 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: ClarinetPlayer_18
Date: 2009-08-25 06:18
Hi, I'm 18 and I just graduated high school and I play the clarinet. I love playing it and my dream is to play it professionally with a large orchestra.
I was wondering what these really good music schools mean when they say "Major and Minor scales" as audition requirements. Does that mean you go in and they say what to play or do they expect you to just play them all. Do you play them at 120 as quarters or something like 240bpm 16ths? Should I play melodic, harmonic, natural, or all three? Here is what Juilliard says for clarinet:
CLARINET
Undergraduate:
Bachelor of Music and Diploma Audition Repertoire
1. Major and minor scales.
2. Two etudes showing the applicant’s level of technical and musical ability.
3. At least one major solo of the applicant’s choice. Must be
performed from memory.
4. A representative number of standard orchestral excerpts.
I guess I'm wondering how good "extremely good" is. I know it is hard to get in to these kinds of schools but, then again, I don't know. I don't know what they mean by scales or even what kinds of pieces would be good for auditioning at a place like Juilliard if I want to be competitive. Any insight you could offer would be so greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.
Thanks for reading so far, if you want to read the rest and reply to it as well, it would be greatly appreciated.
Now I have only been taking lessons for about a year and a half
I am currently working on Copland's Clarinet Concerto. I'm also going through the book three of Baermann to learn my major and minor scales and arpeggios.
The book has major and melodic minor scales, broken chords, interrupted scales, returning scales, chords of the seventh, diminished chords of the seventh, diverse chords, scales in thirds, and sixths.
What other exercises/books would you reccommend? I also would like to get something soon with harmonic minor scales and I'm not sure what to do about natural minor since it is just a different note of the scale, like I don't know how much to practice those or how to.
And, if I practice hard, do you think I'd have a chance at being accepted into a really good music school a year from now if i applied as a transfer student? Like at Juilliard or something?
Post Edited (2009-08-25 19:46)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: susannah
Date: 2009-08-25 10:17
To be honest, I think if you have only been having lessons for a year and a half and are just starting to work on getting all your scales up to scratch Juilliard is out of your reach at this point. How about trying to do a music elective at one of the colleges you originally applied for?
To answer your original question I would expect an applicant to be able to do all scales (harmonic, melodic and major) at at least 140 (semiquavers) with different articulations, including arpeggios, broken arpeggios, scales in 3rds etc.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2009-08-25 12:23
I would say that determination and correct execution will go a long way to achieving your goals.
Scales: Yes, know them all. For a start, have them (all three forms of the minor) available to you as sixteenth notes played at 120 beats per minute as a minimum and try for 160 (just to be fascile). At an audition they might ask to hear two to four scales just as a representation of what you know, but expect them to pick stuff like G# melodic minor rather than C major.
The biggest thing : RYTHYM Play with consistant RYTHYM
For orchestral auditions no one even cares to hear scales because how you play the required solo and excerpts will determine your technical ability and musical ability just fine.
.........good luck
......................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetPlayer_18
Date: 2009-08-25 19:33
Thanks for your comments. Does anyone happen to know of a good method book that would have harmonic minor scales in them? Right now I'm working out of the Baermann Third division and it has a lot of good stuff but it only gives me melodic minor scales and so It'd be great to be able to find a book with exercises to work on the other minor scales.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-08-25 20:44
ClarinetPlayer_18 wrote:
> Thanks for your comments. Does anyone happen to know of a good
> method book that would have harmonic minor scales in them?
> Right now I'm working out of the Baermann Third division and it
> has a lot of good stuff but it only gives me melodic minor
> scales and so It'd be great to be able to find a book with
> exercises to work on the other minor scales.
I think the book you are looking for is Klarinetten-Schule Band 2 (in English, "School of Clarinet vol. 2") by Rudolf Jettel, which is what I use instead of Baermann. Jettel includes exercises for all the harmonic minors in addition to the melodic minors. This book also has chromatic interval exercises, half-diminished arpeggios, augmented triads, exercises on whole-tone scales and other goodies. The scales also pretty much cover the entire useful range of the instrument.
(The Bb major scale goes up to ![[Bb6]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/bb6.gif) , for example.)
One unexpected benefit of using this book is that I've gotten a lot better at adjusting the voicing (oral cavity and tongue position) for large interval skips, because Jettel makes frequent crossings over the upper break. Always nice when a scale book can help you work on things other than finger technique.
It's a little pricey compared to Baermann because it's imported from Austria, but I like it because it's so comprehensive. It's like a bigger, "badder" Baermann. (try saying that three times fast) 
Another potential benefit, though....if you like immediate gratification and don't like having to special order stuff, you can buy an electronic PDF copy direct from the publisher online at http://www.music2print.at. It's EUR 19.95 (which comes out to about US $29). You have to view it in your web browser that way (you can come back to the website anytime you like to view it--they give you a username and password), but because it's a PDF you can print it. Since I have a laser printer, I just printed the whole thing at once and put it in a binder. (it's about 80 pages)
If you prefer the printed and bound version, that's available for $31.95 at SheetMusicPlus: http://www.sheetmusicplus.com/title/Klarinetten-Schule-Band-2/17753484
Post Edited (2009-08-25 21:02)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mamashep
Date: 2009-08-25 22:30
My teacher often recounts the story,
"When I started at college, in order to even be able to study with my teacher, you had to play the first 6 pages of the Baermann (III) at 112 flawlessly. Otherwise, you were delegated to a grad student."
That being said, I still can't do it, but I am working on it
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2009-08-26 03:55
The Kroepsch exercises are another very useful way to develop facility with all the scales and key signatures.
Like the Baermann, it moves through successively more numerous #s and bs, working first with the major and then the minor. There are 416 little studies that exercise the full range of the clarinet. It would be a major effort to get through the three books in only a year --if you have other things to work on and are not being fed intravenously --so you have to stop to eat.
The exercises typically consist of a couple of challenging measures repeated several times and a one measure "coda" that takes a slightly different slant on the repeated portion.
These little riffs demand everything: support, musicality, patience, repetition, ...
In my opinion, the Kroepsch exercises are not to be taken on alone. There are important alternative fingerings --particularly in the altissimo that are not likely to be obvious to someone new to the horn. Get yourself a guide.
Kroepsch 416Progressive Daily Studies for the Clarinet (Revised by Simeon Bellison) Karl Fischer. In 4 volumes at about $12 each Book 1, #0312, then #0313, #0314, #0315.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetPlayer_18
Date: 2009-08-26 05:57
Thank you for the suggestions. I'll definitely try to look into those. Does anyone have any suggestions for a piece I might want to learn to use for an audition at a place like Juilliard? Or any advice on how good these people who get in are? Like in saying how good maybe give some sort of example or reference point because I've heard way too many adjectives and those just don't help much haha
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: vin
Date: 2009-08-26 12:32
Many of them have practiced three to five hours every single day for four years and have had the best teachers in the world. If you have to ask what "extremely good" is, then you are most likely years and years away from that level. Sorry to harsh, but that's the truth.
Post Edited (2009-08-26 13:29)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-08-26 14:38
vin wrote:
> If you have to ask what "extremely good" is, then you are most
> likely years and years away from that level.
I don't think that's fair. We really don't know at what level the original poster plays. Just because he hasn't necessarily devoted his practice time to scale and arpeggios as a high schooler doesn't mean he isn't good enough to do what he wants to do. Believe it or not there are students who spend more time on real music (much of which is made up of scales and arpeggios) and not so much on formal exercises, yet still play at a very high level (truth be told, they usually know scales and arpeggios pretty well, too--but they learned them through playing music). I've also known amateur/student musicians who could play scales in their sleep but couldn't play real music if their lives depended on it.
Perhaps he's naturally talented--we just don't know, and there's really no way for us to know from a post on a message board. So it's not really fair for us to make presumptions about the poster's ability.
What we can say is that Juilliard (like Curtis), being a top notch conservatory, is *extremely* competitive. Most of the people on this board probably couldn't make it in--it's that competitive. And even among those who have it in their ability to do so, because the school can only admit so many students every year, many still will not make it.
The only people who can really give you any indication of your chances (at any school) are teachers/professors who are familiar with your playing. Perhaps you should try taking a lesson or two with a clarinet professor at a school you are interested in attending (some professors, many of whom have private studios, will let you do this). That will give you some idea as to how competitive your playing ability is--it will also give you an idea as to whether you like the professor (this is more important than you might think).
Really, getting into music school is not the biggest problem--it's getting an orchestral job when you get out that is a bigger deal (or so I've been told by people in the know). Those are EXTREMELY hard to get, just because the number of applicants far exceed the number of spots. Even if I were good enough for Juilliard, I'd still be a little wary of going to a school (especially a private school) where all they offer is music/fine arts, unless they gave me a ton of scholarship money (or let me go for free like Curtis does). I'd hate to rack up a ton of student debt and not be able to pay it back because I couldn't find a job.
Even if you're next great orchestral clarinetist, it's still not a bad idea to go to a university and double major or minor in something else so you have a backup plan (or at least have another way to make a living until you can find the music job you want). A lot of America's top clarinet teachers teach at universities, anyway (like Yehuda Gilad, for example, who teaches at U.S.C.). Sure, Juilliard is a great name on your resume, but you can get great instruction other places, too--sometimes the *same* instruction, even. For example, Jon Manasse apparently teaches at both Juilliard and at the University of Rochester (Eastman School of Music).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetPlayer_18
Date: 2009-08-26 23:36
Thanks everyone who is posting with advice and such. I do understand that everything about this all is hard and unlikely, but it is something I wish to go all out for none-the-less. It would be really lame to look back wondering if I never gave my dream a try. Eitehr way, when I die, I'm not taking any money or job security with me haha so I figure that I might as well go for it and, if I end up jobless, well.. I'll be able to play clarinet for fun at least and even that wouldn't be too bad of a life.
Does anyone have suggestions on pieces you would audition with?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2009-08-26 23:57
To the OP: The way you are thinking about it is great. You have a dream - don't let anyone discourage you from trying to reach your goal. But don't pass off on advice about life - you are young and may think you know everything, but when it comes down to it you might be very unhappy not being able to support a family. That being said, if you do go to a school like Julliard that only offers music, there is still time to go back and get another degree at another school if music doesn't work out. People do live to be 100, after all.
As for audition pieces, make sure you read the audition requirements posted on the site. Mozart (concerto) will always be accepted. For the top notch schools they will probably want to see both your technicality and musicality. Pieces like the Poulenc Sonata, Messager or Rabaud Solo de Concours, Weber Concerto 1, are all good pieces and I can't imagine any school not being okay with them. I'm sure others will have other ideas for pieces as there is a large solo repertoire out there.
Pieces you might want to stay away from, or so I've been warned, are ones such as the Brahms Sonatas; these are very "piano heavy" and it's hard to get your point across musically without the piano. (That being said, I did use the second sonata as one of my audition pieces).
Most of all, good luck! And remember that getting into Julliard isn't everything, so don't think that it means something about your abilities if you don't get in.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2009-08-27 01:08
I used the first movement of Brahms second sonata for my undergrad audition at Oberlin too...and got in. I believe I also played Mozart and/or Weber Concertino as well as Rose etudes. This was a long time ago!
For grad schools I played the Nielsen Concerto and the Debussy Premiere Rhapsody (and the Mozart and several orch excerpts and Rose etudes for Northwestern).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetPlayer_18
Date: 2009-08-27 05:52
Thanks everyone, especially for the points on life. I do admit that I am not very knowledgable about much of anything (I'm only 18) and I'll always do my best to accept any advice I recieve.
Thanks also for the thoguhts on "piano heavy" pieces; that really does make sense. I'm also glad to hear that pieces such as the Mozart Concerto are acceptable. I really love that piece, and I'm starting to develop my own interpretation of it. It's nice since there aren't very many technical passages in it and you can get to the musicality part pretty quickly.
Does anyone know of some good ways to find or obtain orchestral excerpts people would expect to hear? I personally don't like the idea of buying a bunch of fll scores of pieces that probably cost over $100 each so I'm thinking there's a chance I have the wrong impression about that.
And does anyone know or have opinions on which of the Rose Etudes (I have the book with 32) might be good to use?
Or opinions on anything? Thanks again everyone who is posting. You are all really helping me out so much as I am just trying to get started in all of this stuff.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: susannah
Date: 2009-08-27 06:21
Orchestral excerpts you can buy in books (just the clarinet parts)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2009-08-27 14:43
There is also a PDF library of ALL the major clarinet parts, that is, FULL PARTS (I, II, III, Eb) but you'll have to get someone who is tech savy to point you in that direction. I think the set sells for $150, but again, that's pretty much all of it. There are books that contain most basic Part I selections such as the Orchestral Excerpt series by International. This is the cheaper way to get the most called for stuff within the first two books of the series.
Excerpts to KNOW: All symphonies by Beethoven, Brahms, Tchaicovski for starters as well as Schubert 7 and 8. Wouldn't hurt to know Scheherezade and Capriccio Espanol either.
There was a compilation book by Bonade that also contained suggested articulations that may be of help if it's still published.
ALL the Rose are a must: 40 Etudes (two books) and 32 Etudes. You'll play those for the rest of your life. Also look into the Alfred Uhl 40 Studies (a bit more modern, a bit more technical).
Cavallini
Rode
Jean Jean 18 Modern Etudes (perhaps most difficult, but rewarding book)
....................Paul Aviles
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-08-27 15:33
Some orchestral clarinet parts (and a lot of scores) are available for free on the IMSLP (International Music Score Library Project) website. I know they have clarinet parts to all the Beethoven symphonies as well as Scheherazade and Capriccio Espagnol.
http://www.imslp.org
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2009-08-27 16:25
I know I'm not from the US and, of course, none of us who post on this board have heard you but I know of a few cases of a few people who had started the clarinet very late but taken to it extremely well and worked very hard as you seem to be doing, applying to good music colleges and getting in. Obviously, if the audition panel know that you have not been playing for very long but see that you have come a long way in that time and, most of all, can see potential and a love of music and the instrument in you, you may just impress enough to get the chance.
Go for it!
Vanessa.
PS - Has anyone else noticed that quite a few very good clarinettists start playing very late - I know of one who started at 15 as a second instrument and another who started at 18 when she was at art school because a friend played and they both ended up as professional players and one in particular as a highly renowned teacher.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-08-27 16:44
Nessie1 wrote:
> PS - Has anyone else noticed that quite a few very good
> clarinettists start playing very late - I know of one who
> started at 15 as a second instrument and another who started at
> 18 when she was at art school because a friend played and they
> both ended up as professional players and one in particular as
> a highly renowned teacher.
Robert Spring was a bit of a late bloomer and he's an amazing player:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOvqCglFiBU
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-08-27 17:28
I wouldn't consider starting at 15 "very late". 30, sure. And really, I'd say the transition between me sucking and me being able to hold my own in good ensembles happened over about 3 years.
FWIW, I started on clarinet at 15. (I'd been on flute since 8, though) Didn't have lessons until 20, which is when I'd say I started toward playing with any quality. Really found a voice and musical opinion around 25-26.
Of course, I was always a bit of an "oh, and then there's that guy" character in college. First a music minor, then composition major, I held top spots in the ensembles by the end of my 7-year stay (and not by being grandfathered in, mind you). But never really taken seriously as an aspiring performer, due to not being a performance major... and I really preferred it that way. No unnecessary pressure or expectations.
Granted, I'm not a sought-after professional... I'm starting grad school in a couple weeks at the ripe old age of 28, this time as a performer-composer. Still, a good player I think can go from almost nothing to quite good over the course of a few years with dedication, guidance, and opportunity.
And, quite frankly, while there are a lot of high schoolers with good technical chops, I find it very rare to see someone entering college with any developed sense of musical opinion or sophisticated style, and therefore personally tend to consider the amount of time a player has before the age of, say, 19 to be largely irrelevant. For most players.
Technical chops can be brought up fairly easily... that's just a bunch of woodshedding time. What really makes the difference in a good player is some series of sparks, musical insight, inspirations, changes in perspective. Sometimes something will suddenly click, and a performer will seemingly get better overnight, though it tends to be the result of a lot of preparation. I've had moments of revelation, a couple of them in the middle of concerts, where I would literally have a change of perspective mid-piece, and suddenly everything would make more sense and I'd play the second half twice as well as the first.
The key for that is awareness, sensitivity to the playing experience, openness, and musical curiosity. It's something not quantifiable by time in the practice room alone (though time in the practice room greatly facilitates it... it's a lot easier to explore musically if you're not fighting with the instrument). I guess what I'm trying to say is that a musician who is really in tune with pursuing musical awareness can often make huge strides in a considerably short period of time, making the concept of "late starter" largely irrelevant. Problem is, I see very very few people even consider that approach, most of them happily plodding through the Baermann and through Scheherazade and Midsummer Night excerpts, further and further refining their technical accuracy while never exhibiting an ounce of musical curiosity or exploration, dooming themselves to pristine mediocrity.
To my own fault, while spending plenty of time in exploration, my woodshedding time has been a bit lax. Once in a very long while I'll come across someone who seems to do a lot of both (I know one who in my opinion does, who's at Juilliard right now), and that's when real, excellent music can happen.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetPlayer_18
Date: 2009-08-28 01:45
Thank you everyone who has posted with advice and resources, especially for the orchestral excerpts, and alsof or encouragement. (I totally didn't know that about Mr. Spring but that's really cool to hear. And I have done most of my getting better very recently too, mostly after I started practicing and enjoying it, which came only a few months afetr I started taking lessons.)
Does anyone have any advice on how much time I should devote to "woodshedding" or just getting better with technique and such? Maybe per day or week? Or even ideas on the breakdown of what to spend on what?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JJAlbrecht
Date: 2009-08-28 01:49
My daughter, who is leaving for music school next week, was playing at least 4 hours per day in porder to get herself ready for college auditions and the rest. About half of that was in school, and half at home, plus her time in youth symphony on weekends, an adult concert band during the week and other occasional gigs, plus the school musical, solo and ensemble, etc. She got accepted to all three programs she auditioned for.
Hard to say how much you should invest into preparations. It depends on howe proficient you are and how badly you want it.
Jeff
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-08-28 03:13
Ideally, I'd put an hour a day, 6 days a week, toward scales, arpeggios, etudes, etc. (technical woodshedding), and another hour a day, 6 days a week, playing and working on repertoire (which will have some woodshedding also). Break that time up, if possible... no need to add RSI to your problems with 2-hour-straight practice sessions. This is in addition to whatever time you spend in ensembles and such... after that, if you feel up to more and think you can be productive, have at it!
Ideally, you'll get to the point where your technical woodshedding sessions will be explorations in musicality as well, and I think it's a shame that many people don't treat it that way. I like making music out of Baermann.
Some people will recommend 4 or 5 hours per day in the practice room, but at that point you start to run the risk of "I'm here because he said I should be here for 5 hours today" and the law of diminishing returns kicks in, and it can lead to burnout, resentment, loss of interest, loss of joy in music. IMHO, anything over two hours in any given day should only be done if you feel you have a purpose for practicing that long. Airstream-tongue-embouchre-finger coordination with rhythms is only half of making music, and I think it's extremely important not to lose sight of that. If you're spending 5 hours "practicing", I'd recommend a bare minimum of one of those hours to be spent working on the music without touching the clarinet. There will be listening, thinking, and singing/humming involved.
I say 6 days a week because I've seen huge benefits in time off. I think everyone should take at least a day off of practice every couple weeks, 5-7 consecutive days off once or twice a year, and 2-3 weeks straight once a year. Lets you stand back, think about where you're going with things, analyze what's been going well and what hasn't, get a change of scenery, and, often, undo some bad habits when you return.
I've been to a lot of masterclasses where a student comes in, and the teacher offers some esoteric piece of advice, and the student takes the advice and instantly plays so much better because they're thinking about it a different way, or perhaps just because the teacher has distracted them enough from the technical drilling that they have a chance to make actual music. Couple hours later, the student has trouble replicating the effects because they forget how the teacher said it or they're not in the moment, and they think, "well, it worked when the teacher was here, but I can't really figure how to apply it otherwise" and regress to their usual focus on replicating rhythms and notes accurately, thinking they'd need to spend a lot more time with the teacher to do it automatically. But they did it once already! The teacher doesn't have a magic "you play better" wand! All I'm saying is that a bit of quality time on a consistent basis spent exploring what the music can be beyond notes on the page can go a very, very long way.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetPlayer_18
Date: 2009-08-28 18:20
Thanks for all of that advice too, about the musicality and such.
Last night, I just realised that, if I'm going to want to try to transfer to a school with a better music program, I'll need to do it soon. Many schools require applications from November 15 to about December 15 and have auditions from Mid January to Mid march. Does anyone have advice about this? I originally had the idea I was going to get a full year of work in before applying but I forgot about this which cuts my time in about half. Another option might be to just stay at the college I'm about to go to for the four years, take an undergraduate degree in music performance, and apply for one of those larger music schools (with a great teacher of course) to go for my masters.
What advice would you offer in any of this? My overall goal is to get into a permanent position where I am paid at least enough to live where I am playing my instrument. Personally, i think a professional symphony would be the coolest thing ever though I am open to other ideas. More than anything I want to avoid the stress of a freelancer's life and I'd much rather take a different job and play for fun above that (though both of those options are waaaay down on my list of what i want to do). Just in general, what would give me the best shot at achieving a good job?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clariknight
Date: 2009-08-28 18:44
I remember reading once on this board that there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 full time spots in professional orchestras for clarinetists in the U.S. I think you might do well to stay at the University you are already going to for at least a whole year. See if you can audition into the music program as a performance major for the upcoming school year. If not you should still be able to play in all the ensembles, and you should check to see if you can take lessons with the professor (or perhaps at least a grad student). If you feel like you are progressing at a good rate with the teacher there, and the ensembles are playing at the level you want them to be, then you might do well to stay there for four years. This way, at least, you won't have spent way too much money on an undergrad degree that has a very low likelihood of getting you a steady job immediately out of college. Then once you're out you can decide it playing is still what you really want to do and if it is you can audition at the big schools.
What school are you going to be going to this coming year, if you don't mind my asking? Knowing this someone on the board may be able to give you advice about who the teacher will/will not take into their studio.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ClarinetPlayer_18
Date: 2009-08-28 19:34
I'll be going to a private christian university this next year, though I don't really want to say where. It does cost quite a bit but I got a lot of scholorship money and I really like the school. As for the clarinet professor, my current teacher studied with her (and they are good friends too) and so I have no doubt I'll be able to study with her. Another reason I chose this school was that most of their clarinets graduated (so my audition got me both a spot in their groups and some scholarship money). I do feel confident (as does my current teacher) that I would get good instruction there at least from the clarinet professor, so that I'm not worreid about. Any advice about any of this is always welcome though.
I was also talking with my teacher last night about buying a new instrument. She said that if i was serious about a career in music I should really look into getting an A clarinet as well as a nice B-flat. I am playing on a Buffet E-11 right now since it was cheap when I got it though now I'm looking to buy something good. But I'm not sure I'll have the money for both a nice B-flat adn a nice A (and I don't want anotehr intermediate model I'll have to replace). If you had to choose just one, which would you choose to get first?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2009-08-28 22:32
I would highly advise against pursuing a music education with the goal of getting a spot in a professional orchestra that will pay all the bills. It's an incredibly unlikely proposition... in a good year you might hope for as many of 3 jobs of that caliber to open up. 3 jobs for how many hundreds of people just as ambitious and dedicated as you, if not more so. Horrible chance of employment.
I'm not saying to give it up as a possibility, just to not look at it as THE possibility. I see lots of music graduates who tend to think that orchestral jobs and freelance gigging are the only things you can do with music, and they end up severely limiting themselves.
Music school is a great place to explore the many, many possibilities of what you can do with music. The trick is that most of the options are not presented to you in a form you can apply or audition for. You have to make a go of it yourself, be creative. All the while you can be improving your chops and getting a sense of musical perspective and opinion, and take the orchestral auditions on the off chance that you'll make it in.
Are you entering as a music major? If you are, I'd recommend taking a minor in another subject, and if not, minoring in music to start. This is the best time to explore your options, and while you may think music is the world to you right now, you may be completely missing out on another field you would find even more fascinating, that you had never considered. Heck, music was just an "I also like playing clarinet" pursuit when I started undergrad and I'd never considered writing music, and I'm starting a clarinet performance/composition masters next month. My "passion," computer science, in which I graduated top of my class, led to a few years in the industry, during which I became extremely disenchanted with it and have now left it behind (though I can still fall back on it for a job if I need to). I still wonder what would have happened if I'd gotten into linguistics, and think I may have liked it better than music if I'd given it a chance... but enough is enough, I'm sticking to this now!
If you're going to a school with a good program (and unfortunately it can be hard to tell what a good program is until you've had a look at a few different ones), I'd suggest to stay put. Heck, you like the place and have a scholarship! See how good of a match the school is for YOU. One size most definitely does not fit all, and I'm actually thankful for some rejection letters I got from schools with big-name programs... in retrospect I think I would have done rather poorly at some of them.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-08-29 02:30
Many (probably most) professional orchestras do not pay enough to pay the bills. Sure, the major big-city orchestras like the NY Phil. and the Dallas Symphony do, but they are the exception, not the rule.
Many professional orchestras are "pay per service," meaning they only pay you on a per-rehearsal, per-concert basis--they don't pay a salary. So even if you play with a professional orchestra, you are still likely to have to piece together a living from various sources (playing with multiple orchestras, teaching, another profession, real estate, etc.) much like a "freelance" musician.
Also, it seems to me that hardly anyone in the music field makes all of their income from performing. Even the players in the major symphonies generally have teaching studios and/or professorships and some have other sources of income on top of that (such as selling their own line of mouthpieces or something).
Post Edited (2009-08-29 02:36)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
