Posted by a long but well-considered reply on June 05, 2000 at 11:59:27:
In Reply to: Re: Juilliard and other schools posted by MG on June 04, 2000 at 20:19:34:
H.J.B. and Alex have both offered very well reasoned opinions on this issue, so rather than try to top them I'll take a slightly different approach.
*disclaimer*
If you get offended or think that I am a snob, please stop and remember that I am only trying to address one limited side of this issue. I have considerable respect for all fine musicians, regardless of their ensemble, education, or instrument.
I am a current and future conservatory student, but I don't think that is the only way, or even the best way for everyone to get to the top. I am also not a snob.
I would like to point out that there are no hard lines to be drawn in this (or indeed just about any other issue), only tendencies. Tendencies SUGGEST conclusions, but they do not require them. Exceptions will always exist, but there are several trends becoming apparent in this issue. Secondly, any sort of professional statistician would tell us that finding trends in such a small population (full-time orchestral players numbering far less than fifty) is foolhardy. However, an examination does yield a few interesting patterns.
*end disclaimer*
The quick answer to your question is that the extremely low acceptance rate of Juilliard (the number for 2000-2001 is 7.5% for the entire school, not the tuba studio) lends a distinct sense of accomplishment to even being admitted to the school. This guarantees nothing for the future, but does represent quite an achievement. Also, such a preselection of students does incur a slight advantage in job placement later. (It stands to reason that those qualities that made the auditioner stand out at Juilliard will also help the auditioner stand out in the pro world.)
As far as the cost of that education (which Alex brought up), it is definitely a reality. However, Juilliard's tuition is 16k, which is not THAT much more than your average out-of-state tuition at a state school. Room and board is higher too, but hey, you are living in NY city, not Bloomington, IN. Financial aid does exist at conservatories, though it can be hard to get. After all, after only accepting the top 8% of the auditioning class, how do you select those who get "merit" based aid?? However, take my advice, apply, and see what happens, Don't be scared into not applying by the price tag...
The long answer (regarding the advantages of such an education) requires some patience, so please bear with me.
Several basic assumptions precede both this question and the responses. The first assumption is that orchestral tuba playing represents the highest goal (no judgement intended here) of most college-age students. This is not to slight any other medium at all (indeed I will address that later), but I get that impression almost every time this issue arises on the BBS, so that is the direction I will come from.
The second assumption is that the difference in schools implied by this question is conservatory vs. university. Well, a conservatory is truly a school that conserves the old traditions, ie. orchestral playing. Conservatories, by definition only offer degrees in the field of music. With that caveat, you realize that there are actually very few conservatories out there. Juilliard, Curtis, New England, Peabody, Cleveland Institute, San Fran, and Eastman (I apologize if I have missed any). This is a small number in comparison to the huge number of universities. There are also a few highly exceptional univesrity-type schools out there, IU, Michigan, Northwestern, and Cincinnati included, but they cannot really be called conservatories.
A conservatory TENDS (strongly) to employ a teachers that are primarily players in orchestras, often orchestras of the highest caliber. A conservatory also TENDS to emphasize orchestral playing. This is only natural. A typical demographic of the conservatory is to enroll 75 violinists and 2-4 tubists. Naturally their student population is served better by orchestral programs than it would be by a bunch of wind ensembles and bands. Due to this, most (but not all) conservatory students tend to get orchestral playing experience while in college. They also tend not to get a lot of time (relative to their university brethren) playing in Wind Ensembles. This is not actually an advantage or disadvantage, speaking absolutely, but in terms of getting an orchestral job, it stands to reason that the conservatory will provide a better environment for education. (Of course, top dog in a university will also get orchestral experience, and it seems like if you will some day beat hundreds of people for that coveted job, you WILL be top dog at your school first.) The conservatory environment is also very limiting. That lack of Wind Ensemble playing time is a weakness of the conservatory system, not a strength. The extreme performance-orientation of the typical conservatory population will not stress the other aspects of musical employment. Needless to say, there aren't a lot of conservatory grads with Ed degrees. Please realize however, that this is not discrimination, it is simply the nature of the system.
Remember that in the DC are alone there are at least 5 premier level service bands (I have not counted academy bands in this number, though they are the same designation in my understanding). This represents 20 tuba positions. Adding in the Academy bands, Coast Guard Band, and the numerous regional service bands, it becomes QUITE clear that your best shot of getting employed playing the tuba is in a service band. In light of this, unless you are dead set, and I do mean dead set on getting an orchestral job, possibly to the exclusion of other avenues, the conservatory is not the BEST situation for you. The high degree of specialization that the conservatory environment encourages is not (by itself) going to produce the most well-rounded musicians. There are exceptions to this, and certainly a good teacher provides such fundamentally sound training that the student becomes versatile and adaptable. However, I am not attempting to judge the teaching here, only the school environment.
Now, the interesting and complicating factor is that although the environment of the conservatory tends to favor orchestral playing, orchestral employment does not tend to favor conservatory training. Alex has made this point, and he is quite correct. However, there is another distinction which I mentioned earlier.
Those who wish to play orchestrally TEND to be better served by studying with a player who is primarily employed in that capacity. Because conservatories tend to prefer teachers that are primarily performers in the orchestral arena, there is significant overlap. In looking at the educational history of today's orchestral players (not to slight band musicians at all - there are highly deserving of respect, but that is not the medium under inspection here) you will be hard pressed to find anyone who did not study with an orchestral player. In fact, I got curious and flipped through the TUBA Source Book professional bios page by page and I'll tell you what I found. There is one orchestral player who did not study with another orchestral player. Chester Schmitz of the Boston Symphony Orchestra attended the University of Iowa and studied with William Gower. Of course, the principal tubist of the BSO is a significant exception. However, he is also highly significant for being the only exception I can identify out of the list of players who do match this tendency. I will put the list of those who confirm my theory on the bottom of this posting. This does seem to suggest that there is a certain direct lineage aspect to orchestral playing. While there is an exception (and probably a few others that I missed), experience shows that those exceptions are few and far between.
I believe that the distinction that we should really be examining is the teacher, not the school (although as I have shown, that is a significant factor as well). As everyone knows, and has stated here many times, the best reason (given orchestral employment as a goal) to go to one school over another is for the teacher, not the ensembles, not the football team, and not the type of school. Of course, there are so very few people who are well served by such a single-minded focus that my entire argument is just about moot!
As for the politics vs. ability discussion, I have a few thoughts (surprise, surprise). Not even considering the political-who-knows-who game, a teacher will likely consider many factors in an admissions decision. Performance level (on the day of the audition), talent (potential for improvement), personality compatibility (not to be friends, but to form a healthy student-teacher relationship) if possible, and degree program are some of those factors. Depending on the strength of the other components, one of the ingredients may be ignored entirely! Certainly if you play well enough you can overcome any sort of set-up or political consideration. After all, if you really do demolish your competition, it would be tough for the teacher not to accept you! After all, they want to teach students that will someday succeed, thereby enhancing the teacher's reputation. As I have been told Frank Crisafulli said, "If you want to be a great teacher, all you have to do is get great students."
A more important (yet related) issue to politics is playing style. Obviously, (using Juilliard as an example) Warren Deck has a standard against which he measures the auditioners. Quite likely, his idea of good is similar to how he plays, since he (like all accomplished players, no matter the medium or instrument) has invested quite a lot of time in making his style-concepts apparent in his playing. So, to a degree, there is probably a bit of discrimination inherent in the auditions, although it is unavoidable, exists at every school, and I would argue, a good thing. That said, I will follow David Bilger's advice (principal trumpet in the Philadelphia Orchestra) who responded to my question on this point by telling me to play how I wanted to sound, not how I thought the committee wanted me to play. I can never guess their personal preferences, and unless I want to permanently change my playing (which reflects my personality) to meet the style that I auditioned with, that position will cause me to be unhappy.
The political factor certainly does exist, not just in college admissions, but also in the job market. However, I would not recommend worrying about it or trying to cultivate it to any large degree. You may get what you want immediately, but if your goal is to serve music (and not your ego), than your methods will inevitably catch up with you. You may even get that job, but on some level you will not have satisfied the highest standard. That may be so abstract that you can't apply that view to your life, but it keeps me happy and motivated to practice.
What does all of this (too) long post add up to? The same thing that is said all the time by others. Quality practice and clear style concepts and goals are the key to success. The rest of it is either beyond your control or doesn't serve the ultimate goal of making music. Let your playing speak for you.
I hope that my long post has added to this discussion, which is quite valuable. These issues were beyond me when I first looked at schools, and it was only through sheer luck (and maybe a little Providential intervention) that I ended up in the perfect situation for me.
Bin Love
(yes, that is how I spell my name!)
Here is that list of players that I mentioned earlier:
Jay Bertolet, Rob Bishop, Roger Bobo, David Bragunier, Michael Bunn, Tony Clements, Charles Daellenbach, Warren Deck, Eugene Dowling, Sumner Erickson, David Fedderly, Matt Good, Toby Hanks, Lee Hipp, Arnold Jacobs, Wesley Jacobs, David Kirk, Tony Kniffen, Paul Krzywicki, Kevin Ladd, Michael Moore, Gary Ofenloch, Norm Pearson, Harvey Phillips, Gene Pokorny, Mike Sanders, Jim Self, Mike Thornton, Ross Tolbert, Abe Torchinsky, Bob Tucci
I am sure that I have missed some people, but I think that what I have listed illustrates the point all the same!