BFlinch83

Thank you all for thoughtful posting! I had a discussion with a professor last week in an Aestetics course I'm taking about the whole business of music degrees being worth it or not. He asked me if having a graduate degree in performance would help, hinder, or not change the odds I will one day play with the New York Phil or CSO. I answered that it will not change them because yes, it buys time to practice and get better, but it also can serve to disillusion and stagnate the indivuality of the musician. Conservatory-itis is a huge side effect of too much performance education.

In undergrad I had a teacher who told me that every now and then, when coming to this apartment for a lesson, he would throw the money back at me and tell me to train up to NYC to see an opera or go the the MOMA. This type of rounded arts education, he said, would help much more than pounding out excerpts and playing Bitsch.

I would go a step further to agree with Ed Hoffman at Peabody and propose a more broad and varied combination for performers. What could be more useful in the music business than a degree in psychology (to help figure out what your section member is thinking) or sociology (to help figure out what management as a whole is doing). What about accounting because God knows musicians aren't notoriously great with funds (which is ironic).

EC is right when he says students toying with the idea of higher education in performance need to have a serious discussion, with themselves and anyone else who will listen. Starting a program in performance might be exactly what you should do and will be the bridge you need to play in the Phil, but for all of us non-Muckey's out there, it might also be a bridge to a deserted and lonely island with few resources and not enough Advil!

__________________
"I could compare my music to white light which contains all colours. Only a prism can divide the colours and make them appear; this prism could be the spirit of the listener." ~AP