 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Marino
Date: 2008-12-03 01:11
I just need some advice from fellow musicians whom have possibly traveled that same path. I am sophmore in high school and am positive on being a music major. I have been sitting first chair all district for a number of years now, and was first chair all-state last year on clarinet. Hopefully this year will turn out the same! I am in many youth orchestras and bands and I love playing clarinet and people tell me I have the talent and I should go for it. Although here is my dilema, I also am fluent on saxophone. I love playing jazz also and last year I was in all state jazz band and sax has been going extremly well. I also picked up the flute to help with my doubling. Lately I have been set on clarinet and been practicing that most, but I am unsure of what to do in college. I try to put in atleast 3 hours a day mostly on clarinet which makes me want to major in clarinet performance in college. But I worry about how my sax playing will be influenced and I dont want to drop it! I think a classical degree is more important than jazz, since for orchestras it is sometimes looked at, but I dont know what to do!! Jazz or classical? Could I keep up sax and flute while focusing on clarinet at a conservatory and not fall behind in the steep competition!?!?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Katrina
Date: 2008-12-03 01:25
Most musicians are not playing in full-time symphony orchestras. Chances are, your career will not be in one.
Doubles, triples, etc. are the best way to insure income after college, particularly double reeds. You'd end up playing all kinds of music (show tunes, jazz, standards, maybe some stuff you don't like, classical, pop stuff, etc.), so your jazz background cannot hurt.
When I went to college too many years ago, the music business was very diffferent from what it is now, and I went in with an idea that, by the time I graduated, was completely impossible when I left 4 years later.
My advice is to look beyond college realistically. You'd probably end up teaching private lessons, and gigging, and recording (if you're in NYC, LA, or Nashville) among other things. Is this a life you'd want?
If you just want to be "the next principal clarinet of the best orchestra ever," then I'd advise you to rethink your plans. Research all your options.
GBK will probably have more to add, as he has so many times in the past when a youngster asks this question!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2008-12-03 01:41
I've said it before, and I'll say it again:
Each year (just in this country alone), conservatories and universities graduate hundreds of clarinetists whose playing ability borders on the unbelieveable.
The sad fact is that most will never earn a dime by strictly just playing "classical" clarinet. Many will find after much hard work, practice and in so much debt, there is no market for their skills.
College is great, and should be a goal for everyone who can afford to go. But, getting a performance degree from a college or a conservatory with the intent of earning a living playing your horn is a very big gamble.
In the most basic of terms:
"...Too many good players chasing too few job openings..."
- and those job openings are decreasing each year.
Follow your dreams if you must, but there is often a fine line between dreams and nightmares...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sambo 933
Date: 2008-12-03 02:54
I'm in the same boat as Marino. I am a sophmore in high school with a love for playing my instrument. I am an avid musician and people tell me also that
I am talented. I am not quite as sure that I want to be a performance major but I have considered it.
This is not the first time I've heard that there are too few positions in the music industry available for most musicians to get a career based solely on performance. While it does possibly seem worth the risk to pursue, being as how i've read that the starting salary for a musician in the philidelphia philharmonic is around 130k, doesn't it make sense that if no one was irresponsible and took this risk that no one would be the principle clarinetist in any of the worlds leading orchestras? obviously some one has to "chase their dreams" because there are clarinetists who are living that dream right now, am I wrong? So perhaps it would be less risky, yet still an attempt to be a performance major, to take this gamble but have a backup plan.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2008-12-03 03:08
I second everything GBK posted. And also, check out Dan Higgins and realize that he represents the kind of competition you will be up against after college.
Dan Higgins: clarinet, sax, flute http://www.lastudiomusicians.net/danhigginstributepage1.htm
I would encourage you to pursue every performance option you have, practice as much as possible on as many instrumnets you care about--but always have a "Plan B" such as, education, business adminstration, engineering, med school, etc, etc, etc, to fall back on.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Neal Raskin
Date: 2008-12-03 03:34
William wrote:
> but always have a "Plan B" such as, education...
The comment I am about to make is going to sound very snide, and possibly border on rude; though I do not mean for it to sound this way and I am apologizing in advance. I'm sure we don't differ opinions to widely, but it is possibly and probably caused by only using text and not speech. =)
I am of the opinion the education is not a profession to fall back on. I believe this country has enough terrible teachers as it is. Not to say that you would make a terrible teacher, just that if you don't teach because you enjoy it, you won't, and your students won't. "If you can't do, teach." Is the worst saying ever, and it couldn't be more false. If you can't do something, how can you teach others to do it??????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?
Sorry for the little rant. Its nice to vent every once in a while. =)
As for your performance aspirations...
I have them too. Though I am a junior getting my Music Education degree. I am extremely passionate about teaching. Though I have always had professional aspirations beyond that. I would recommend having a career/interest to fall back on, just not education.
Good luck!
Neal Raskin
www.youtube.com/nmraskin
www.musicedforall.com
Post Edited (2008-12-03 03:37)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarnibass
Date: 2008-12-03 04:32
When I studied in university it was in a new department that was sort of a try to do something that combines classical music and jazz. In reality it was mostly jazz, but several students had classical as their instrument lessons. Some had two private teachers, one classical, one jazz, and had a lesson with each once every two weeks. The way it worked here, those students played only in the jazz ensembles, etc. but I don't remember anyone one of them wanting to play in the classical ensembles (they took classical lessons mostly to improve their ability on the instrument, reading music, etc.), so those could be things to ask about in whatever university you are interested in.
Some studied for a double degree, usually in performance and in composition. Some of those gave up because it was too much, but I think some did it (in certain cases maybe adding another year to make up stuff). The same can probably work for a double degree in classical and jazz instead, though this depends, and maybe there are compromises you can find so it works...?
As far as thinking about continuing to a career after university, I can just say that it was pretty much the last thing I thought about when I auditioned to the classical department of a music university, and eventually decided not to go.
It was also the last thing I thought about when I started studying in the jazz department a year later. I didn't consider anything that I would study in uni to be really important for whatever I decide to do after (which at the time I haven't decided yet), and just thought there will be good people there, good musicians, that it will be fun, and that I will improve my playing a lot.
In the end it turned out that because of some things that happened in uni I changed my hole philosophy for music, my entire approach changed, and I found my passion in music, which is what I do now.
Ar far as "a job", yes, it's not easy to do this by playing alone, like others said. I guess I'm lucky that even with what I play, which is way out of the mainstream, there is still some things to do. The main difference is that you basically create the place of the music as opposed to fit into an already existing place (i.e. playing in an orchestra, etc). I also play classical or more mainstream concerts occasionally if I think the music is something that I will like to play. I also found another job, not playing music, that I'm lucky that I really like doing too. I guess my point is keep and open mind.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: C2thew
Date: 2008-12-03 06:47
probably the most important aspect in my opinion is networking. Build your networks early as to ensure a cushion to fall back on or at least secure gigs on the side. it is much easier to call someone up that you've been in contact with and whom can provide performing venues than coming out, cold turkey after graduating. Be open and flexible to change, and know that your reputation matters very much as a musician. Be honest with yourself as well so you can address your future and present needs before you set yourself up.
as long as people appreciate the value of hard working musicians, there's still hope yet. I doubt people will find robots as thoroughly as entertaining to watch, than a human.
Our inventions are wont to be pretty toys, which distract our attention from serious things. they are but improved means to an unimproved end, an end which was already but too easy to arrive as railroads lead to Boston to New York
-Walden; Henry Thoreau
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2008-12-03 07:38
I'd recommend planning on taking at least a minor in a completely unrelated field. While you're likely quite good at music, it's also probably very likely that you haven't tried a whole bunch of other things that you might like as well. It's also a great way to spread your future options, and diversify your skills. Look at university catalogs for fields that sound fun.
It went the opposite way for me. I started as a computer science major, music minor, and ended up getting bachelors' in both fields (composition on the music end), and am now applying for music grad school.
It's taken me a few years after graduation to figure out what I actually want to do with the rest of my life (and that still changes from time to time, but it's been settling on this). For the past couple years, I've been working in software, and, while it's not a horrible existence, I terribly miss being surrounded by musicians. Being out (or at least out on the fringes) of the music world is what led me to find out why I want to be in it, and what I actually want to do there. Had I just stayed with music the whole time, ditched the computer science option, gone straight to grad school, and probably been finishing my doctorate around now, I would very very likely have burned out on it, and would be kicking myself for my lack of other options, and for never exploring what else was out there. Now that I know what else is out there, I know why I want back in. And I have great plans.
Yes, a second field can serve as a "fall back," but more importantly, I think that spending time in an area outside of music can tell you a lot about whether music is actually what you want to do and, more importantly, why you want to do it.
As for the lack of jobs, C2thew has the right idea, but I'd like to build on it a step further. There are, indeed, very few performance jobs out there that are ready made with people ready to hire you. However, I'm finding that there are a lot of possibilities out there for very good musicians to make their own path (a lot of which I've discovered through interactions with people outside the music world). My advice would be to get to know and play with as many great musicians as you can, because if you're looking for it, you may very well find the conditions right for you to start your own ensemble or enterprise, and you'll need people to play in it. I'm getting a wind quintet set up at the moment with some great players, as a sort of "getting my feet wet" venture into making my own musical path, and I think we're likely to do quite well. Maybe not pays-all-the-bills well, but it could happen, and it's a step in that direction.
GBK is right about the positions decreasing every year. However, I'd argue that the demand for our music is still there, so the possibilities, for people who have the motivation, talent, perspective, and/or luck to make their own way outside what I think is in many ways is an outmoded system, are increasing every year. I've also noticed a considerable increase in people's enthusiasm for live entertainment of all sorts recently (though that could just be a reflection of my own enthusiasm).
The debt is another thing to watch out for. A musician out of debt can live well with a lot less than one crippled with 7 years of $35,000/yr to pay off. There are many fine conservatories and universities that offer great musical training at a fraction of the cost of others. When the time comes, shop around.
I still wonder how I would have ended up as a bio or linguistics major...
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2008-12-03 12:10
I think I'd advise getting a B.A. in music instead of the more usual B.M. As others have said, it's a very tough world out there. A degree in performance is much too narrow in today's world. Take lessons, perform on sax in the jazz bands, and play clarinet in the concert band or orchestra.
Play a clarinet recital if you wish. If you discover that you don't like music that much, you can easily go on to get a masters in another field. If you discover that you're really one of the very very best, you can always go on to get a masters in clarinet performance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2008-12-03 15:15
BA vs. BM is a distinction that varies by area. At my alma mater, the BM is the more prestigious degree, with all the requirements of the BA plus the extra year or two of specialization.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2008-12-04 01:55
I know a symphony clarinetist who had a double scholarship at his conservatory. Classical clarinet and Jazz saxophone. He graduated with a double major. Quit the sax a couple of years after graduation (and some pro-jazz band experience in addition to his symphony job) because he felt that his best improvisations were not actually world class, and he did not see himself being able to evolve much further in that direction.
So, you can double major in classical and jazz --and get the benefits and insights of these different points of view into the structure and performance of music.
GBK is realistic. I've met a whole lot of excellent musicians with advanced degrees playing in community orchestras, doing pick-up chamber work (and organizing their own ensembles) and supporting themselves with "day jobs" far afield from their first love.
I know several pro musicians who have clever ways to make their profession support them in lifestyles comparable to those lived by folks who are NOT musicians. In addition to their music job, they have one or several of the following sources of income:
marriage to another pro musician,
teaching job at a college or univirsity,
a second (3rd, 4th, ...) professional group,
summer festival and/or music camp jobs,
recordings (often self produced and distributed),
GBK is realistic, but some (rare) talents will have those few glorious, high paying symphony jobs; and if you think you can cut it and win those auditions beyond "Hopefully--ing this year will turn out the same" [audition success], then prop your eyes open and go for it.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: reprise
Date: 2008-12-04 06:04
Another option if you have the academic credentials is to apply to a school like Oberlin that offers a double degree program (5 years, ending up with a BA and a BM). I did a performance degree there and often wished that I had stuck around for the double degree. (At the time it felt like an extra year was a VERY long time and that the relatively small amount of additional debt I'd incur from borrowing to supplement almost complete scholarships was a HUGE amount of money. In retrospect, both the additional year and the additional debt probably would've been worth it).
That said, I did manage to transition to non-performance careers after music grad school -- and later did a Ph.D. in another field. I'm pretty sure that attending Oberlin helped because of their incredibly strong academic reputation -- even though I was a performance major, I could point to the academic stuff that I took and the school was one that people recognized not just for music.
I guess my point is -- if you end up going the performance route, consider finding a school that will also give you a strong background in non-music areas of study.
I did end up with a lot of debt (mostly from grad school), but I also think that I would really have regretted not giving it a shot because I loved it so much. I did make sure I learned to type in high school (always a helpful job skill!).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2008-12-04 15:59
ATTENTION
OVERNIGHT CHANGE IN PERSPECTIVE
I picked up Malcolm Gladwell's newest book: "Outliers" on my way home from my 170-mile trip to my music teacher yesterday afternoon and read the first hundred or so pages last night.
Go to a book shop and open the book to Page 18, and read to page 42 (or, buy the book and dog-ear the devil out of it).
Gladwell argues that you'll need 10,000 hours of clarinet practice before you can be really good at playing it. Irrespective of innate talent (which may do nothing more than just provide the enthusiasm needed to accumulate those hours of practice), you need 10,000 hours to get competent. If you have a great native talent, you'll still need 10,000 hours of practice to "get the instrument out of the way of your expressivity."
How do you get those 10,000 hours in time to become a pro? Well, according to Gladwell, you'll start at 5 years old with about 3 hours/week of practice. If you're going to be good, you'll be enthused enough to develop this sort of practice regimin
age 8 more than 3 hours/week
age 9: 6 hours/week
age 12: 8 hours/week
age 14: 16 hours/week
age 20: 30+ hours/week --and have put in their 10,000 hours and were excellent players
What if you can't meet this rigorous demand?
Well, 8,000 hours makes GOOD students, and
4,000 hours is typical of music teachers.
So, look back over your preparation and see when you will have surpassed you 10,000 hour apprenticeship.
(For my part, I've got about 7,200 hours, but much of the recent efforts have been spent breaking and reversing bad habits.)
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2008-12-04 17:06
I hardly think a blanket number of 10,000 is at all relevant or accurate. Makes for a good figure in a book. I've seen people with a whole lot more than that still sound lousy, and people go from almost nowhere to near pro level in far less with proper guidance. Maybe 10,000 hours of brute force "if you did it wrong, try it again the same way" practice is a reasonable estimate of someone getting to pro level.
A *lot* of it, imho, can come down to less-quantifiable-by-hours-of-practice factors... more effective techniques, philosophical awareness, musical insight and maturity, personal active involvement in music-making, etc.
There are a lot of factors of playing an instrument that you *can* drill into yourself with countless hours of practice, but you can also approach from a completely different angle and get a really good handle on in a fraction of the time. Of course, consistent practice is still completely necessary, but an exploration of different facets of the instrument can often put a large multiplier on the effectiveness of an hour of practice.
So I say that 10,000 hour figure is completely bogus (but then, I'm always suspicious about nice round numbers for anything like this).
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: gwie
Date: 2008-12-04 18:39
While the 10,000 hour estimate might be accurate in terms of the "average" person, it obviously isn't the extremes in the range.
There are plenty of students out there who can attempt something ten thousand times and still fail every single time. On the other end, there are those with the natural aptitude for specific skills that make it seem so easy, the rest of us are envious.
That figure is an assumption based on a specific and definite rate of progress, and we already have something similar in our U.S. public school system (thirteen years for K-12, 180 days of instruction per year for thirteen years, approx. 6 hours of instruction per day, so roughly 14,000 hours). There *is* some sort of minimum standard for earning a high school diploma, as poor as it is in places.
Then of course is the issue of what "expert" or "pro" really means. For a clarinetist, does that mean winning a symphony job? Or just earning a decent living primarily by playing and/or teaching the instrument, regardless of the ensemble type and region?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2008-12-04 19:03
The original figure of 10,000 hours was first mentioned in Daniel Levitan's best selling book "This is Your Brain on Music" (a book I happened to have read, just last year)
http://www.amazon.com/This-Your-Brain-Music-Obsession/dp/0525949690
He wrote that to be an expert on ANYTHING (music, chess, sports, computer science, writing, etc.), it takes a minimum of 10,000 hours of practice. He noted that if you apply that to your job, it meant you need to work for five years (40 hour weeks) to become an expert at what you do.
However, there are other factors besides practice that go into becoming an "expert". For instance, in music, genetics plays a part, but not in the way you think. Music he says, does not "run in a family." Rather, parents that are more involved musically are going to provide their children an environment that allows for the development of musical skills.
"This is Your Brain on Music" was an interesting book which was both controversial and at the same time thought provoking.
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2008-12-04 19:46
I'd say the educational system is a rather poor example of a minimum of hours. Given the gross, often irresponsible, waste of time in many school systems, I'd say that's another area where less can translate to much, much more, if schools weren't treated as babysitting. If we looked at how much of that time was spent even peripherally on productive learning, I'd put the figure well below half that, perhaps in the low single thousands.
The first two weeks or so of a college pre-calculus class (6 hours of class, 6 hours of homework) instruction covered everything I more or less slept through in 180 class hours and maybe 90 homework-hours of third-year high school math, because the professor could teach it properly and wasn't busy distributing calculator programs to do it for us while the book regaled us with tales of Kwanzaa parties and asked us to write essays about how a particular method of solving the problem made us feel. I kid you not.
Not to mention that my mom moved to the U.S. from Argentina, in a single-room schoolhouse with 4-hour schooldays, barely speaking English, and was instantly skipped ahead a grade when she arrived.
My point is that it's very easy to declare that something takes a long time to master, when, in fact, it could take much less if it were approached in a different fashion. The phenomenon of "if at first you don't succeed, try try again," is cute for a motivational anecdote. However, I see in many aspects of society a philosophy of throwing more and more time and resources at something, doing it the same way over and over in hopes that it will improve, rather than "try try again, but try it a bit differently next time." That's what, imho, leads to expertise, and that's what I think is often lost when using metrics of so many hours for something.
More accurate may (or may not) be that you have to try something from, say, 1000 different angles before you become an expert at it. Maybe some of those ways you need to try for 10 hours before they sink in, or you distribute 10 hours of work on it over 5 minutes of practice for half a year... but sometimes if you look at it a different way it takes not much more than an initial 30 minute investment.
I'm not saying it doesn't take a LOT of time and effort to master something. I'm just saying that I don't buy any theories that try to quantify it by hours, especially because that just encourages people to plug away at something endlessly without looking at how they do it, with the hope that after 10,000 hours they'll suddenly be an expert. It's a skill, not Level 70 on World of Warcraft.
But that doesn't make for a nice book with pretty numbers.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: hans
Date: 2008-12-04 19:51
Marino,
I applaud your enthusiasm and wish you success. For a career in music, it would be prudent to have an alternative in case you want to, or need to, abandon music. Unforeseeable things can interfere; e.g., illness (hopefully not, but arthritis in the fingers, for example, or an eye disease can be "career enders"), or the need to support a family.
Re: "I worry about how my sax playing will be influenced and I dont want to drop it..." - don't worry about it. If anything it will make you a better sax player.
Best wishes,
Hans
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2008-12-05 15:09
I know a young man who just graduated from high school this spring with a clarinet resume much like Marino's. He is the best high school clarinetist I have ever heard.
He started college this fall as a pre-med major. I do not know if he is minoring in music. If all goes according to plan, when he graduates he still will be an excellent clarinetist, but he also will be able to earn a living.
I thought this was a smart choice. GBK's comments validate that choice.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2008-12-05 18:47
I am one of the lucky few. I began studying as a woodwind doubler and sold my sax and flute to buy a bass and Eb clarinet while in college and I never looked back. I did practice my little butt off and I made it. I’ve met many people that told me they wish they had followed their dreams and at least tried to make it as a player, even as a second job. When someone asks me what they should do I let them know how difficult it is to make it in the symphony field when there are so many for so few jobs. I tell them that they have to work as hard as I did and they still may not stand a chance. That is why I never discourage a student from giving up the sax or jazz. Have you ever heard Larry Coombs play jazz? You need to have as many music outlets as possible, learn to play as many styles as you can and be dedicated. I’m also very great full for the high quality military bands in our country because that is a good source of employment for a well-qualified clarinet player. You have to follow your dream, but you have to be realistic, you have to be dedicated and you have to know you may have to do something else to make a living.
Please, don’t become a music educator if you don’t enjoy teaching, it won’t work for you or the students. It is a great back up but only if you have the personality and temperament to teach in the classroom. It’s much different than in the studio, which is a great way to supplement one’s income or even make a living while freelancing but you have to enjoy doing that too. ESP www.peabody.jhu.edu/457 Listen to a little Mozart, live performance.
ESP eddiesclarinet.com
Post Edited (2008-12-05 22:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Phillips
Date: 2008-12-05 20:36
Alex,
Yours is an expected reaction to this odd "10,000 hour Rule." The claim made in my citation (and in source literature) is that searches were made for the proverbial genius who became an excellent player without the 10-year, intense apprenticeship. None were found, no exception.
A working hypothesis is that musical genius might the the strong required motivation to get a youth to put in his/er 10,000 hours early in life.
Bob Phillips
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: EEBaum
Date: 2008-12-05 21:52
I remain skeptical about the 10,000 hour figure, nonetheless, though not having read the literature. It would seem to me very possible that someone with a "10,000 hours" hypothesis may intentionally or unintentionally taint the study by defining "expertise" as the level they've only seen people with over 10,000 hours of study attain.
One man's expert is another man's amateur, and I'm just suspicious that an author may have drawn a hypothetical expert line in the sand at the happy round number of 10,000 just to sell some books. Someone plays well at 6,000 hours? But they don't play as well as that guy over there with 12,000 hours, so the expert level must be around 10,000. That kind of thing. Maybe intentionally, maybe not. Or maybe the line should be at 15,000, which makes it pretty safe that nobody under 10,000 would be found, perhaps because by the time any even half decent clarinetist gets close to 10,000, they've made enough connections that they're racking up hours like gangbusters with gigs and such.
Again, I haven't read up on this one, but I'm skeptical to begin with on a lot of studies that make blanket statements of that nature, especially when they lead to highly anecdotal motivational sound-byteable claims. The Mozart Effect is one such example that I find almost completely bogus.
-Alex
www.mostlydifferent.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
