It's that other time of year. The time of year when people make decisions about what to do in the fall. The scholarship letters are being sent and returned, hesitant phone calls and emails are exchanged between teachers and prospective students, and institutions try very hard to make sure that they get the best people at the lowest price. That's right, I said 'price.'
Because it's that time of year, I've been getting quite a few emails from fellow singers who want my opinion about one institution or another, one teacher or another (or however many I'm willing to talk about in detail) neighborhoods, apartments, young artist programs. I'm pretty free with my opinion, but every time I talk about the masters' degree, I find myself with a funny clenching in my jaw and a taste of bitterness in the back of my throat. Why is that, one might ask? I've got two masters' degrees, one in musicology from a relatively prestigious English university, and another in vocal performance from a not-so-prestigious university in the south (God's country) that prepared me to apply for the DMA that I started at yet another university in the Midwest and am finishing at a conservatory that fancies themself the flagship of music education in the northeast. Pleased as punch, am I. Well hindsight is 20/20 my friends, so make yourselves comfortable - I'm about to tell it like it is.
Why do people get degrees in music? Some would say that it's to pursue some life-long dream of being a great artist and performer. Some are fulfilling the dreams of their parents who are convinced that their child is an undiscovered star. And still others want to share the wonderful experience of music with children through music education. I think that the people who become music educators must drink a pretty serious cocktail of hope and illusion to put up with the public school system and what a bunch of so-called 'educators' think music in the schools should be, which is why I didn't last very long in public school music, but that's another story. The true music educators, like my junior high school choir teacher and my first piano teacher, are right up there for sainthood, in my opinion. They are generous, kind-hearted but firm, and try to instill a love and respect for the arts in the hearts and minds of their bratty pupils (of which I was one, so don't think I'm unaware of the platform from whence I speak).
There are also a group of people who get degrees in music in order to get another degree in music. For many, the undergraduate degree in music is a holding pattern where we hone our skills in theory, learn to write papers about music that don't make us sound like idiots, read about history and context, and prepare our performance skills for the next level - the masters' degree. And this is where I begin to take issue.
Since when did the masters' degree become the new bachelor's degree? It's practically a foregone conclusion that students will go on and get the masters', if not an expectation. I know many fine teachers who do not have a doctorate. I know many shitty teachers who do. And after spending as much time in higher education as I have, I can only conclude that it's about the masters' degree - the proving ground where we separate the wheat from the chaff and all that.
My first masters' degree was in musicology - this happened by accident. The adviser for the Tudor Church Music masters' degree and I did not share many viewpoints on the role of women in church music, especially English church music, so I switched degrees. I got a new adviser, a wonderful man who made me cups of tea while spilling red ink all over my essays on Samuel Barber, and took a real interest in my work both as a performer and an academic. He and I believed (and still believe) that academia and performance should be at the service of each other, not mutually exclusive in their ivory towers. Performance should inform and inspire intellectualism, and research and literature should inform and inspire performers to be more expressive, more sharing, and broaden their base of experience, the experiences that allow us to communicate effectively in performance. Circuitous enough? Good! My nine months in Exeter kept me in the library for some long hours, and in the practice room for even longer, trying to put together my first serious recital of serious music, practicing so I could perform, reading so I could practice, etc, etc.
When I returned, I was hell-bent on sharing all of this with some impressionable young minds. So I taught school. This did NOT go well, and I ran screaming back to grad school and yet another masters' program. Opera history, 20th century music theory, voice lessons, intensive French, intensive German, French diction, German diction, choirchoirchoirchoirchoirchoir, opera theatre, musical theatre, coaching, playing, teaching, conducting, working, writing, 19th century music theory, voice lessons, competitions, recital. Basta cosi. Three semesters, poof! I have a masters in music. What does this qualify me to do? Teach school more? Perhaps. Teach college? Not for any kind of good salary, benefits, retirement, etc. So now what? I start on the doctorate. Now I've written plenty about my DMA so I don't think anyone will feel left out if I don't talk about my doctorate.
Let's back up to that masters. What if you don't want a doctorate? What if you're not ready to teach? What if you don't want to teach, you want to perform? Didn't you get a masters degree in
performance? So then why are most of the people I know who hold masters degrees in performance NOT PERFORMING? Now I don't claim to know it all. I can only speak from what I've experienced, and this is it:
Most masters degrees in music are the biggest farce ever put on by an institute of higher education. They claim that they are helping bridge the gap between undergrad and a performing career for young artists. Perhaps this is true for other areas of performance, but for singers it is a
LIE. If the masters degree was all that was needed to bridge the gap between undergrad and a career, then the slew of young artist programs in operation would not be turning away people by the hundreds every year.
How old are most 'young artists' in 'young artist programs,' you might ask? In the Seattle program, currently made up of 12 singers, we have four (if I'm remembering correctly) singers at or under the age of 25. The other eight are between 26 and 33. Now how old are most singers finishing their masters' degree? Maybe 23. Maybe 24. How long are most young artist residencies? One to two years. And then what? Another young artist residency, and another, until someone decides you're old enough to sing mainstage rep and maybe experienced enough to get paid for it? What is this cycle of debt and bullshit that never seems to actually produce the promised result: the artist, ready to embrace their career??
It's not about the doctorate. I'm almost done with the damned doctorate and it's NOT about the doctorate. What do we need from a masters degree? More language, more diction, more coaching, more history and literature and poetry study, more stagecraft, combat and acting training, more workshops, more lessons, more masterclasses with people who are IN the business, not spectating from afar. Maybe a handful of people are offered these things in their masters' degree. And an even smaller handful of people are able to take advantage of all of them. But if I had a nickel for every singer I know who went house-deep into debt for a masters' degree, only to find that what they actually needed was another masters' degree, then I would be able to buy season tickets behind home plate for the Red Sox FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE.
So I leave you with this lengthy note of caution. Before you decide that your art is worth more than money or that you really need a conservatory education, think long and hard about what you want
after that masters' degree is over. How will you get the performance experience you need to shape you as an artist? How will you afford coachings? Lessons? How will you continue to polish those language skills (yes, you really do need French, Italian and German, and a little bit of a Slavic language wouldn't hurt either) and pay rent and eat and see your family?
I admire Laura Claycomb a great deal, both as an artist and a person. She has a young artist corner on her website and, if she'll forgive me for borrowing and repasting some of her thoughts, I think this about crystallizes what I have to say:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expectations
What do you want to do with your life? Sing, you say? First, what do you envision as your "ideal" life? Picture it; what does it entail? Marriage? Children? The normalcy of a fixed daily life? Being with your family for every holiday? A close circle of friends? Having dinnerparties with your friends, holding opera/theatre subscriptions, teaching some, taking classes on the side, or doing charity work?
Really get a good idea of what is most important to you. Of these things, which is absolutely essential for you, and which is something that you'd like, but that you'd be able to feel fulfilled without? Be HONEST with yourself. There is nothing more tragic than someone who has talent, and feels that he/she wants to do this career, only to discover that he/she really doesn't like the lifestyle years down the road. Just because you CAN sing and have the talent does not mean you HAVE to sing. You do not "owe it to your gift" to have a crazy opera career. You owe it to yourself to be happy and fulfill yourself however you can.
I don't believe it's impossible to have a free-lance operatic career and have some of these things; but to expect to have all of them, and when you want them, is unrealistic and downright delusional. The reality of the lifestyle is much different than what you may expect, and it's better to be forwarned than spend all your schooling learning to do something that you'll either burn out on quickly, become disillusioned about, or both. There are compromises, and there are endless ways to deal with the difficulties. Or there are different ways to structure a career - you can concentrate on whatever period or style of music really lights your fire, and do concerts. Baroque music tends to provide more concerts than operas, for example. Or modern music!! There is a nice niche in singing contemporary music, also. Whatever your passion, study and do intensive research with experts in the field; really specialize - don't just say "that you like it." Remember that there ARE other things than singing the same old Puccini onstage!
Reality of Lifestyle for a Free-Lance Singer
The reality of life is that your operatic career is a business like any other, and some aspects of it must be treated as such. Work breeds work. If you're not in the "market," you will most likely not get many other offers. If you're working a lot, most likely, you will get more and more offers and even have to turn down things. In order to have a big career, you have to work! So forget the idea in the beginning of "I'll just do two gigs a year and teach and have babies on the side." It sounds like a perfect compromise, but A) performing usually takes you away from your great teaching job just when the students need you and B)if you're only doing two things a year, everyone's going to forget who you are, (unless you established a great name for yourself first) and the performing work will dry up. Let me be very simplistic and OVERLY pessimistic. Everyone thinks he/she is the exception to the rule. There are few exceptions to the rule, and one has to work really hard in order to earn the distinction of breaking the rule! Usually the exceptions busted their hineys for at least ten years, establishing themselves, and then decided to stay more in one place. More power to whomever is managing both careers, but I have yet to see someone who juggles both jobs of international performer and teacher perfectly.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Be careful. Be thoughtful. But first and foremost, be HONEST with yourself.