For a singer seeking the next steps in his or her post-secondary education, narrowing down the options for music study can be overwhelming. According to its website, the National Association of Schools of Music has over 650 accredited member institutions that have met its standards for “degrees and other credentials for music and music-related disciplines.” Research into the training of currently successful singers is useful, yet still leaves a daunting number of options.
Three artist managers, Ana De Archuleta (ADA Artist Management), Alex Fletcher (Fletcher Artist Management), and Jeffrey Larson (L2 Artists), graciously share their thoughts on undergraduate and graduate vocal training in this country, based on their experiences as observers, adjudicators, and master clinicians.
In what ways are American educational institutions excelling at preparing singers for a career? What areas seem to be overlooked or inadequately covered in formal education?
Ana De Archuleta: In the United States, our universities and conservatories are doing a good job at preparing singers with the basic skills in the areas of technique, musicianship, languages, and basic standard repertoire. What I feel is overlooked are practical skills that will prepare them for a life as a performer. Many singers graduate without an idea of what’s on the other side for them. . . . It is the institutions’ responsibility to prepare them with not only artistic skills but basic business skills to understand how to navigate the years ahead.
Alex Fletcher: Broadly, I think we have excellent technical training in America. The biggest area that seems lacking is the preparation for the business side of the career. Many young singers emerge from high-level conservatories and know very little about the practicalities of the career—from taxes to realistic career expectations, how challenging the profession can be, what a “singing life” looks like, etc.
Jeffrey Larson: The most frequent comment I hear from non-American casting administrators is singers lacking skills in foreign language. . . . American singers are taught how to pronounce different languages, but the ability to communicate is a very different ability. While classes focus on a different aspect of theatrical communication (diction, acting, or technique), at no point does someone bring all the components together to inform the students’ performance. There are individual teachers and coaches at some schools who do but, as a whole, I would say this is the greatest area where training falls short.
What areas of growth do you think should be addressed at undergrad levels, and how should graduate school build on this foundation?
ADA: We know voices change and grow throughout the early 20s; not many singers are ready to take on a full-time, leading career at that age without suffering the consequences at a later time. The undergrad years should focus on getting the languages, musicianship, knowledge of repertoire (not only of their voice type), audition skills, and some performance experience. It is important to bring in industry professionals to give these aspiring singers a realistic idea of what they will be getting themselves into before they spend more money going to graduate school. This is a good time for many to evaluate their potential.
AF: I think undergrad should build the foundation for a young singer—developing strong skills in musical education and learning. Singers can attend a wide variety of undergraduate schools that may or may not have strong musical programs. As long as the programs build the students’ interest and enthusiasm for singing and begin to equip them with the necessary skills, they’ve done their jobs. I also think aspiring singers should study other subjects in undergrad and get as robust an education as possible.
JL: The best thing an institution can provide for an undergraduate student is an incredible foundation of information, which they can use when their physiological self is ready for the demands of operatic performance. Young students who want to be performers should have extensive language training, multiple hours a week with their studio instructor, and history classes that focus on operatic history and tradition. When a student then moves on to a graduate (or Young Artist) program, there is a foundation upon which the student can really begin to learn to perform and solidify their technique.
ADA: Graduate school should be for exceptional singers that need more time polishing their technique and looking at more advanced repertoire and performance experience or geared toward expanding industry knowledge for those that might have interest in other areas aside from performing. At this point, singers are invested in the industry and should be seeking help from professionals outside their educational institutions.
AF: Graduate school should be about getting down to the serious work of professional preparation, finding the right voice teacher, coaches, etc., to develop the singer’s technique and other performance skills so they are basically ready to jump into the career post-school, whether that’s in a Young Artist Program or beginning solo contract work.
What institutions do you immediately think of as having a history of successful singer training, and what sets those apart?
AF: The undergraduate programs that come to mind are University of Wisconsin–Madison, Eastman School of Music, University of Michigan, Manhattan School of Music, Mannes School of Music, Indiana University, College-Conservatory of Music (CCM), Curtis Institute of Music, Rice University, Northwestern University, Juilliard, and Westminster Choir College. For graduate school: CCM, Curtis, Rice, Juilliard, Yale University.
The undergraduate schools are distinguished by strong faculty and a brand and track record for producing successful singers. The graduate schools are distinguished by selectivity (relatively small class sizes), high-quality faculty, personal attention, and solid connections to the performing industry (i.e., knowing what’s actually going on out there).
ADA: Based on my experience, Rice, Curtis, Juilliard, Michigan for undergrad; CCM and Yale for graduate.
. . . Certain institutions carry more weight because of their screening process.
JL: I think identifying undergraduate programs as successful is a bit problematic because the odds at any institution are about the same. Offhand, I would say Juilliard, Westminster Choir College, and Curtis. However, for me, this is a chicken/egg question: Are these institutions truly providing the best instruction to people age 18–22? Or are these institutions able to attract the best talent who would be successful no matter what school they attend?
The institutions I see as having great levels of success at the graduate level include Juilliard, Curtis, Academy of Vocal Arts, CCM, Yale, and Rice.
There are three main factors that these institutions have in common:
• Excellent teachers that can recruit high-level talent
• Geographic access to highly respected performing arts organizations
• Faculty members who continue to be involved professionally in non-academic arenas, whether they be conductors, stage directors, or voice teachers
Our universities and conservatories graduate many more degreed singers into the world than there are available performing/teaching opportunities. How can institutions prepare students for this potentially unsettling reality?
JL: Ultimately, I do not have a problem with a large number of people graduating each year with degrees in music. I think our world will be a better place if more people in it have advanced education in creative disciplines. What I do have a problem with is a mindset that if you’re going to study music, you’re either going to be a performer or a teacher.
There are natural hurdles in place within the process to show young people when their time has come to transition away from performing, but there are also stories out there of people who toil and wait it out and finally get a break in their 30s. Often this messaging is detrimental to the young singer when they could be working their way toward an even better fit in our field. Finding a perfect solution is difficult, and it is truly up to the individual professor/teacher to advise their students on where their abilities lie in the world.
AF: Schools need to be open and honest with students about just how difficult and taxing this career is and how few people “make it.” There are certain schools I feel are being irresponsible in how many singers they put into the world every year without thoroughly vetting these young people to make sure this is really the route they want to take—and that they understand the challenges they face.
JL: I would love to see our institutions of higher learning find a way to expose their students to the full scope of our field. They need to know about finance, operations, artistic administration, development, marketing, production, and education. Look at OPERA America’s job board! There are dozens of open positions around the country that should be filled with people who love the art form and have musical training. If institutions make their students aware of alternative paths, I believe it can only help our art form continue to evolve and be exciting.
ADA: I believe that at the undergrad level, between the ages of 18–22, it is very early to know if there will be success as a performer/singer. I think it’s important to get more and more people interested in degrees in the arts, opera, classical music, and singing. These students can be our next general directors, directors of development, and/or big donors. So, yes, at the undergraduate level, we shouldn’t be shy to allow many people to study in our institutions.
That said, at the graduate level, there needs to be a better screening process. We need to start putting these artists in front of professionals so they can have a clearer idea of what they’re up against. Information is power—it will benefit institutions greatly to bring in all kinds of professionals to discuss career potential with these singers/artists.
In a brief follow-up, our managers shared that education credentials may carry weight during their screening process, yet only the “quality of the artist” will determine if a singer will gain a place on their rosters.
Our gratitude to the managers who shared their candid insights for this interview: Ana De Archuleta, president and CEO, ADA Artist Management, www.ada-artists.com; Alex Fletcher, president and artist manager, Fletcher Artist Management, www.fletcherartists.com; and Jeffrey Larson, founder and president, L2 Artists, www.l2artists.com.
