Level Of Italian Conservatories

I think everything was focused on the one single factor that you didn't mention (coincidentally), and that is the curricula.

In my opinion, in the discussion, it was the last thing to touch since, looking at the final results, it has produced great artists over time... the new "system" ... who knows... time will tell

I don't know what Zedef means by "system," the fact remains that where I am, 50% of the teachers are close to being walking corpses, another 40% are quite lukewarm, and only 10% are actually musicians (I mean outside of the four walls).

Maybe 100% musicians would help... but schools also need good educators ... a difficult issue

I spent years regretting not having signed up ... reading now I am glad I didn't do it .......

Zedef wrote:

if you had talent and tenacity, you could truly aspire to become a musician in every sense, and for that dream, you were risking everything.

I have strong doubts about the new generations. Dreams? Tenacity?

I share the idea that the worst part is caused by teachers and administrators, namely directors and presidents. I have had direct experience with two conservatories, those of Venice and Rome, and indirect experience with the equated musical institute of Caltanissetta. The flaws were regionalized; every place had its own, in short, and like everyone else, I only saw the things that concerned me, namely singing classes and subjects connected to singing (history, scenic art, complementary harmony, etc).

Rome is the worst of the three. Teachers are largely over 60 years old, many of them literally illiterate; struggles between students and teachers, directors engaged in their own careers and completely uninterested in problems (in my time there were many pending complaints, moreover), and around it a tremendous bureaucratic machine where going to the administration office was an ordeal.

In Venice, the worst flaw was isolation. They lived in their own world and played for themselves; the ten [students] would flock together and only after leaving would they realize what the musical world actually is. In exchange, a small conservatory, magnificent organization.

Caltanissetta... is a diploma factory. Many teachers are related to one another, almost no one has a curriculum worthy of teaching in an Italian conservatory... on the other hand, many wind players are at a higher level, because there are many musical bands where technique is an indispensable prerequisite (especially for brass and clarinets).

I agree with Thallo and I would also like to analyze a purely economic type of discourse, since in the end entities and organizations lose their control when there is a crisis. Crisis means not being able to find a satisfying job unless one is heavily recommended; crisis means holding onto occupied positions by trying not only to avoid losing one's seat but also trying to do everything possible to improve the condition and ensure that the seat is nailed to the buttocks of those who hold it, unless these changes jeopardize the very existence of the organization itself; and I am sure that the conservatories, embracing this reform, will eventually crack and will have to take many steps back to recover... Remember this post when it happens... It is all written.

Let's tell ourselves the truth: this conservatory reform was born with this purpose, an economic purpose and nothing else. Who suffers from it? But obviously the motivated students who, following this political-economic landscape, become demotivated, and that is why despite their passion for music they also look for other paths... The same old stories over and over again. Returning to the conservatories. What was wrong with the old system? The old system of pianists (I'll use mine as an example) produced pianists, and it always did its job well. Some of them, the gifted ones, pursued a concert career and perhaps taught if they were capable; those less gifted started teaching (it is not certain that a poor pianist cannot be a good teacher, just as it is not certain that a good pianist must necessarily be an excellent teacher); those who were unable to do either one or the other either did not graduate or, once graduated, changed paths because they couldn't make a living on that one... It was nonetheless a path that promised to transform adepts into what they wanted to be: pianists. We want to do a reform? Okay, let's remove half of the preludes and fugues from The Well-Tempered Clavier and put Chopin's waltzes and mazurkas among the mandatory pieces, since there are those who graduated without playing a single piece by Chopin (just to name one)... The conservatory reform to follow the university system is only a political choice and to make an entity 'elite' when lately everything was being said about it; I therefore believe that this reform is just a shield to try not to be attacked anymore; something like: "Stop badmouthing us! We are the music conservatory, music is made in here and that's it!". In this way, conservatory teachers automatically find themselves as university professors and obviously should also receive the same salaries as university professors.

The even more interesting question is that 99% of senior professors have the same qualification I have: the diploma from the old system which is equivalent to a first-level degree, but, correct me if I'm wrong, some of them also teach in two-year courses for second-level degrees. By what criteria? Clearly they certainly have much more musical culture than me, but speaking of public law, who invests them with this power?

It is then presupposed that to enter the conservatory there must have been sufficient preparation in the Music High Schools (Licei musicali). I don't know if you have listened to the product of these music high schools. There are many videos on YouTube of end-of-year recitals from music high schools. I don't want to post them for reasons of sensitivity and privacy, but go listen to them. Once they finish music high school, they must enter the conservatory subject to an admission test. The conservatory also has to make its numbers, so some of them will have to pass. Now I wonder... In 3 years, starting from those conditions, how will they manage to arrive at playing the pieces from the old system diploma or even a Chopin étude??

It seems to me, therefore, that the desire to truly make music has been lost in favor of the desire to just make money. Music does not only grow in conservatories and, as I see it, after this reform, the only hope was studying outside the conservatories (note: not because private teachers are better than internal ones or vice versa; there can be good teachers both inside and out, simply because as a private student one can choose whoever the hell they want...), but they thought it wise to protect themselves by banning the possibility for private students to take exams at the conservatory... We should go back; if I were the director of directors, I would make at least one concert per year mandatory for every conservatory teacher, otherwise go home... And for a matter of DEMOCRACY, everyone chooses the teacher they damn well please and the institution verifies the

preparation regardless of who was prepared, whether internal or external... Suitable? Promoted; not suitable? Go back to studying.

The reform was undoubtedly the result of a lack of foresight. The Conservatory has always been an atypical "School" where you learned a trade (I say learned because at least there were some job opportunities back then), but for various reasons (primarily union-related and to flatter teachers who were elevated to university status, in name only...) a path was chosen that, in my opinion, is unsuitable. The old system needed to be modernized in terms of study and exam programs, and if necessary, to make the degree marketable even at an international level (the reason for the reform, see the Bologna Process), one could have added 1-2 years of specialization. Oh well, it's done now and there is certainly no going back.

The main problems emerge from previous interventions:

- a rigid system, without evaluation of quality and work (but it will come... Anvur is just around the corner)

- students without real prospects (except for the most unique cases, which are rare).

The study and exam programs are one of the few things I save from the reform, provided that the individual institute has made intelligent choices. Another problem: the autonomy of choices. Today in the three/two-year programs, every conservatory has different study paths, programs, and exams (a problem already addressed in another post, I believe by Thallo): to me, it is absurd. I'll take Composition as an example: admission to the three-year program varies from Bach chorales to fugues... does that make sense?

I agree with everyone, with thesimon and Fedez. Especially lately, I too am resigning myself to the idea that many of the educational reforms, not only in conservatories but in the entire Italian education system, have looked too much at the economic side. This thing, however, has led, at least in the world of singing, to some strange consequences. In times of lean years for artistic activity, some famous singers have started teaching in conservatories. This is what had been requested from conservatories for decades and what naturally happened when the old fossils retired and some singers in their careers decided to have their credentials evaluated.... they are still few and not all of them are great as teachers, eh, but having Gloria Scalchi as a teacher, or Monica Bacelli, is not bad. On the other hand, here is a link to Enrico Stinchelli's website, a person I can hardly stand but who is sometimes right... http://www.enricostinchelli.it/site/note/193-chi-insegna-il-canto-le-graduatorie.html

The world of opera is like that; names circulate and are recognized. How to say, you read the name of a double bass teacher and you don't know who they are, so you more or less trust them. But in Italy we have opera seasons in abundance; it is embarrassing that the names on the posters almost never match the names on the faculty list.

Same thing for subjects like music history... that is a personal grievance of mine, as you know. I consider it scandalous that there is no requirement for a PhD to teach those subjects.

Regarding rankings, whether it be singing or anything else, the problem is very simple: the arbitrariness of the artistic-cultural scores assigned by the commissions of individual conservatories. What for me is worth 80 points, in another place is worth less than 24 (the minimum). This will probably be partly overcome with the establishment of a single national commission that will certify eligible candidates every three years, and with the possibility for conservatories to call certain teachers "due to clear (and hopefully motivated) fame," particularly for the two-year programs.

Regarding the report on teaching ability vs. artistic activity, I don't have a single idea: there are excellent teachers who do not practice concertizing or otherwise do not engage in activities, others who precisely because of their enormous activity are not teachers (in the sense that they are almost never present and/or are not motivated to teach: "today I play (editor's note: study) and you turn the pages for me; it is also important for a musician to know how to turn pages for others"... true, but you do it once in a while since they pay you to teach how to play...).

A note on what TheSimon wrote because I didn't understand if it was irony or if he is convinced of this when he writes "In this way, conservatory teachers automatically find themselves as university professors and obviously should also receive the same salaries as university professors."

The salary of a conservatory teacher varies from about 1400 euros (initial) to 2200 (end of career, 35 years) based on seniority of service; that of a university professor of equal rank (both in terms of role and number of hours) is approximately double.

Zedef wrote:

A note on what TheSimon wrote because I didn't understand if there was irony or if he is convinced of this when he writes "In this way, conservatory teachers will automatically find themselves as university professors and obviously they should also receive the same salaries as university professors".

The salary of a conservatory teacher varies from about 1400 euros (initial) to 2200 (end of career, 35 years) based on seniority; that of a university professor of the same rank (both in terms of role and number of hours) is approximately double.

No, there was no irony at all. A university professor earns double but is practically at the university every day. A conservatory teacher works two days a week. Do the math yourself...

Uhm..

University professors, pursuant to the provisions of Article 6 of Law no. 311 of March 18, 1958, have "the obligation to dedicate to their teaching, in the form of both chair lectures and seminar, laboratory, or clinical exercises, as many weekly hours as the nature and extent of the teaching require, and are required to give weekly lessons on no fewer than three separate days". Presidential Decree no. 382 of July 11, 1980, in Article 10, established that, "without prejudice to other obligations provided by the provisions in force, professors must ensure their presence for no less than 250 annual hours. This total number of hours includes: a) official teaching; b) complementary activities, such as seminars, laboratories, exercises, and student office hours; c) participation in examination and graduation committees. Full-time professors are required to guarantee their presence for no less than another 100 annual hours, which include both activities complementary to the performance of teaching in the various forms provided, and the performance, within the framework of specific services arranged by the Faculties, of "orientation tasks for students, with particular reference to the preparation of study plans, also for the purpose of appropriate modifications and integrations based on the results achieved by the students themselves and their better-identified aptitudes and emerging needs.

The new contract for Conservatory teachers provides for 250 annual hours of teaching plus 74 annual hours of other teaching activities, all excluding exams and various committees. I don't see the difference. If it only counted as being in the building a few extra days, I think many would do it (many already do, by the way..).

Forget about laws, go to a university and see for yourself. The majority of my professors are there all day, every day except for one day a week. Some of them have fixed-term researcher contracts (thanks to that idiot Gelmini) earning 600 euros a month and having to do research and teaching, which is not their responsibility, because there are no top-tier professors to cover the chairs! And you come to talk to me about laws? I know many conservatory professors. They go to the conservatory two days a week; in the morning they teach and in the afternoon they study for their concerts, if they obviously have a concert career. Let's not talk about laws, at least in Italy where according to the ITALIAN CONSTITUTION there should exist the RIGHT TO WORK, the RIGHT TO STUDY, but please... When I hear people spouting laws like a clean slate, it just makes me laugh. Laws in Italy work in a practical and fast way only when it is the state that needs to take the money, never the other way around. A friend of mine had to close his business because after two years the state still hadn't paid him for the work done in a school. Do we realize this? However, if you don't pay a 50€ fine after 60 days, it goes to Equitalia, and if you don't pay it within a year, there is a risk they will send a bailiff.

You need to go into these places and see things for yourself; otherwise, you risk making the same mistake all politicians make, assuming things and reading laws without knowing a damn thing about how the institutions actually are.

Last year I had a programming professor who already worked at the National Research Council (CNR), but who had to come and teach for free at the university to do a favor for those in the administration because the university had no money and we didn't have a programming professor. I repeat, WITHOUT A SALARY. He always told us so, and when we asked him why he was coming to work for free, he told us: "Because I have two daughters your age and I hope that in life they will find people like me", and if you don't believe me, I'll get him connected and let him tell you in person. And with this, I have said everything... This sh... country only moves forward thanks to the common sense of people who haven't yet taken to the streets to kick these corrupt politicians in the ass, who are all the same. It is only due to a sort of latent common good that things move forward; otherwise, it would have ended a long time ago.

I would separate what one MUST do by contract and what one actually DOES. I can bring you many real cases of Conservatory professors who are at school (I call it "school" for a reason) 3-4-5 days a week, like others who stay at home 3-4-5 months, and receive the same salary, with the former working many free hours.

If we want to talk about bad practices and injustices, no problem, and I actually agree on many things. But don't come telling me/us that university professors are at the institute 6 days a week because that is a chimera, especially when the professor lives hundreds of km from the headquarters.

The whole thing stems from the fact that conservatory professors are not actually university professors and that the conservatory is not actually a university. Titles aside, have you seen conservatories that have:

- a canteen

- study rooms

- scholarships (in some cases only)

- student dormitories

- accessible laboratories

- possibility of a doctorate

- etc..?

My "objection" arises from the beginning: we are NOT universities.

Ok, this is a discussion I like more than the previous one. And it is certainly more motivated. It is a reflection of an Italy that is truly in bad shape. It's true that top-tier professors aren't in the universities much, but fortunately or perhaps unfortunately, depending on your point of view, there are very few of them. Nowadays, the hard work is done only by researchers, who are not underpaid but are literally exploited by the institutions. In my degree course, the teaching staff is practically composed of researchers. About 80% are researchers... I repeat, they are absolutely not required to teach; they are paid for research and that's it. They do it for us and for the university. What a beautiful Italy!

Wonderful discussion ... needs to be mediated

I have a question about conservatories, for the piano teaching level, is it better to choose Padua or Bolzano?

ZioBoris wrote:

5 hours ago, ZioBoris said:

I have a question about conservatories; for the piano teaching level, is it better to go to Padua or Bolzano?

It's a bit off-topic, but perhaps I can answer you while staying on topic.

In fact, there are no Class A and Class B conservatories; in Italy, it has never been possible to do that... so the difference is made by the teacher. Follow the "best" teacher (the one you get along with best and who can guarantee professional opportunities); personally speaking, I wouldn't even guarantee it in Milan, just speaking generally.

I don't know how old you are, but I would certainly consider enrolling simultaneously in academies like Imola or Pianofriends... so that at least you find yourself set up for the profession. Which is nonetheless precluded by the conservatory, which can work (a little and for free) until you are no longer a "student."