may be.)

There are many paths to a career in music. Not saying that the public university is the best for everybody, but it can be a good option.

$.02

I think you should go wherever have the best chance to play and play a lot. It may be in a conservatory or it may be a college. What you want/need is the opportunity to play, play, play. If you are in a conservatory, will you be the player that gets the good opportunities or the player that gets whatever is left over.

Just my $0.02.

Ken S.

bloke wrote:All it might have taken would have been one intolerable hillbilly band director along with a few "dry seasons" in the university hiring scene, and a teaching career could have been over.

or the use of one "inappropriate" word that is commonly heard on network family TV shows.

Mudman wrote: Entry level college jobs pay around $40,000.

Oh, Really?

This really comes down to the difference between people who are risk averse and therefore always try to hedge their bets vs. those who believe that having a fall back position makes it more likely that you will end up "falling back. " Nobody else can answer this for you. One can argue that those who had had tremendous success were single mindedly focused on their goals and didn't think about the possibility of failure. They just knew that they would succeed.

On the other hand, there are many successful people who achieved this success by planning out each step that they took, including planning for contingencies. You need to decide where you sit on this spectrum. If you are risk averse, choose a University, if you believe in immersing yourself in your area of interest go for a conservatory. If you can't figure this out for yourself talk to people around you who might have some experience with this, such as your parents or teachers.

The results of a poll will just tell you that different people have different opinions. Even if the majority believes one way, that doesn't mean that the answer is right for you. Now go practice...

MartyNeilan wrote:

Mudman wrote: Entry level college jobs pay around $40,000.

Oh, Really?

Yep. Surprised? Some areas of the country are a little lower or higher. Major universities pay more. $30,000 would be really low. Pay increases are small when going from assistant prof to associate prof.

Accountancy or business professors can easily start at $60,000-$80,000 at a state school. It is easy for them to make more in the private sector--the universities have to pay to attract qualified teachers.

In music, it is a buyer's market.

Mudman wrote:

MartyNeilan wrote:

Mudman wrote: Entry level college jobs pay around $40,000.

Oh, Really?

Yep. Surprised? Some areas of the country are a little lower or higher. Major universities pay more. $30,000 would be really low. Pay increases are small when going from assistant prof to associate prof.

Accountancy or business professors can easily start at $60,000-$80,000 at a state school. It is easy for them to make more in the private sector--the universities have to pay to attract qualified teachers.

In music, it is a buyer's market.

My bad. I guess I was just thinking about all those adjunct positions where the same guy teaches at 5 schools and eats his bologna sandwich in the car while shuttling between them to make ends meet and still call himself a prof.

You are on track about the full time spots.

It is interesting to note that the average college is using a much greater percentage of adjuncts than they were just a few years ago.

You know, I've always wondered why the university tuba studios seem to have it as goal to keep expanding, but most top-notch conservatories have only one or two tuba spots and no more than that, period.

Chuck(G) wrote:You know, I've always wondered why the university tuba studios seem to have it as goal to keep expanding, but most top-notch conservatories have only one or two tuba spots and no more than that, period.

Most universities have multiple playing outlets, while a conservatory has only one or two orchestras, and therefore quite less of an opportunity to play.

When selecting a university, keep in mind first and foremost that EVERYONE is trying to sell you some sort of product. They don't really care all that much about telling you the whole truth as long as they get your money. I have been around to a few colleges in my day, and I must say that NONE of them really are as dandy and nice looking as their propaganda materials would lead you to believe (especially state schools)

I suggest that you find someone you want to study under and disregard the institution that they teach at.

HOWEVER, like many on this board, I would advocate being well-rounded in your education. Learn something else, and perhaps you may find you have a passion for something other than music as well.

I went to a graduate school that required a minor not related to the major. I chose psychology. Today I work as an educator of at risk kids, meaning my Master of Music degree served me quite well, thanks to the minor.

You couldn't do THAT in a conservatory.

windshieldbug wrote:Most universities have multiple playing outlets, while a conservatory has only one or two orchestras, and therefore quite less of an opportunity to play.

You could have put that a bit more concisely as "Conservatories don't have marching bands."

Do you want an education, or training for a job? It's a serious question.

If you want an education, go to a university. Major in music, but don't limit yourself just to music. Study widely. Don't hide from math just because you're a music major, for example. Education is where you learn widely, not where you train.

I don't know a well-educated and hard-working person who found themselves unable to make a decent living doing something.

If you want job training, then go to a place where job training is provided. It may be a trade school, or it may be a conservatory, depending on the target job. Don't expect it to give you the broad base of education needed to be able to do pretty much anything.

But before going down the job-training road, make sure the road leads somewhere. It's not a versatile choice, and changing direction may require a good deal of time spent in reverse gear.

Of course, some conservatories, like some trade schools, provide a semblance of an education to a greater extent than others. But at such places it is a sideline, not the main gig.

When Arnold Jacobs attended Curtis, he had no real intention of becoming "educated". That was not something a person that grew up as he did would expect out of life. He did hope to achieve a good living. And that was attending Curtis! For Jacobs, the education came later, on his own.

A Bachelor of Science or a Bachelor of Arts is called that and not a Certificate in Performance or a Certificate in Engineering because it's supposed to be a general education. The Master's degree is where you get to focus on a specific profession in detail, or on the job (or with private instruction).

Personally, I think the job-training route is appropriate for those few people who 1.) are extraordinarily predisposed to success in one particular line of work (that means an abundance of talent and aptitude), and 2.) cannot conceive of themselves doing anything else (which had better lead to an abundance of motivation, especially for professions hotly contested like music).

For everyone else, a good general education at the undergraduate level will, I believe, give them a stronger foundation for later life, however they choose to live it. Deciding on a career is a lot easier at age 22 than at age 18.

Most people who know me cannot conceice of me being anything but an engineer. But I didn't come to that conclusion myself until I was 21 and a junior in college. I had specialized too much in the line of study I'd chosen (skipping math and physics, for example), and the change required quite a lot of backing up. Despite strong engineering aptitude and prediliction, I was not capable of making a valid choice at age 18.

Rick "who thinks this is not just a question for musicians" Denney