Anybody have any idea on which of these has the better reputation for undergraduate music degrees? Since you can only apply to one I'm stuck on which is best. The courses look fairly similar but I'd be inclined to go somewhere that has the better facilities for performance and practice. I'm applying to conservatoires as my main choice but I wanted to have a back-up plan incase the auditions go horribly and I'm not offered a place.

I don't think you will be allowed to have Oxbridge as your back up!

Anyway, the auditions will be tougher at either of those two institutions than for most conservatoires.

The Oxford course has a greater performance element, but if you don't get into a conservatoire it's unlikely that you will get into either Oxford or Cambridge.

If you like both the Oxford and Cambridge courses, then surely pick the place you like most? I would imagine they would both have very high reputations. Cheeble on here does composition at Cambridge, she might be able to help you in that respect

I agree here. I have done quite a bit of research on this, and my son had a four day interview at Oxford.

Further to the above I'm not sure that Oxbridge and Conservatoire are interchangeable options in any case.

I may be wrong but it seems to me that if you want to spend three years studying your chosen instrument, and do a degree at the same time, you go to a conservatoire.

If you want to spend three years studying music and maybe play in a few ensembles while you're at it, you go to university.

The academic criteria for reading music at Oxbridge is minimum 2 As and a B, and most often 3 As, and they'll have to be in traditional subjects; anyone taking Media Studies, Business Studies and Critical Thinking A levels simply does not have a chance.

It is possible to apply to both Oxford and Cambridge, but only if you are a prospective organ scholar.

Whatever advice you get here, it can be no substitute for attending the open days at the various institutions.

Good luck!

barry

(My son goes to Oxford for his audition/interview on Monday.)

I'm reminded of thefact someone once pointed out on this forum:




That's seems strange to me.

Maybe I'm just old-fashioned

That's true though, that was one of the options for me (being only allowed to do certain modules coz I'm a joint student) and many people choose History, Analysis, Composition and Music Technology moduless, sepcifically because they don't want to have to do solo performance.

What's the point of doing music if you don't want to perform?

Even the teaching Dips have a performance element.

So with a Music degree, having done no performance whatsoever, you can then get a PGCE in secondary music and run large school music department.

Everything is shocking me this morning

Hector Berlioz didn't play an instrument, yet he compsed some great music (including my favourite Christmas Carol) and wrote a ground-breaking treatise on orchestration.

True - see new thread and I'm sorry to have hijacked this one.

True, but I'm not quite sure on how easy it would be to get to head of music from there. Saying that, one of our heads of music plays violin and so doesn't play that much in school (although she's very good, there's only really string club and GCSE/A level performances where she can play it), but she knows a lot about different styles of music and has really good aural skills coupled with the ability to play a keyboard - not to the standard of a first instrument, but way over the standard needed to teach the classes at school, so in that way I'm not sure quite how much it matters - there's only really one of our teachers who plays a lot because piano is her first instrument. The other one I've never even heard play her first instrument because there's never been anything where she needed to play it, but she can also play piano over the standard required to teach. A lot of the teaching isn't about the teacher being a virtuoso player, it's about them having enough practical skills to be able to demonstrate the music the class are learning and then to help them with the technical aspects of it. In that way, a conservatoire course wouldn't be much use for them, whereas doing music more 'academically' will because then they will be able to develop aural skills, background knowledge etc. which comes in really useful in the classroom.

I did an English degree with no creative writing - perhaps this is similar to doing a music degree with no performing? I spent my time analysing works that other people had written whilst not producing any myself.

hannah, it seems to me that you're really a performer, as you've said before how you really want to spend your time at the piano when you're at college. I'd imagine a course at somewhere like Cambridge or Oxford might end up frustrating you simply because you don't get the instrumental tuition and assessments that you would at a conservatoire or at a university where you could specialise in performance. Perhaps it's worth looking at other universities that offer a more substantial performance component if you wanted a "backup"?

I'm sure you'll get into a music college, though.

I must say I agree with Benjaminja. I did my music degree at York University, which had one performance module, although to be fair, if I'd been a little more interested in my degree at the time, I could have probably done more performance. I got a first for my performance module, but a 2.2 overall!

I really believe I should have gone to music college - but in the late 80's, the music colleges didn't do full degrees like they do now, and I was pushed down the academic route. Don't get me wrong, it would be a fantastic opportunity to study at Oxbridge - set you up blah blah, however, if you want to perform, I believe there is no other choice than music college.

Many professional performers did their first degree at Oxbridge before going on to do a postgraduate course at music college.

In my (albeit limited) experiences of music at Cambridge, you make your own opportunities. Husband went to Cambridge and did loads of music: he sang in the chapel choir and CUMS, and played in the college orchestra. Not bad for someone studying engineering!

I suppose the main difference is whether you want to go to University - be scored almost entirely on academic work, although you can have almost unlimited performance opportunities in your own time should you choose, or whether you want to be assessed more ON your performance.

My performance was much better than my academic work, which is why I should have gone to Music College, although i totally agree with Deborah - if you are academically oriented and enjoy analysis/essays etc, then go to Oxbridge - make the most of the performance opportunities that are available in your free time, and then consider whether you would like to do PostGrad at Music College.

Thanks to everyone for your advice. Having researched practice facilities and realised that it simply wouldnt be good enough, I have decided not to apply. It's an awful lot of hassle and paperwork for something I don't really want and wouldn't be 100% happy doing.

Fingers crossed that I get into a music college then!

I don't know if it's the same now, but when I chose Cambridge it was a more general music degree with a performance element in the final year, whereas I seem to remember the thing that put me off Oxford at the time was that it leaned more heavily on 20th century music. The Cambridge degree included a lot of history of early music......may not be anything like the same now of course.......

It's making the decision that's the hardest thing isn't it! I wish you all the best - with ultimately whichever path you take.

If it makes you feel more confident in your decision, after doing music at Uni, I regretted not going to music college for the next 16 years, and I'm now applying to go to music college at the age of 36!

Good Luck!