An historic divide: Understanding conservatories and schools of music and their place in Australian higher education

Abstract

This paper examines the impact that the differing structure of conservatories and schools of music has on the educational experiences of their students by using musical higher education in Australia as a case study. Preprofessional music education at the tertiary level is crucial for the seamless interaction between and integration of musicians operating across multiple regions in an industry that requires international cooperation and collaboration. This paper explores the historical origins of formalized music training (including both performance- and academic-based disciplines), the evolution of this education through conservatories and university schools of music, and the role that tertiary music education plays in preparing musicians for global success. The contrasting origins of conservatories and schools of music as educational institutions begets significant differences between the educational focuses, teaching methodologies, and structure of these institutions. These factors have strong implications on the type of music education a student should expect to receive; both what is taught and how it is taught is determined by these structural differences between conservatories and university schools. This paper also discusses how the unique strengths of conservatories and schools of music can cultivate a vibrant ecosystem where musical performers, writers, teachers, researchers, theorists, and scholars can thrive.

Introduction

One of the unique challenges posed to musicians as they embark upon their careers is that, from the first time they take to the stage, they are engaging with—and contributing to—a rich musical canon built over hundreds of years by musical practitioners and scholars from various different nationalities, cultures, and backgrounds. In this way, music is a global industry and demands a global standard of excellence, to which its practitioners are held throughout their careers. This universal standard of excellence—a form of standardization—is crucial for the seamless interaction between and integration of musicians across regions, facilitating international cooperation and collaboration. The competitive nature of the profession often requires its practitioners to “follow the work,” with performers, conductors, composers, and directors frequently required to relocate to where opportunities are most lucrative, whether in a different city or an entirely different country. A conductor who trained in the UK, for example, may be asked to guest conduct for an orchestra in any number of locations. Regardless of whether this conductor is working with an orchestra in the United States or in Japan, they will have similar expectations regarding their role in preparing the orchestra for performance; the orchestra playing and performing to a professional standard, responding appropriately to their direction, having a mutual understanding of how rehearsal time will be spent, and ensuring concert readiness are all expectations which are standardized on the professional stage. Likewise, orchestras have these same universal expectations of their conductors. Although conductors may differ in personality and individual conducting style, orchestral players expect to be led by a confident and effective conductor who runs efficient rehearsals and responds appropriately to any issues that arise. Thus, the role of practical music education at the tertiary level is to appropriately prepare students for entry into the global industry, fully equipped with the musical and interpersonal skills required to meet the established standards of practice.

Discussions about tertiary music education generally pertain to “conservatories” and “schools of music,” the two forms of institution which offer training at a preprofessional level across all musical disciplines. Rarely, however, do these conversations pause to define these terms or consider their implications for accurately understanding the subject, often using the phrase “conservatories-and-schools-of-music” to collectively refer to any formal institution at which a student can learn the musical arts. It is therefore easy to assume that “conservatories” and “schools of music” are equivalent (or, at least, interchangeable) terms, as this is how they used in common vernacular and, to a lesser extent, in academic discourse. In a general sense this is not an overwhelming cause for concern; in today’s landscape of tertiary education, conservatories and schools of music do, in fact, share many similarities and are often indistinguishable from one another. The most important of these similarities, of course, is that they both aim to teach music and to grant tertiary qualifications in various musical studies.

However, upon closer consideration, the differences between these two institutional structures become increasingly apparent. Such differences, which concern the historic origins and fundamental operations of the institutions, have significant implications on the type of music education a student should expect to receive; both what is taught and how it is taught is determined by these structural differences between conservatories and schools of music. The first part of this paper explores the historical origins of formalized music education and the evolution of this education through conservatories and university schools of music. The second part of this paper provides an overview of the history of music conservatories in Australia and the role that he Dawkins Reforms played in laying the groundwork for what has now been identified as a “deterioration” of educational standards.

Navigating the Worlds of Conservatories and Schools of Music

Conservatories: Tradition and Mastery in Musical Performance

The Conservatoire de Paris (full title Conservatoire National Supérieur de Musique et de Danse de Paris) is often acknowledged as the first conservatory of music, being officially founded in its current form in 1795. While it is true that the Conservatoire de Paris is the longest standing conservatory in the modern sense of the word (Utne-Reitan, 2022), it certainly was not the first of its kind. The Conservatoire de Paris adopted both its name and its pedagogical practices from Naples, where conservatories (conservatorio) had been training young boys to be highly proficient composers, conductors, and performers for over 200 years. As such, to understand the origins of the modern conservatory, one must look back to 1535, when the Conservatorio di Santa Maria di Loreto was founded in Naples.

Conservatories such as the Santa Maria di Loreto began as state- or church-run orphanages for boys, funded in part by a philanthropic aristocracy who sought to “conserve” the at-risk Neapolitan youth (DelDonna, 2020). Neapolitan conservatories admitted orphaned and impoverished children, provided them with food, shelter, social protection, and an education so that they may become active and productive members of society. In doing so, each boys’ orphanage—for there were over 200—specialized in educating their wards in a different trade or craft (Gjerdingen, 2020; Tregear, 2020). There were a particular group of four of these conservatorio at which the boys were trained in music. Such training was rigorous, beginning at the age of 7 or 8 and lasting into early adulthood. Each student was instructed in partimenti, ¹ solfeggio, ² counterpoint, and keyboard skills, training six days each week and resting only on Sundays. This training prepared the wards so they might be qualified to take on a position within the church, perhaps as an organist, a choir director, or as maestro di capella (literally, “chapel master” or musical director). The education demonstrated by the Santa Maria de Loreto and its three counterparts was considered so exemplary that conservatorio began to take on fee paying students. By the 1770s, Naples was considered to be a city thriving in musical innovation across Europe (DelDonna, 2012).

The proven success of pedagogical models developed by Naples’ conservatori led to their later adoption by the Conservatoire de Paris in 1795, which further refined and then elevated them to an exceptionally high standard (Gjerdingen, 2020). A focus on musical practice, rigorous training, and preparation for a professional career defined the French conservatory model, and it was through conservatory training that many accomplished composers, performers and conductors found their success. The Conservatoire de Paris alone boasts dozens of distinguished alumni—including Hector Berlioz, Pierre Boulez, Claude Debussy, Olivier Messiaen, Maurice Ravel, Camille Saint-Saëns, and Nadia and Lili Boulanger—many of whom were known throughout their lifetimes as renowned performers, composers, and teachers in their own right.

Following the immediate success of the Conservatoire de Paris, many other nations sought to establish their own conservatories in competition with both Paris and Naples. As such, during the early part of the nineteenth century a great many new conservatories were established throughout Europe and the United States. The expansion of the music conservatory during this time also has its ties in the “journey to modern statehood” in Europe, and as “a national effort to rebuild confidence in American civil society” after the American Civil War (Tregear, 2020). Early additions to the growing number of conservatories included the Vienna Conservatory (est. 1817, and now known as the University of Music and Performing Arts Vienna) with Antonio Salieri as its first director, the Royal Academy of Music in England (est. 1822), the Royal Conservatoire The Hague in the Netherlands (est. 1826) foundered by King William I, and the Conservatoire royal de Bruxelles in Belgium which, although commencing teaching activities in 1813 as a singing school, was established as a formal conservatory in 1832. In the United States, the Oberlin Conservatory (est. 1865), the Cincinnati Conservatory (est. 1867), and the Peabody Institute (est. 1868) amongst others laid the foundations for an expansive field of musical tertiary training. There are now over 200 self-identified music conservatories worldwide (Ford, 2010), with the conservatory model remaining a prestigious, rigorous, and highly effective form of preprofessional training for aspiring musicians at the tertiary level.

Today, conservatories across the globe continue to uphold the high standard of practical education pioneered by the Neapolitan conservatories and popularized by the Paris Conservatoire by providing exceptional preprofessional training to prepare their graduates for the challenges of professional practice. This is done so through specialized training programs unique to the student’s chosen discipline, engaging and adaptive pedagogies, and integrated transdisciplinary courses (Sternberg et al., 2022). Within the music profession—whether that include the performance of an instrument, conducting, or composition—a successful musician will be judged and assessed on the consistent demonstration of mastery of their discipline through the continuous integration of various knowledge bases and practical skills (Sternberg et al., 2022). Thus, the skills of preprofessional musicians within a conservatory are measured not only against the internal academic standards of the institution, but also against the global standard of the musical profession. Although much of the modern curriculum bears little resemblance to the classroom partimenti and solfeggio lessons of the Neapolitan conservatories, certain pedagogies (such as the master-apprentice model) have persisted as part of the characteristic conservatory education through to the twenty-first century.

Most conservatories, such as the Royal Conservatoire of Scotland, and Juilliard in the United States, are autonomous institutions, although some are associated with parent universities (e.g. the College-Conservatory of Music at the University of Cincinnati). However, regardless of whether a conservatory operates autonomously or under a parent institution, the ultimate goal is to prepare students for the demands of a professional practical music career. This is achieved through the implementation of signature pedagogies (Hastings, 2017; Love & Barrett, 2019; Shulman, 2005) that are unique to the teaching of music, and that often simulate the pressures of a professional career. For example, masterclasses, performance workshops, public performances, and one-on-one lessons are all integral to an aspiring musician’s mastery of their craft. These activities facilitate learning and growth in an environment which directly reflects the ways that a professional musician will be judged throughout their career.

Conservatory environments are therefore inherently competitive, and for good reason. Students must be able to consistently showcase their skills to both their teachers and peers. This exposure allows for critique, evaluation, and comparison, not only among fellow students but also against industry standards of excellence (Sternberg et al., 2022). Unlike other disciplines where achievement and failure are private—hidden in test scores, exam results, and GPAs—musical mediocrity has immediate and very public consequences. At a conservatory, students’ education extends beyond private instruction and into the public eye, where the concert stage becomes the classroom and the audience serve as assessors. Consistent opportunities for performance in orchestras and chamber ensembles are thus crucial for the preprofessional instrumentalist, and a conservatory must provide these opportunities to ensure their students are adequately prepared for the musical, emotional, and practical demands of international professional practice.

To meet these demands, the expectations placed on both student and teacher are incredibly high. Teaching staff must be attuned to each student’s individual needs, strengths, and weaknesses, so they may tailor their instruction—and therefore the student’s education—accordingly. In order for this depth of instruction to be realized, conservatories facilitate one-on-one lessons and mentorship between each student and a teacher within their discipline. These tutors are almost always successful career musicians, revered for their mastery of the craft, as well as their wealth of knowledge and experience. The relationship between student and mentor is valuable one, as the instruction a student receives throughout their education will set the trajectory for their own careers. This contrasts greatly with the typical classroom or tutorial setting, where the instructor’s attention is continuously divided among students. Conservatories therefore typically maintain a low ratio of students to teaching staff. For example, the Conservatoire Royal de Bruxelles (2024) has an approximate student-to-teaching-staff ratio of 3:1, ³ Juilliard has an approximate ratio of 4:1 ⁴ (Data USA, 2022), and Eastman School of Music ⁵ at the University of Rochester has an approximate ratio of 6:1 (Eastman School of Music, 2024). It is important, however, to also acknowledge the growing criticisms which have been brought forth on the traditional master-apprentice model. Though of undoubted educational value with a long tradition of success, the one-on-one lessons characteristic of the master-apprentice model alongside the cultural implication of positioning the musical “master” as the arbiter of all knowledge can impede a student’s educational autonomy and foster dependence at best (Jørgensen, 2000), and can lead to a culture of harassment and abuse at worst (Tregear, 2014), though this is the subject of a different discussion than the focus of the current paper.

Beyond these specific pedagogies, the conservatory model of learning is also highly synergistic; the skills required to be a professional musical practitioner are so expansive and interconnected that they cannot be covered by one-on-one tuition alone. Although today a conservatory will often offer individual courses such as “music analysis” or “music history,” these units of study are not offered as part of a degree in music theory, music analysis, or music history, ⁶ and will be contextualized, interpreted, and then reapplied through the lens of each student’s chosen discipline. For example, a composition student’s education extends beyond one-on-one lessons with their tutor, whose role is to help the student develop a healthy critical perspective of their work, and to encourage creative problem solving (Barrett & Gromko, 2007). For a composition student to learn how to operate as a composer, they must also learn how to deconstruct and reconstruct the music of other composers (music analysis), to use appropriate musical language (music theory), how the life of a musician influences their creative output (music history and musicology), and how to interact with other musicians within a professional space (ensemble workshops). In this way, isolated knowledge bases cannot exist within musical practice, and the conservatory model of teaching reflects how transdisciplinary learning continues to interact throughout a professional musical career (Sternberg et al., 2022).

Schools of Music: The Academic Endeavor

Where the conservatory model was established for the purpose of training career musicians in the mastery of their craft, schools of music were established within existing universities to place emphasis on the academic study of music theory, music history, and musicology in their own right (Gjerdingen, 2020; Tregear, 2020). Unlike conservatories, which mostly stand as autonomous institutions, schools (and colleges) of music exist as faculties or departments within a university.

The development of the modern research university education was championed chiefly by Wilhelm von Humboldt (1767–1835) in Germany and sought to encourage the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, primarily through various forms of research. Humboldt’s belief in the balance between the empirical (i.e. technological sciences) and the subjective (i.e. aesthetic sciences) establishes the scholarly study of music (an aesthetic science under Humboldt’s model) as a core knowledge base which contributes to a balanced educational system (Roberts & Axworthy, 2015). The resulting fields of study such as music theory, analysis, music psychology, acoustics, and musicology evolved as distinct knowledge bases intellectually independent of the practice of music itself. This validated the study of music as something of significant intellectual and cultural value and helped to elevate musicians and musical practitioners to a professional social class. In this way, musical scholarship produced by schools of music are of extreme importance as they document, promote, and validate musical culture (Tregear, 2020). It is important to note that the study of existing fixed compositions has a significant connection to the concept of Werktreue, where performances and their performers are “subservient to works and their composers” and that “to be true to a work is to be true to the score” (Goehr, 1992). Musical analysis also propagates the discussion of historic compositions of the analyst’s interests. This led to analysts and musicologists of the nineteenth century enacting a form of musical excavation on older and undiscovered works (Ford, 2010). Where previously it was expected that concerts would include new music (and that new compositions would have a short performance lifespan) the continued discussion of older works and those works’ elevation to masterpieces contributed to those works receiving continued performances and reverence (Ford, 2010). This, in turn, established these works as keystones of Western art music canon. It is therefore no coincidence that composers such as Bach, Mozart, and Beethoven continue to be upheld as revered exemplars of mastery of the craft considering the early scholarly study of music took place in Germany; this early dominance of German music scholarship is a key contributor to the establishment of Austro-German music as the global ideal of Western art music (Tregear, 2020).

Thus, the historic school of music did not seek to provide practical musical training. The educational focus was (and often remains) primarily on musical academics, such as harmony and species counterpoint, music history, analysis, and critique as complete areas of study, rather than in service of contextualizing or bringing greater depth to the training of a particular instrument. Take, for example, the University of Cambridge, which is home to a highly regarded Faculty of Music. This faculty is considered a school of music as it is a division of the larger Cambridge institution, renowned for its continued excellence in high-level music academics, from the undergraduate level to the most esteemed professors who contribute consistently to the field of music research in addition to their teaching obligations. Unlike the conservatory model, a student who studies music at Cambridge will not enter the undergraduate course in a particular specialization or to receive training on a specific instrument. Instead, they will receive instruction in music history, analysis, tonal studies, musicianship, ethnomusicology, music and psychology, and music and culture. Students also have the option to undertake composition or performance studies as individual courses if so desired (University of Cambridge, 2024). It is entirely possible to complete an undergraduate degree in music at Cambridge without completing formal training in instrumental performance or music composition at the preprofessional level, as the educational focus of the institution—as a school of music—is in the rigorous training of musical scholars, rather than musical practitioners. Musical academic degrees and courses such as the one offered by Cambridge underline the continued importance of musical study as an academic, as well as technical, discipline. Musical scholarship of all kinds continues to contribute to an evolving musical canon, codifies musical culture, and validates musical practices and genres through research and analysis.

The Evolving Roles of Conservatories and Schools of Music

Historically, there was significant contrast in the educational focus and style between conservatories and schools of music. Today, however, the divide is often less apparent, as many institutions have adapted their curricula to offer both practical training and musical academics. It is now common for modern schools of music to adopt a “conservatory style” ⁷ approach, integrating high-level training in practical disciplines such as performance, composition, and conducting alongside standard musical academics. Similarly, many conservatories have incorporated theory, history, musicology, and analysis into their curricula to support the practical training of their performance students, with many conservatories now also offering musicology and theory as majors or specializations.

As a result, conservatories and schools of music can sometimes be nearly indistinguishable from one another in terms of the quality of practical and theoretical education they provide, and this convergence has contributed to the colloquial conflation of the two forms of institution. However, the fundamental differences between conservatories and schools of music continue to inform their institutional values, structures, and positions within wider tertiary education, as well as expectations regarding the form and focus of the education students will receive. For example, a school of music—such as the Cambridge Faculty of Music—is not obligated to offer practical performance experience through orchestras or ensembles. It is still common for smaller or research-intensive schools of music to specialize in music theory, composition, musicology, and analysis, and to provide classroom-style training in a select number of instruments, rather than a complete “conservatory style” education which guarantees individualized tutelage and mentorship at the preprofessional level. Nonetheless, the adoption of conservatory-like qualities by many schools of music highlights the value of this form of preprofessional training within all musical disciplines.

Similarly, there are instances where conservatories are situated within research universities in place of a school or faculty of music, placing the rigorous training of a student’s chosen discipline within an academic context, with high-level theoretical and analytical classes positioned to support the development of competent musical practitioners as well as being available to study as a discipline in their own right. This also facilitates the broader pursuit of research-based postgraduate degrees which, by nature, can only be awarded by a university institution. The Eastman School of Music at the University of Rochester, for example, offers both Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) and Doctor of Musical Arts (DMA) study programs. The Doctor of Philosophy, being a traditionally academic research degree culminating in a thesis, is most often undertaken by those in the field of musical scholarship (National Association of Schools of Music, 2024), conducting in-depth musical analyses, musicological and historical perspectives, or research integrated with technology, psychology, or sociology, although non-traditional research outputs (NTROs) such as composition or performance portfolios-as-research are becoming increasingly more common (Australian Research Council, 2019). A PhD also grants entry into professional scholarly and academic spaces for those who wish to continue with music research and musical academics at a university. The Doctor of Musical Arts, on the other hand, is a professional practice-oriented (as opposed to research-oriented) doctorate in which the candidate demonstrates mastery of their skills as a musical practitioner (a performer, conductor, composer, or pedagogue) and is assessed on capstone performances, exegetical writings, and smaller research projects (National Association of Schools of Music, 2024). As doctoral degrees may only be awarded by a university, both the PhD and DMA may only be awarded by accredited tertiary music institutions, most commonly schools of music (such as the Cambridge Faculty of Music, which offers a PhD) or conservatories embedded within universities (such as the Sydney Conservatorium at the University of Sydney, which offers both a PhD and a DMA).

Conservatories in Australia: A Peculiar Example

Australia’s longest-standing conservatory, the Elder Conservatorium of Music, was formally constituted in 1898 following the death of Sir Thomas Elder, who left a major philanthropic bequest to establish a conservatorium at the University of Adelaide in his will. It can be argued that it is, in fact, the Melbourne Conservatorium which is the oldest conservatorium in Australia, as the University of Melbourne awarded its first degree in music in 1879 (Melbourne Conservatorium of Music, 2024). The establishment of a Chair of Music at the University of Melbourne and the subsequent university-based conservatorium was acknowledged as “unique in the Universities of the British Empire” (Scott, 1939, as cited in Tregear, 2020) for the combined presence of both technical and academic musical study. However, the Melbourne Conservatorium has gone through many iterations throughout its tenure at the University of Melbourne, being reconfigured as the Faculty of Music in 1926 and remaining so for 65 years before being amalgamated with the Victorian College of the Arts in 1991, a decision which was reversed in 1994. The Faculty of Music was renamed as the Melbourne Conservatorium of Music in 2012 following the final amalgamation of the University of Melbourne’s Faculty of Music and Faculty of the Victorian College of the Arts. Regardless, the Elder and Melbourne Conservatoria were Australia’s only conservatoria ⁸ until the Sydney Conservatorium of Music was established in 1915 by Belgian conductor and violinist Henri Verbrugghen. Unlike the Melbourne University Conservatorium and the Elder Conservatorium of Music, which were foundered and governed by the University of Melbourne and the University of Adelaide respectively, the New South Wales State Conservatorium of Music (now known as the Sydney Conservatorium) was entirely autonomous (McCallum & Simonds, 2015). Similarly, the Queensland Conservatorium of Music was originally established as an independent institution by the Queensland state government in 1957 (Roennfeldt, 2007).

In 1967, Senior Lecturer in Music at the University of Western Australia David Tunley surveyed the landscape of Australian tertiary music education and commented on the value of having a diverse range of music institutions, both conservatoria and schools of music. Tunley also noted a rise of scholarly studies in music from 1950 and the subsequent expansion of tertiary music institutions it necessitated. At that time, there were eleven institutions in Australia which offered full courses in music and two more which offered music as a partial unit of study (Tunley, 1967b). With a combination of independent conservatoria, conservatoria embedded within universities, and traditional schools of music, the offerings at these institutions were necessarily very different; not all institutions offered qualifications in performance or practical studies, and not all institutions offered qualifications in scholarly subjects (Tunley, 1967a). This diverse array of qualifications and training options available to aspiring musicians and music scholars was built on acknowledging the merits of all forms of tertiary music institutions. Independent conservatoria provided specialized training in practical musical disciplines, schools and faculties at universities allowed for the study of musical academics, and the conservatoria housed within universities (the Elder Conservatorium and Melbourne Conservatorium) acted as a unique middleman between the two.

Today the landscape of tertiary music institutions in Australia are not so diverse, with all four self-identified conservatoria now being housed by a parent university. Other music institutions, of course, do exist and substantiate major contributions to the tertiary music educational landscape, both in the fields of musical scholarship (such as the Australian National University’s School of Music ⁹ ) and preprofessional training (such as the Australian National Academy of Music ¹⁰ ). It is not unheard of for a conservatory to be attached in some way to a university; the College-Conservatory of Music at the University of Cincinnati, for example, is a prominent institution in the United States which also follows this model. However, unlike the United States, which is also home to several independent conservatories (such as Juilliard), there remains no self-identified conservatoria in Australia which are autonomous and are not governed by a larger university. ¹¹ This was a direct result of the Australian higher education reforms instituted by the then Labor Education Minister John Dawkins between the years 1989 and 1994, known more commonly as the Dawkins Revolution.

The Dawkins reforms granted university status to a number of institutions, including the Colleges of Advanced Education. They also introduced tuition fees for university students and the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS). Additionally, the reforms merged several higher education providers (Croucher et al., 2013), including the Queensland and New South Wales State Conservatoria with the Griffith and Sydney Universities, transforming Australia’s elite university system into a mass education system (Croucher, 2015). Even the Elder and Melbourne Conservatoria, which had been housed by the Universities of Adelaide and Melbourne since their inception, were subject to the new national standards and specifications for tertiary education introduced by the reforms.

Ultimately, it was the smaller arts and specialist technical colleges which were subjected to the most drastic changes. In abolishing the binary system of universities and technical colleges, the Australian Government provided financial support to tertiary institutions on a common basis (Macintyre et al., 2017), creating a Unified National System (UNS). Under the new system, an institution was required to have at least 2,000 equivalent full-time students (EFTSU) to be admitted into the UNS, at least 5000 EFTSU to conduct minor research, and at least 8000 EFTSU to conduct comprehensive research. Although institutions were not required to join the UNS (which would subject an institution to several new conditions and regulations), failure to do so would result in reduced government funding: an institution’s “continued Commonwealth funding from within the unified national system will be contingent upon consolidation” (Dawkins & Department of Employment, Education and Training, 1988). That is, institutions with student enrolments lower than the given threshold needed to merge with each other or with existing universities so they might “form more viable institutions” (Dawkins & Department of Employment, Education and Training, 1988) and thus ensure their survival.

Due to their highly specialized nature, colleges of fine arts and performing arts rarely exceed even a thousand full-time enrolments. As such, these institutions—including the Queensland ¹² and Sydney conservatoria—were obliged to take refuge in a parent research university through a merger. As noted by academic Glyn Davis:

This meant an end to the independent art schools and music conservatoria [. . .] surviving on the periphery of tertiary education. Their demise ended the distinctive educational experience possible only in a small and specialized institution. [. . .] In the process, Australia lost a diverse set of institutions, even as it gained new universities. (Davis, 2017)

This legislation thus had significant consequences on the state of tertiary study in the creative and performing arts. Former Director of the Queensland Conservatorium Professor Emeritus Peter Roennfeldt described these reforms as being “characterized by power plays both at the institutional and personal levels” (Wilson, 2018), and have been subject to immense criticism within both academic and political circles for many years and for many reasons. Other criticisms include the commercialization of education and resulting corporate culture in university administration, reduction in public funding, the “dumbing down” (Clarke, 1998) of higher education, the reintroduction of student fees, assessment metrics for research output produced by academics (Goldsworthy, 2008), the rigid national standard of Australian university structure and identity, and exposing universities to market pressures (Wellsmore, 1997). Regarding the fate of the arts colleges as they assimilated into universities, Queensland College of Art’s Nick Oughton recalls:

One good quote I remember from the time was that ‘Amalgamating QCA to Griffith was like pouring a bottle of Grange (from a good year I suspect) into the Brisbane River’. (Wilson, 2018)

The resulting landscape for Australian tertiary education is unlike that of anywhere else in the world, particularly within technical and creative disciplines. Many specialized colleges lost their institutional identity through “shotgun wedding” mergers with established universities (Macintyre et al., 2017) and were required to make significant adjustments to their teaching programs under the new educational guidelines set by both the Australian government and their parent institution.

It is a credit to all four self-identified Australian conservatoria that they preserved some element their structure as conservatories through the reforms rather than being absorbed into schools of music or music faculties, allowing for some independence in identity from their parent universities and ensuring the retention of their industry- and practice-led educational focus. In this regard both an academic and practical education can be offered to their students, with Australian conservatoria theoretically reaping the benefits of both conservatory-style teaching and high-level musical scholarship. The security of this independence in structure, name, and pedagogical focus, however, remains to be seen, as the Australian tertiary landscape continues to pressure university-housed conservatoria to assimilate further and further into the “one size fits all” educational paradigm. Still, although the independent conservatoria experienced the most immediate and drastic changes to their structure and programming, it would be remiss not to acknowledge the impact that these mergers also had on the traditional university schools of music; that the “flattening” of the music educational ecosystem has also deemphasized the value of musical scholarship in Australia.

Discussion

The value of a scholarly form of music education is undeniable, as it produces esteemed music researchers, historians, theorists, and musicologists. However, the practical training pioneered by music conservatories must also be preserved, as it is incomparable to any other form of musical education and is necessary to ensure the continuation of musical practice. Realistically, both conservatories and schools of music are essential to maintain a healthy ecosystem of musical culture; music research cannot exist without music and musicians to study, and musical practice benefits from being recorded, analyzed, and critiqued through various forms of discourse and conceptual frameworks, a process that brings new meaning to a given work and expands collective musical knowledge. Historically, schools of music teach students how to think about music, whereas conservatories teach students how to do music, and together these forms of training and practice maintain a synergistic balance within broader musical culture.

Although the Australian conservatoria can no longer operate autonomously under the UNS, all four institutions continue to provide a conservatory-style education to its students with a focus on practical, specialized training in a specific discipline through distinctive pedagogies such as public performance opportunities, one-on-one lessons, and integration into the professional field. ¹³ The core purpose of the conservatory as an institution—training its preprofessional practitioners to a global standard of excellence—distinguishes a conservatory from a music faculty or school, defines its internal structure, and informs the implementation of those pedagogies unique to the field. The signature pedagogies of conservatory-style training—one-on-one individualized tutelage, public performance opportunities, masterclasses, and ensemble workshops (Love & Barrett, 2019)—are preserved regardless of a conservatorium’s status as an autonomous or non-autonomous institution. These educational opportunities must be retained for an institution to retain its conservatory title, and therefore cannot be compromised. The name “conservatory” is, in a way, a mark of protection for these music institutions against an Australian tertiary sector which is still inching further and further toward a “one size fits all” mode of higher education.

Under the UNS, the greater focus on university research outputs puts pressure on conservatoria to credential their staff, as having a doctorate is often a prerequisite to a permanent position within a university. Within autonomous institutions a teacher or mentor is appointed to the position based on their professional career as a practitioner within the industry; this is not the case in the university system. It is not uncommon for musical mentors to find this predilection for higher-degree credentials and research output off-putting or even irrelevant to their musical and teaching practices, as noted by Professor Michael Halliwell:

The emphasis placed on research is still felt by some as something that should not be their concern, which is excellence in teaching elite performers. (Wilson, 2018)

This increased focus on conducting research at conservatoria has also garnered critique, as it is claimed to detract time, attention, and resources away from the training of musical practitioners themselves. This can lead to a deterioration in the standard of performance training, as Professor Halliwell further states:

On the positive side, the music offerings at our institution are broader and more inclusive than before. There is more focus on a wider range of potential careers in the arts sector and not just as orchestral musicians, and opera singers. Negatively, there is a sense that elite standards of performance training have deteriorated over the last 10-15 years, so that the depth of elite performers is more limited. (Wilson, 2018)

The appropriate balance between musical scholarship and practical training at conservatoria is a difficult one to strike, as time which a student spends on traditional academics is time not spent on mastering their craft, leading to a deterioration in the standard of performance training. This deterioration in the standard of performance training means that contemporary graduates may not be entering the professional industry with the same level of skills as they were prior to the mergers. As it is paramount for musical practitioners to demonstrate the performance standards demanded by the global industry, the “deterioration” of musical training at the tertiary level has significant consequences to both individual Australian musical practitioners and the Australian music industry as a whole. If Australian conservatoria cannot provide the level of training required for a successful career, many Australian musical practitioners who aspire to a lucrative career will seek to undertake their education elsewhere; the most qualified musical practitioners will be located overseas. The cumulative effect—exporting students and then importing practitioners—diminishes the value of an Australian education and the perception of Australian musical artistry on the global stage. This, however, is the subject of another paper.

The immediate result of the Dawkins Reforms in the 1990s is that the institutional diversity required to accommodate the diverse needs of preprofessional musicians and musical scholars is no longer available to those students; what was presented as uniformity and consistency has manifested as homogeneity through the forced assimilation of conservatoria into the university system, alongside schools of music adopting conservatory-like qualities to maintain their relevancy in an ever-equalizing landscape. Although this paper has discussed the direct consequences of the Dawkins reforms, there have since been many changes in both educational and institutional policy that are worthy of continued discussion to further contextualize the current landscape of tertiary music education and the place that conservatoria hold within the higher education ecosystem in Australia.

Both conservatoria and schools of music should be celebrated for the unique education and experiences they have to offer their students; between them they provide a comprehensive education across both practical training and musical academics for all musicians and musical scholars, each with their own merits, specializations, opportunities, and connections to industry. With performance specializations in all orchestral and contemporary instruments in classical, jazz and popular styles, training in music technology, sonic arts and sound production, creative composition and film scoring, as well as the scholarly subjects of music history, music theory, musicology, ethnomusicology, analysis and music research, music is so vast a discipline that it is impossible to expect a single institution—or institutional type—to accommodate all practical and academic needs which stem from this diversity. By instead valuing the distinct strengths of a diverse array of music institutions—both conservatories and schools of music alike—the educational environment offered to tertiary music students across all disciplines can appropriately nurture a likewise diverse range of skills and talents in those students, and prepare them for long-lived careers within the global music industry in both practical musicianship and musical scholarship, so they may contribute to the rich and dynamic tapestry of the musical arts.

Conclusion

While modern Australian conservatoriums do provide space for both academic research and practice-driven inquiry, the disproportionate focus on research output for both academic staff and postgraduate students can overshadow the conservatorium’s core mission: to cultivate exceptional musical practitioners. At higher levels of study, this research emphasis may detract from the development of practical musicianship. Similarly, as the Australian example as shown, academic institutions often face pressure to offer high-level practical training across an extensive range of musical disciplines, a challenge that requires significant resources and, in many cases, is unsustainable. It is crucial, however, to recognize the value of historical distinctions between conservatories and schools of music. Embracing this diversity of pedagogical approaches allows for specialization, enabling institutions to focus on their areas of expertise rather than striving for a generalized model of tertiary music education. Such an approach would foster a more vibrant and nuanced ecosystem in which the next generation of musical practitioners, educators, researchers, theorists, and advocates can flourish. In this context the divide between conservatories and schools of music is not one to be criticized, but one to be celebrated as a synergistic relationship which cultivates and codifies musical culture.