 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-02 03:07
David Spiegelthall said in his post about the NY Philharmonic topic the following:
"Good thing I don't have to audition for MY (engineering) job, otherwise I'd be a homeless person for sure! I really do admire guys like Ed P and Larry B and all the other top orchestral players for getting and holding onto their gigs."
Getting an orchestra job in the USA for a clarinet player, or many other instruments for that matter, is probably the most difficult job position I can think of. All four of my kids have good jobs, none of them in music, though they all played. A lawyer, an engineer, in a stock market company and one in public relations. I spent a fortune on college tuition but at least they all got jobs in their fields. Unfortunately I can't say the same for most of my students. Yes, several of them have gotten jobs performing their instruments but a small percentage. Multiply that by the dozens and dozens of teachers and schools graduating so many students a year with only a few orchestra jobs opened each year and the numbers are disturbing.
I've tried to discourage students from going into to much debt to get a degree in music because for most it will be impossible to pay the loans back making a living playing. I thank the clarinet gods for the military bands, that's the one best outlet and even those are very competitive for the good ones.
We all read about how difficult it has been to fill the NY and Chicago jobs but that happens with lesser positions and orchestras as well. We've had an assistant first flute opening or about five years now in Baltimore and had at least three national auditions. No one ever seems good enough, it's ridiculous.
My advise, if it's in your blood and you have to give it a shot at least don't go into debt. Do a double major, music ed, recording arts, instrument repair. You can do a masters in performance later, double on bass and Eb, even sax if possible, learn all styles of music, learn to teach privately, do a double in computer music or theory, music history or something like that. In other words, give yourself as many opportunities as possible to make a living in music because a very few of you will ever get a good symphony job even if you’re studying with one of the big name teachers at a big name school. There just are not enough jobs to satisfy the hugh demand. If your family can't afford to send you to an expensive school, or you can't get a large scholarship, think about a state school, there are a great many good ones with good teachers. Of course there's nothing like getting a free ride at the school of your choice if you can get it. You can practice 3-4 hours a day at a state school just as you can at an expensive one. Yes, that's what it takes for most students to be good enough to even compete. I hate to say this but many of the students I’ve had that are the happiest, other than the few that made it, are those making a living doing something else and having a ball playing their clarinet in community orchestra, bands and playing chamber music with friends. ESP http://.eddiesclarinet.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2009-04-02 03:19
Ed gives good advice and from reading his post he is a caring teacher who tells his students the straight facts about a career in music performance.
I wish other university and college clarinet professors would do the same and not lead students to hold out hope for the performance job which will very rarely, if ever materialize.
I've seen too many of my graduating high school students come back to me after a year or two in college, still ONLY preparing for a performance degree and nothing else.
I blame the college professors more than the students ...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jsc
Date: 2009-04-02 04:25
I don't know how much blame the college professors deserve. Consider the fact that there are gigs out there that are closing. Opera Pacific here in California closed. I believe another opera house closed in Cincinnati (correct me if I'm wrong). Unfortunate as it is, perhaps someone out there being encouraged or was encouraged by their teacher could be someone that helps change the situation with fine arts today. The economy as it is wont help but hopefully it's a matter of time.
Sorry, I'm often accused of being a little positive and a touch hopeful.
The other things that Ed said as far as continuing to play in community groups is a good situation that could lead to other paying gigs.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2009-04-02 12:24
This is perhaps the best thing I have ever read on this board.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sinebar
Date: 2009-04-02 12:51
I have heard that if you are going to make a living as a professional musician learn either the oboe or bassoon. I was told that those are the 2 least popular instruments and orchestras are always looking for oboeist or bassoonist. I was also told that if you are just half way decent on the bassoon you can get a job. Don't know how true that is but I have only met one bassoonist. He played in an ameture band in my town and after his unfortunate death his position has still not been filled. He was more than half decent though. He was a great bassoonist.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-02 12:58
Sinebar, that may have been true many years ago but that has changed too. It's not nearly as competitive on oboe and bassoon as on clarinet but it is far from easy to get a job. There are now so many students studying those instruments now as well. It's like the viola. When I came to Baltimore in 63 if someone could show up with a viola they got the job, recently we've had over 60 violists show up for one opening and that was a year after not hiring anyone in that national audition. We did hire someone this time. Too many musicians, not nearly enough jobs. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: NBeaty
Date: 2009-04-02 13:23
Does every performance major assume an orchestra job is waiting for them and that's their only option?
I don't think so.
1) Large private studio
2) Teaching high schools in the area
3) Regional orchestras
4) University Jobs
5) College jobs (small programs)
6) Military bands
7) Equipment\sales aspects (Mouthpiece work, jobs with distributors etc.)
8) resteraunt job until something else works out
9) Move to a smaller town that needs band directors and get emergency certified
While I respect Ed and his post is well written, I'm growing tired of reading "performance major? You're totally screwed" type posts.
It's rare that people get the gig of their dreams, but it's shortsighted to assume that all performance majors are holding out for that NY phil gig and will be homeless otherwise.
If anyone has other ideas to add to the list, feel free!
(as a performance major, I would like to think positively that there is something I can contribute to the community for compensation besides the jobs that are near impossible to get)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: chorusgirl
Date: 2009-04-02 13:31
As a music teacher with more than two decades under my belt, I must chime in here.
I think the advice being offered is invaluable BUT...just as someone needs the passion and drive (and some talent, too!) to become a performing musician who can earn a living wage, one must ALSO have the same passion and drive to teach.
Sadly, I've worked through the years with many teachers who were just biding their time until their dream gig came along. These were the folks who got an ed degree just as a back up, and were never really serious or passionate about teaching. It is clear when a teacher really wants to work with kids, and when they are just collecting a paycheck.
I would urge any music majors to truly examine where their hearts are, and if it is NOT with kids in a classroom setting, then find some OTHER back up plan. Music teaching positions are not plentiful, either, and someone may give a stellar audition in a job interview for a teaching job, but being in the classroom dealing with kids, at any age level, is a whole different game.
There is no glory in classroom teaching - kids throw up on you, sneeze on you, cry in class, they may curse at you, parents tell you off when little Janey or Johnny never practices but doesnt' get first chair or the solo, they badmouth you to the community, fundraising is endless, defending your job and program is endless, and when you think you've been successful, those kids graduate and move on, and a whole new crop of kids comes in and you get to start all over again.
I love what I do - never wanted to perform to make a living - and find humor, compassion, love, wit, the ability to make difficult decisions and to be firm, to be daily components of teaching. Being the best clarinetist, or soprano, or pianist, does not make someone the best teacher.
So, I agree, it IS important for performance majors to have a good back up plan, but it needs to be carefully and realistically thought out. I hate the adage, "Those who can, do, and those who can't, teach." Whoever originally said that never spent a day, or a week, in a classroom, or at least not in a music classroom.
Just my two cents!~
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2009-04-02 13:42
Yup, a teacher who isn't really into that art shouldn't be doing it.
And teaching certainly is an art. Conveying the love of music is a great thing at any level.
It's true that there are plenty of crappy music teachers out there - I see their products all the time.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BflatNH
Date: 2009-04-02 14:38
A couple of thoughts/questions:
What about ancillary work, e.g. arranging, orchestration, composition, etc?
With the surplus of players, what about forming new group with whomever shows up and do the best you can, rearrange parts, etc?
I'm involved with local cable TV and there's always a copyright concern, so what about working with a local composer who wants exposure and make music that can be used with the programs?
How about finding a local business (e.g. restaurant) that is willing to 'try anything' and do chamber there?
What about a local bboard that people can meet up for chamber, etc?
I thought I'd throw these out there, even if they are naive. But I hear that entertainment is up, and maybe we can 'retrain' the locals to come (back), and begin to form critical mass to support more orchestra.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2009-04-02 14:54
As far as the "local restaurant willing to 'try anything'" idea --- I can't keep count of how many restaurants around the Washington, DC area have had the thought that live music would be nice, and would bring in paying customers --- only to give up after a month or two because they didn't immediately make the hoped-for profit. It seems that most restaurants/bars lack the patience to lose money on live music for weeks or months to give a chance for a steady client base to build up (if indeed that ever happens). Or perhaps they're just being good businesspeople?
There's plenty of entertainment now for people to enjoy at home --- why should they leave their houses, fight traffic, try to find parking, and pay cover charges and/or minimums to hear live music (which unfortunately is often of low quality)? Sorry for my pessimism, but this is the real world.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Margaret
Date: 2009-04-02 15:20
Hello,
I'm not sure what is so different about performance majors in music and other arts degrees.
As an example, no one who graduates with a bachelors in psychology ever expects to practice as a psychologist/ counselor or become a research psychologist without another degree (or two, depending on what they're aiming for). The same is true of most arts or mixed arts and science degrees.
It is only the applied science degrees, like chemistry or engineering, that can make you marketable in your field after graduation, with just a bachelors degree. Incidentally, this is why I don't care to hear them whine about the number of hours spent in labs: an engineer gets a bachelors degree and can put that they're an engineer on their resume; an average arts major needs a PhD before they can declare themselves to be an historian, etc.
For those who have students only studying performance, they might suggest a follow up masters in library studies, as an alternative to teaching. Whereas it would seem that performing musicians are not in demand, music librarians are. There are several people in my program who did performance degrees and are now in the midst of becoming music librarians. Any school with a music program needs them, and most librarians do not have the knowledge to do what is required, even those who play as a hobby (as I do).
I think that people have to realize several things when choosing a major. As someone once told me: You don't get an arts degree to guarantee a job; you get an arts degree to get educated.
I also like this quote: Failure to follow desire, to do what you want most, paves the way to mediocrity. Melody Beattie
Margaret
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-04-02 15:33
Margaret wrote:
> Incidentally, this
> is why I don't care to hear them whine about the number of
> hours spent in labs: an engineer gets a bachelors degree and
> can put that they're an engineer on their resume; an average
> arts major needs a PhD before they can declare themselves to be
> an historian, etc.
Same thing holds for pure science. You really can't seriously call yourself a physicist or biologist with just an undergraduate degree, either.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sinkdraiN
Date: 2009-04-02 15:51
Yes, please don't teach unless you really love doing so. Get a simple day job that requires no time outside the work day (certainly not a band director job). That will ensure you have time to gig consistently.
You can be an amazing player but a horrible music teacher. In fact, I find that performers who have always been naturally good (where concepts just always made sense the first time) make questionable teachers.
On the other hand...in order to be a great music teacher you have to be a great player as well. IMHO But you have to love teaching and must enjoy the process of a SLOW, methodical progression.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-02 15:56
Allow me to voice my opinions:
1) Getting a full time playing job takes total commitment. A performance degree at a conservatory offers the chance to focus on that goal, and someone has to fill the open positions available, however few they are. In the early stages of developing a professional career, thoughts of "what to do as a backup" do not convey the positive attitude one must have to work as a performing musician. There is plenty of time in the late 20's to adjust one's expectations to the realities of life. But one can never make up for time that should have been spent practicing and immersing one's self in the art of making music in the informative and developmentally important early years.
2) Teaching is indeed an art. There are performers who teach, and teachers who perform. A few are able to do both well at a very high level, but they are rare. Teaching involves patience, psychology, the ability to motivate, and personal skills to work with a variety of people in different situations. Unless you actually have a love of teaching, a Music Ed degree should not be viewed as a backup. You will be unhappy as will be the students unfortunate to be under your tutelage.
3) There are plenty of other disciplines where one can earn a degree that are seemingly worthless in the jobs market (philosophy, Romance languages, creative writing, ethnic studies, gender studies, sports sociology, etc.) but they are worthy of study and graduates find other things to do beyond the degree. Higher education should be viewed as a way of opening the mind for life's entirety not just to get a job.
4) A performance degree can lead to other opportunities in the world of music that are as equally satisfying as many on this thread have alluded to. A job is just one part of life's mix that includes health, family and relationships, hobbies, and a spiritual practice. There are many paths to the top of the mountain.
5) And if all else fails.....remember our most famous ex-clarinet colleague Alan Greenspan (Juilliard clarinetist who studied with Christmann). There are always opportunities to create an impact (or havoc) in the real world outside of the concert hall if your playing dreams are never fulfilled.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: lrooff
Date: 2009-04-02 16:31
I recently spoke with a fellow who is just getting ready to retire from the Army after spending twenty years as an Army bandsman. He said it was a great way to go for a musician. When he joined, he'd just graduated with a Master's in musical performance (brass), had about $60K in student loans, and wasn't quite sure about finding work. The Army paid all the loans and he spent the next twenty years playing full-time in bands and brass ensembles, performing in the US, Asia and Europe. The high point of his career was a few years ago on the anniversary of D-Day, playing "Stars and Stripes Forever" with the 1st Infantry Division Band in Red Square, Moscow, before a cheering audience of Russians. (How many civilians will ever get to do that? :-) ) The Army also provides all the instruments for them -- top of the line horns.
I also used to know a clarinetist who previously played with the Marine Corps Band in Washington, DC. He told me that it gave him a great advantage after he got out, as employers didn't even ask him to audition when he applied for a job when he'd shown his credentials -- just hired him on the spot.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Margaret
Date: 2009-04-02 17:22
mrn wrote: "Same thing holds for pure science. You really can't seriously call yourself a physicist or biologist with just an undergraduate degree, either."
This may be true, but you can get a job in your field, doing what you were trained to do. I also question not being able to do it. I know of many cases where people with pure science undergraduate degrees are indeed working as biologists or chemists; I know of no such cases in the arts.
Margaret
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bassie
Date: 2009-04-02 17:29
I've known a few music students quite well, and they've all (as far as I can tell) done it for the love of music, not to get a job in an orchestra. Which for me is actually the point of higher education: the opportunity to pursue a discipline for its own sake.
Disclaimer: I'm a scientist... but I did it for the love of science. :-) My own career has been, therefore... mixed and interesting! I'm sure if I chose to do my science for the sake of money my career would have been quite different.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-04-02 17:30
Margaret wrote:
> I know of no such cases in the arts.
Sure you do ... most certainly every professional performer does not have an advanced degree!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: stevensfo
Date: 2009-04-02 17:30
- "There's plenty of entertainment now for people to enjoy at home --- why should they leave their houses, fight traffic, try to find parking, and pay cover charges and/or minimums to hear live music (which unfortunately is often of low quality)? " --
I have to -sadly- agree with this, though most music I've heard in restaurants has been fine.
But it certainly isn't a selling point for me. The fact is that, apart from perhaps teenagers, most people want to go to a restaurant to enjoy good food, be able to talk without having to raise their voice, relax, and generally to be left the *%*! alone.
Steve
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: USFBassClarinet
Date: 2009-04-02 18:14
Hello!
I am currently a music ed degree at the University of South Florida. I choose it as my first plan, not a back-up. I appreciate being able to read these posts and unfortunately I am already worrying about a job in the future. I've already done some teaching when I was in high school. As a junior and Senior I had control of the first band for a semester and got to conduct in one of the concerts.
but on the note of performance related things....
it has always seemed to me that a performer with enough motivation could find some kind of work in his or a nearby community.
My old teacher got tired of orchestra work, left it, and started a chamber group. He was no better than any other players around I don't think but seemed to still do quite well with whatever he choose to do.
I've also seen other go slightly out of the way to start offering private lessons in a musical community and live really well. That does breach across a little on the education side though.
Another group that was in my community got sponsered by a few different business and did weekly performances at the library while the business offered some weekend catering. They also did other small private performances during the week.
I haven't really come across a professional musicians who couldn't get a job if they put a little imagination and effort to what they wanted to do.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FrankM
Date: 2009-04-02 18:33
I’m a science teacher at a rural high school, and an avid amateur clarinet/sax player. Awhile back, there was a post on this site which gave the music for an audition for some major orchestra. Although I am well aware of my ( lack of) skills , I thought it would be fun/challenging to try some of the pieces.
I had the music lying on my desk when it was spotted by a friend who is a retired music teacher, and a first call reed guy in a nearby city. He laughed and asked me what I was doing with these tough excerpts. I said it was mainly curiosity. I said how incredibly difficult these parts were and how demanding the job of orchestral clarinet player would be. He said I have some news for you….. “in a nearby music conservatory, there are practice rooms full of clarinet students who can play these excerpts…..and they have no more realistic chance of occupying a major orchestral seat than you do “
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-02 18:45
One more thought.
There is an emerging specialty in music education/performance (at least in the USA) that is starting to get some attention but most conservatories have not yet addressed it.
The skill is in doing music outreach concerts and requires the performers to have some elementary knowledge of music education principles and the ability to work with both general education and music education professionals.
Having done this type of work in a major urban setting (Chicago Public Schools) I can assure you that there is a great need for this skill and that foundations are opening their purses to fund these programs since the public schools are cutting music education programs.
The only school that I know which is aggressively training musicians for this interesting type of work is the New England Conservatory. Other schools are paying it lip service, but the NEC is the only one I know of that has a real training program for this specialized type of work.
If you plan on freelancing in an urban area or to work for an orchestra that is in a rural area, chances are much of your work will revolve around the concept of outreach concerts.
You would do well to think about this venue when entering college if you choose to major in music performance but have doubts of your ability to find a seat in a full time orchestra.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: grenadilla428
Date: 2009-04-02 20:08
A big round of applause for ChorusGirl! I walk into too many classrooms and see too many teachers that seem miserable - just dragging their feet from day to day. I much dislike that adage as well and find it has no place in education.
USFBass - don't worry too much about getting the job yet. Florida is a very transient state... people come and go, so there are job openings every year. As a USF SOM alumna, I happen to know you have some excellent resources, namely Prof. Moorhead, Dr. Zilenski, Dr. Williams, and Dr. Weidrich. Sit in on rehearsals for ensembles you're not in and take notes. Crash Master Chorale rehearsals with Dr. Z and take notes. Ask Prof. Moorhead ahead of time if you can sit in on other students' lessons and take notes. I sometimes catch myself using techniques and phrases directly from Dr. Z, Weidrich, and Prof. Moorhead in my own teaching, and often applying advice I received from Dr. Williams.
For clarinet students looking to teach privately, learn piano! You don't have to be Lang Lang, but become competent enough to accompany easy to medium. You'll find this will open several income-generating opportunities on the side (think about it: solo & ensemble rolls around, a school needs a pianist to cover 8 or 9 sixth grade students at $30 each... nice income for a day), plus it will benefit your students when you can play passages with them in the studio. If you're in college, take piano classes or ask an undergrad piano major for cheap lessons.
:-)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ryan K
Date: 2009-04-02 20:22
I wanted to be a performance major in 10th grade, and was pretty committed after making all state band. Then I started reading posts on this BBoard, and evaluating myself. I began to question myself, and by the beginning of last year, I knew clarinet wasn't going to work out.
Now I'm either going to go to American Univeristy or Dickinson College for an Econ/Poli Sci Double major, and major/ minor in music for fun, to diversify my portfolio, to continue to enhance my thinking as it has all through highschool, and to just have fun.
Since I decided not to major in music, playing has become so much more fun. I practice more now, because theres no stress to it. I can twiddle, I can run scales, I can do Etudes, whatever I want. I get better, I'm still principal of my school's section, I made All State Band again, this year, as Senior, and I'm still passionate about the instrument. However, now I can appreciate the arts instead of trying to dominate them.
If more performance majors went into a field that provided financial sustainability, maybe symphonies would receive more private donations. Maybe we could increase arts advocacy, increase revenues, increase turnouts, and destroy the negative stigmata of "Up-Tight Lame Classical Music". That would, eventually, create more Orchestra jobs. Instead, we now have to close existing Opera companies, and have orchestras take pay cuts to survive.
We're simply attacking the problem wrong.
Ryan Karr
Dickinson College
Carlisle, PA
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-02 20:38
Hey guys and girls, a few of you missed my point, though most of you got it. I'm suggesting that you don't put all your eggs in one basket, that being playing in an orchestra for a living. I love it, it's a great way to earn a living, I won't change it for anything but only a very small fraction of students are going to make it. Maybe as little as one percent. Most of us in a major symphony don't retire for 30, 40 or as Drucker, 60 years. Our former second player was here for 52 years. I'm in my 47th year now with no intention of retiring any time soon. How many openings do you think there are each year? That's why I suggested making sure you're prepared to do something else in case you can't make it, and most can't. I listed several other opportunities including service bands, double majoring and music education to mention just few. I'm sure there are other things to do too but making a living at most of them that includes playing your clarinet is difficult at best. Our management team in the BSO is made up almost entirely of musicians that could not get a decent playing gig to make a living, so they went into music management. I'm not suggesting giving up your dream, just to be realistic about your chances of success of playing in a symphony orchestra, especially if you end up with tens of thousands of dollars in student loans to pay off. I'm not suggesting you give up the clarinet, just finding a way to make a living while you enjoy it. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2009-04-02 22:14
Ed, thanks for your message. In the past, in the days of mandatory retirement at age 65, I think there were many orchestras that forced musicians out at that age (with a very few exceptions). Universities used to force faculty members to retire at age 65 or 70 as well. I know this really wasn't right, but that's how it was. With mandatory retirement policies, though, I'm guessing that there were a few more jobs available for younger musicians. Ed, do you remember this practice, and was it done in Baltimore?
I spent many years in the public schools. A mandatory retirement age for teachers used to be the norm, but it's long gone. Still, public school teaching can be so stressful that most teachers retire before they're 65. In addition, many school districts, in order to save money, try various ways (sometimes nice and sometimes not so nice) to get older teachers to retire so that younger and cheaper teachers can be hired.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-02 22:50
Yes clarinetguy, they used to do mandatory retirement years ago here in Baltimore but not for a long time now. It was strange in orchestras because they would allow the conductor to remain way past 65, Eugene Ormandy for example in Philly yet they made all those musicians retire at 65. I'm glad that practice has changed, I would have had to retire by now and I'm no where ready to do that. Everyone says I look much younger then I am and I certainly don't act my age, when I do it will be time to retire. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Margaret
Date: 2009-04-03 00:44
Hello,
Mark Charette wrote:
"Margaret wrote:
> I know of no such cases in the arts.
Sure you do ... most certainly every professional performer does not have an advanced degree!"
I actually didn't know this. I guess, not being one, I never really thought about what they did or didn't have, I just enjoyed their music.
Even so, I think you're missing my point, which was simply that getting a degree or choosing a major should not be thought of solely with the end goal of getting a job.
Margaret
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Caroline Smale
Date: 2009-04-03 14:33
Jimmy Galway didn't even complete his studies at the Paris conservatoire so certainly never graduated. Didn't stop him getting principal flute in the Berlin Phil.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2009-04-03 14:51
Yes, but he had to beg to even get that audition.
Know the story?
Typically the best players aren't the ones with the fancy degrees, but are the ones who study with the top teachers. Not all the ones who study with the top teachers, just a fraction of those players.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2009-04-03 16:34
I agree very strongly with Ed P. While there are those geniuses who will easily rise above the pack, not everyone is in that league. It is important to be able to make a living, and with any luck, also be able to get some benefits (health insurance, retirement, etc) It seems that with each year, there are fewer and fewer gigs out there. It is great to have dreams, but there is also the reality of daily life that we all must deal with as well.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: William
Date: 2009-04-03 17:01
Ed said, "It seems that with each year, there are fewer and fewer gigs out there".
And jobs just became a bit more scarce here in my "neck of the woods" given that my orchestra just cancelled its final concert series for the season--the "Verdi Requiem"--and it's longtime tradional July 2nd & 4th concerts for "dwindling corporate donations and ticket sales". And now--"Just In"-- the orchestra board is askiing us if we would be willing to donate our servies for one or two concerts next season as well--or reduce the size of the ensemble to a chamber group with fewer concerts.
So, if you want to be a "professional" clarinetist, you had better plan on a "professional" day job as well and/or marry for money instead of love.
BTW, great artical by Ed P. in Clarinet Basics in the March publication of "The Clarinet". You're one of "our best" and we are lucky to have you on this BB.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GBK
Date: 2009-04-03 17:18
William wrote:
> And now--"Just In"-- the
> orchestra board is askiing us if we would be willing to donate
> our servies for one or two concerts next season as well--or
> reduce the size of the ensemble to a chamber group with fewer
> concerts.
As for jazz/big band gigs, potential clients now realize they are in the driver's seat and routinely make a lower offer for your services instead of just accepting your regular price.
Thus, if you or your band wants to play (and stay in the public eye) it certainly won't be for your regular fee.
As I've always told my students -
Music performance is a great hobby. You'll often play with fine musicians, meet wonderful people and have many fulfilling musical memories, but it's a terrible way to try and make a living.
And you can quote me...
...GBK
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DavidBlumberg
Date: 2009-04-03 17:32
"I agree very strongly with Ed P. While there are those geniuses who will easily rise above the pack, not everyone is in that league."
------------------------------------------
And there are plenty of those Geniuses who aren't playing full time or making a living out of just playing. It's still a numbers game no matter how good you are. Many prospective Performance Majors just don't have a clue about that, and the schools aren't preparing them for the reality of life and paying their bills.
http://www.SkypeClarinetLessons.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed
Date: 2009-04-03 18:00
As one of my teachers told me, it is likely that no matter what, you will end up teaching in some capacity- whether it be privately, schools, conservatory, etc
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-03 18:00
Remember that in the US, higher education is big business and music school deans get their raises based on year to year increased enrollment, rising SAT scores, and parent's ability to pay.
They are the last folks on the planet who will sit down with students and explain the realities of the music profession before they start their degree.
Why would they?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-03 19:06
Dileep, are you a music school dean? Do you have a source for anything you mentioned?
There was a study done by Yale University that found that elite schools with limited enrollment could grow their student bodies without sacrificing admission standards (in the case of Yale, the incoming freshman class could be doubled).
So why do music schools like Juilliard, CCM, CIM, Eastman, USC, et cetera limit their enrollment when, as you say, they are after more students for more money, and as Yale University has shown, there are many more qualified applicants in the admission pool?
BTW, I have taken numerous classes in music school that discuss the realities of the profession.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2009-04-03 19:30
Wow, interesting discussion. I studied with Mr. Gangolli as a nonmajor a number of years ago. Because I had already made the decision not to try to make my living playing music, we did not discuss these issues. I agree, though, that the economics of the situation for the dean are clear. Same for the professors, although in that case not having a student as a major doesn't necessarily mean not having them for a student at all. I did spend quite a bit of time talking about music as a career with my private teacher during high school. I think really that is where the discussion should be most direct and honest.
Now, I must say I would really like it if I got paid to play more often than I do. Even so, there are a lot of very talented musicians out there from all walks of life who want to make music. That is enough for me and enriches my life greatly.
Barb
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2009-04-03 19:34
By the way, I was a Spanish major, but I work at a music store and my Spanish is way rustier than my music. So, you never know what turns life will take.
Barb
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-03 19:39
Brycon,
1) No I am not a Dean of Music School or I would not have made such a statement.
2) To use Yale or any US Ivy League school as an example is not valid. The endowments of these schools are so large, that these schools, in many cases, are offering students from middle income families and lower (apprx $75K US) free rides, in small part to rid themselves of bad pr about how expensive higher education in the US has become. Anyway, few of these Ivy League schools have an undergraduate music performance degree so are not really relevant to this discussion.
Indeed, there are several leading business publications that are questioning the value of an expensive undergraduate degree in terms of its earnings potential over a lifetime with the American economy in decline.
3)Enrollment also has to do with other factors such as playing opportunities at the school, number of teachers on the faculty, the available financial aid pool, student housing, etc.
4) Not sure by what you mean in terms of qualified...does owning an instrument and having taken lessons for 7 years mean you are qualified? These schools do have some standard minimum...I'll give them that.
In my opinion, the US only needs 10 schools to offer a clarinet performance degree. The rest can offer music education or music business, etc. One could get a state school degree and then do graduate work at a conservatory in performance if desired and if accepted.
That does not mean you could not study clarinet at one of these other schools, only not be awarded a "performance degree" which most of us agree is worthless in terms of market value.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-03 20:29
Dileep,
To answer your last post:
1. I asked if you were a dean because if a) you are not a dean and b) you have no sources to verify what you have stated then I may conclude that you do not necessarily know what you are talking about.
2. I brought up the Yale study because, like Ivy League schools, elite music schools have very low acceptance rates (many below 10%). Furthermore, like Ivy League schools, elite music schools could accept more candidates from the applicant pool without sacrificing standards if they chose to (and if your post is accurate, desire to).
3. This was the point of my original post: acceptance practices are not dictated solely by monetary reasons, and most music school administrators are not guided by private interest.
4. I hope you do not really think that everyone who owns an instrument can get accepted into an elite music school.
I do not think that limiting the amount of performance degrees will do much besides presenting a slew of logistical problems.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-03 20:44
David,
Not just the NY Times.....check this out
http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/content/education/chi-0308-music_schools_fri_versimar08,0,7410459.story
But don't listen to me....I'm not a Dean....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-03 20:51
David,
We were talking about trends that have been established over a large period of time. Also, the article says that:
"The advantage is not across the board; it goes to the students at the margins, the ones who would probably be “maybes” when the admissions committee considered applications. Those students are less likely to get in if they are financially needy and more likely to get in if they can afford to pay."
I didn't see anywhere in the article where it said that poor students which should be granted admission have been replaced by rich students which should not be granted admission.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwife
Date: 2009-04-03 20:56
Dileep Gangolli wrote:
>Indeed, there are several leading business publications that are questioning the value of an expensive undergraduate degree in terms of its earnings potential over a lifetime with the American economy in decline.<
This issue, along with the fact that there are way more music performance graduates than the market will bear, both point to the fact that higher education isn't a particularly free market. However, things may be changing in today's economy from the prior status quo of high tuition and high debt loads for students. Young people will have to consider whether doing what it takes to attend an elite school for undergraduate is worth it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-03 21:04
Dileep,
I do not see anything in the article you posted that corroborates your claim that music school deans are guided by private interest. Also, this article refutes your proposal to limit the amount of performance degree granting music schools.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-03 22:34
Brycon,
Indeed, if you want physical proof of my claim, I admit that I have nothing in writing. However, I assure you, that colleges are run like businesses and deans have P&L's, enrollment numbers, and budgets. They also have to report to Provosts and Presidents.
To assume that because no dean has been quoted to validate my position doesn't make my position invalid.
Until proven otherwise, I will continue to believe that deans of most major music colleges in the US like to see year to year increasing enrollment despite the fact that few graduates will be able to make a career as performers.
Remember that earlier in this thread, I also stated that I do not believe that one should study a subject just with career goals in mind. That many subjects worthy of study such as philosophy, ethnic studies, Latin, etc. have no "career" value as such.
It's just that everyone studying these subjects goes into their program knowing full well that unless they choose to get their PhD and teach, they will be doing something else (for sure) than the subject for which they get awarded their degree.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2009-04-04 01:07
The real problem, as I see it, is that classical music is dying. No, it will never disappear, but audiences aren't exactly overwhelming.
I still remember a moment from a class back in the late 60s when I was in junior high in a middle class area. The vast majority of parents were college educated. I was a bit of an oddball among my peers because I enjoyed listening to classical music. I did listen to some of the popular music of the time, but if I had my choice, I'd listen to Mozart, Rossini, or Copland (I seem to recall them being my favorite composers back then). I didn't discuss my listening choices with many people, but one day in class
my classmates somehow learned about my music preferences. You should have seen the looks I got! I was suddenly the class pariah, but I stood my ground. When I got to high school, there were a few others who also enjoyed classical music (mostly a subgroup of the band, orchestra, and chorus students), but our numbers were quite small.
The problem is, quite simply, that classical music is perceived by the average person as music of dead guys who lived long ago. Why listen to that stuff when you can listen to new and improved music by people who are still alive, can appear on TV or in live concerts, and can sign autographs?
Where are the star composers when we need them? I'm thinking about composers who write good music that is appreciated by the general public. George Gershwin generated a lot of excitement among the general public in his day, but we have nobody like him anymore. Aaron Copland also was a public star when he wrote his ballets, and he was even popular enough to write a piano piece for Life Magazine in the early 60s. I think Barber's Adagio for Strings has a lot of appeal among the general public, as does much of the music of Leonard Bernstein. What else is there in all of the vast amount of music that was written in the 20th and early 21st centuries?
Sad to say, not much!
Unfortunately, those of us who have taught public school have to leave out a lot. We teach about Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Copland, and Gershwin, but we have to leave out most of what has been written in the last 60 years. Does anyone think we can tell children with a straight face, "Yes, this music that I'm going to play for you by Elliott Carter, Pierre Boulez, Charles Wuorinen, Karlheinz Stockhausen, and John Williams (his recent serious music) is great music that you'll really enjoy?" Yeah, right! I used to play some Hovhaness for my students, particularly his whale composition and his Mt. St. Helens Symphony, and the students enjoyed them. Other than Hovhaness, a composer much of the musical establishment never took seriously, what other composer of new classical compositions can you really try to hook new audiences with?
When I first heard and learned about twelve tone music, I thought it was all very strange. I still remember what my instructor said, "I have a young daughter, and I want her to have an open mind. That's why I've been playing twelve tone [and possibly other atonal] music for her every day so that she'll have an open mind." This was many years ago, and I wonder what this woman (who now must be about 40 years old) listens to now.
I think today's composition students and the composition professors who teach them need a serious wake up call. They need to hear the message loud and clear, "You are writing nice music that pleases yourselves and each other, but, would the average person see any merit in it? Would the average person really want to hear it? If you can't find some way to reach at least some people in the general public, you might as well find some other kind of work to do. With shrinking budgets, the day will come when the university you work for decides to eliminate your position and replace you with someone who teaches and does something more practical."
I don't mean to be critical of everyone. I'm sure that there is some great music with widespread audience appeal that is being written in universities, but it certainly isn't well-known.
Another problem is the whole royalty system. Yes, I don't think that composers should work for free. If their music is performed, they should be compensated. I'm far from an expert in this area, but I'm guessing that a lot of music is seldom or ever performed because orchestras can't afford or don't want to pay the royalties. I know that royalties are still being paid to the estates of composers who have been dead for many years. This is certainly quite an incentive for orchestras to avoid anything new, even if it does happen to be good music. As a result, classical music is perceived to be dead music of long-dead composers.
Post Edited (2009-04-04 01:08)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-04 13:57
USFbassclarinet said "I haven't really come across a professional musicians who couldn't get a job if they put a little imagination and effort to what they wanted to do." The only problem with that statement is he, or she, doesn't know all those that wanted to be professional musicians and were not able to make a living from it so they are doing something else. It's one thing to supplement one's living from performing, teaching or whatever, it's another thing entirely to be able to make a living from the same. That's the only point I'm making. I'm one of the few lucky ones that have made a decent living, not so much years ago doing what I always wanted to do, play in an orchestra and teach. Most students graduating from our music schools today, as before, will never be able to say that. As I said, you don't know those that are not making a living from music and had to change professions. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: BflatNH
Date: 2009-04-04 19:31
In terms of generating more public interest or even demand for the music we like to play, what do we think about people with both classical and more populist styles, e.g. Peter Schickeley (sp?), John Williams, 3 Tenors, ..... maybe even Wendy Carlos, etc.?
Would it be reasonable to get the public in and somehow get neo/pseudo classical music on their radar, and when they are at the performance, put in a couple of respectable pieces too?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2009-04-04 21:59
Lots on interesting points from clarinetguy...the whole royalty and copyright issue certainly is a contributing factor that makes modern music more pricey than out-of-copyright stuff.
I'm not quite sure "classical music is dying", but many interpreters of classical music help bury it, by virtually embalming a piece and sneer at occasional attempts to blow the dust off those works. (a sclerotic mindset like what the VPO is celebrating doesn't help the cause either, IMHO). When I think of "Rondo Veneziano" or André Rieu...their stuff certainly isn't my cup of tea, but they fill(ed) halls and stadiums with "easy listening" fans. Maybe it's just time for a new stage set, like when painters discovered perspective and stopped painting in 2D. Cravate Noire isn't the only possible attire to enjoy a good performance.
Maybe we need more popular events like the Traviata in our Railway Main Station last year...certainly more of a logistic challenge than just seating the performers and the audience onto their comfy chairs in the opera house.
(And besides, just because a work is from the 'classical' period and by a 'classical' composer doesn't automatically make it a good work)
--
Ben
Post Edited (2009-04-04 22:00)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DougR
Date: 2009-04-05 02:12
I've really enjoyed this thread, and agree with Ed's point about having a Plan B, or (per many posters) a LOT of Plan Bs.
But I'm wondering how those of you who teach handle the disconnect between a statistic that says "most of your students won't make it" versus a student's passion to shoot for (to use a tired cliche) the stars. I've known many people over the years who had dreams of performing careers (singers, dancers, musicians), and pursued their art as assiduously as you can imagine. And I've seen what happens to them. Some (the exceptionally talented AND lucky) make it on their own terms. Others, exceptionally talented but maybe not so lucky, or perhaps not as gifted in a job-sniffing-out sense, end up making lots of other choices (as I did myself, in response to that phenomenon known as "Life Happens") that may lead them pretty far astray from what they were originally shooting for. Is that a tragedy? Maybe, maybe not; depends on the student, doesn't it?
But there's a dirty little secret here that no one's mentioned yet, something I remember very well from my quasi-conservatory days: someone could have sat me down back then and given me the talk about "no jobs out there, blah blah blah," "so much competition, blah blah blah," "better get that computer degree, blah blah blah," and I would have been nodding soberly and agreeing with them, but INSIDE I would have been crossing every appendage possible and praying "but it won't happen to ME, it'll happen to those other guys, but not MEEEEE, I'm Special, (I hope!!!!)" And, in a way, that is every student's right (and a teacher's opportunity to help them with): the chance to take a clear, unfettered shot at [insert your dream here]. As Mr. Gangolli put it, above:
"There is plenty of time in the late 20's to adjust one's expectations to the realities of life. But one can never make up for time that should have been spent practicing and immersing one's self in the art of making music in the informative and developmentally important early years."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Brianj
Date: 2009-04-05 02:39
Every Army Band is short at least one clarinet player, most are short two. We are hiring.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-05 05:22
Clarinetguy,
How exactly will composers writing accessible works a la Gershwin, Copland, and Bernstein alleviate classical music's "dead guy" image?
I think education may be more beneficial to classical music than a composer's pandering. Unfortunately, in the current socio-economic climate, one cannot expect too much in the area of arts education.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2009-04-05 13:11
Tictactux and Brycon, you both bring up good points. Tictactux, I think you bring up an interesting idea about a new stage set. Perhaps another model might be based on what the cellist Matt Haimovitz has done during the last several years.
Regarding Gershwin: In his time, he was quite popular with the public, but he was not taken seriously by most of the classical music establishment. It's quite interesting, though, that Gershwin's music is still loved today and can still fill concert halls, while the "better" and more trained American composers of his time like Roger Sessions, Walter Piston, Virgil Thomson, and Roy Harris only receive occasional performances nowadays.
Regarding Copland: When he decided to write in a more "popular" style, a style that the masses could better understand in the late 30s, his career really took off. Copland was accused of pandering to the masses (I'm not quite sure if his critics used exactly these words), but he sure got a lot of performances--and still does--when he started writing "popular" scores like Fanfare for the Common Man, Lincoln Portrait, Billy the Kid, Rodeo, etc. His earlier, more severe works like the Symphonic Ode and the Short Symphony don't get a lot of performances today. Likewise, his later twelve tone compositions like Connotations and Inscape don't get a lot of performances today.
It's quite interesting that some of the most popular classical music today is coming from composers and artists that much of the musical establishment doesn't really take seriously. Examples: the amazing success of Paul McCartney's Liverpool Oratorio and Billy Joel's classical piano pieces, "Fantasies and Delusions."
Then, there are composers like Arvo Part, John Tavener, and Henryk Górecki. I'm not sure how history will judge these composers, but I think it's safe to say that they're a little out of the mainstream. Still, these composers write music that is popular with the public and sells well.
Brycon, good point about music education today. I was a music teacher for many years, and I am so sad to see all of the cuts that are being made (budgetary reasons and No Child Left Standing--oops, that should be No Child Left Behind).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-05 15:59
Clarinetguy,
I was trying to point out the humor in lamenting the "dead guy" image of classical music while using three dead guys as an example of how a composer's music could create a larger audience.
BTW, There have been several large Elliott Carter performances in NYC this year to celebrate his 100th birthday. All of these have been or nearly been sold out. So who knows?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-05 16:04
It is true about music education in America, sad but true. My wife is a retired instrumental music teacher, 31 years in Baltimore City. When she began teaching a great many elementary schools had instrumental music and they fed the middle schools, which in turn fed the high school programs. All of those programs have been cut drastically over the years. The BSO used to do many youth concerts for the city schools kids and now we hardly do any because there's no money to bus them in to the hall and not enough schools have a music program. Fortunately most of the surrounding counties have fared better. But it does seem that when school districts all around the country have to make cuts the arts, which of course include music, are the first things to go. This, despite that fact that study after study has proven that students that take music and art do better in math and science over and over again. The reason is that it teaches them to concentrate, critical thinking and use their imagination yet it's the first thing to go. Then of course there's the right wing members of congress always trying to reduce or eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts even though much of that tiny percentage of the national budget, and I mean tiny, goes to start up groups, grants or groups that actually employ people. It's a sad state of affairs. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2009-04-05 16:44
And to possibly balance Ed's last post:
Here in Huntsville Alabama, the Symphony has a program where they send out violin teachers to the schools to give EVERY third grader in the city 10 violin lessons, after which the students give a short performance on real instruments. This goes for the city of Huntsville and the surrounding areas and it is getting bigger every year.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-04-05 17:23
Ed Palanker wrote:
> This, despite that
> fact that study after study has proven that students that take
> music and art do better in math and science over and over
> again. The reason is that it teaches them to concentrate,
> critical thinking and use their imagination yet it's the first
> thing to go.
Dear Ed - be care not to conflate cause and effect. None of the studies to my knowledge have differentiated whether there is any correlation between studying/playing music (where music wasn't studied before) and increased math/science grades, only a correlation between those that already have good science/math grades and an aptitude for music. That is a huge distinction! In other words, people who are very able math and science students tend to be better than average music students. There is no back correlation in any of those studies that I have read, though, where better than average music students tend to be better than average math and science students.
The "Mozart Effect™", if any, is for a particular type of reasoning and has been shown in most studies to be a short-term effect. As I noted just now, it is a commercial entity and the term is trademarked. In other words - someone is making money out of an effect that the lay person most probably does not understand.
I might agree with your precept that a music education is very valuable, just not some of your specific reasons.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-04-05 17:43
Mark Charette wrote:
> There
> is no back correlation in any of those studies that I have
> read, though, where better than average music students tend to
> be better than average math and science students.
Perhaps this should be called the "Monk effect." 
"All musicians are subconsciously mathematicians."
--Thelonious Monk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Lelia Loban ★2017
Date: 2009-04-05 18:31
Another odd twist: being a good musician can land you a job that's got nothing to do with music. When my husband interviewed for his second serious, adult job after his post-graduate degree (JD, then LLM) the man who interviewed him noticed the violin hobby on the resume and asked about it. He asked in some detail. Quite a lot of detail. Knowledgable detail. What kind of music did Kevin play? With whom had he studied? The conversation went on and on, straying farther and farther from the expected subject of what the job entailed and why Kevin belonged there (or not).
Kevin not only got the job (and worked there until he retired after 28 years), but discovered the man who'd interviewed him was his new boss - and an accomplished pianist. Their careers moved in different directions as they played sonatas together for years.
Lelia
http://www.scoreexchange.com/profiles/Lelia_Loban
To hear the audio, click on the "Scorch Plug-In" box above the score.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-05 18:51
Lelia,
Nice story....shows why studying an instrument can lead to unexpected yet fortuitous outcomes.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-05 20:13
Man, I need to become a stagehand at Carnegie: 500k a year???
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-05 22:45
Thank you mrn! Mark and I probably read different studies but so be it.
Music and Art are still important to any society and civilization. That’s one of the things that make us different from the societies that don't respect arts in general. We are all the better to have symphony orchestra's, museums, theatre's and any other types of arts I left out. They should all be taught in school and made available and encouraged to all those that wish to take part. The public should support them in any and all ways possible. Otherwise there won't be any need for any symphony in the USA. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-04-05 23:05
Ed Palanker wrote:
> Thank you mrn! Mark and I probably read different studies but
> so be it.
I doubt it, but it's possible. Can you point me to what you read, Ed? I've been monitoring the studies since "The Mozart Effect" was popularized in 1993.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: brycon
Date: 2009-04-06 00:54
If arts advocates continue using higher math and science scores in the debate on curriculum, it is at the risk of arts education. Why would school boards increase funding for the arts for the purpose of improvement in math and science when they could simply increase funding directly to math and science? Arts advocates should address the intrinsic value of arts education rather than focus on any sort of "Mozart Effect."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Dileep Gangolli
Date: 2009-04-06 02:19
David,
Wonderful article by Mr. Dobrin but it opens a real can of worms in terms of the American orchestra business model.....only someone outside of the industry like Dobrin can point to the Emperors not wearing any clothes.
The idea of every major city in the US having a 52 week season is fiscally unreasonable and could only be functional in the prolonged bull market the US enjoyed from 1981- 2001.
While the major cities in the US may support their orchestra year round, most cities are not able to do it without running deficits on a regular basis. Indeed, it was not until the late 60's that even the Mighty Five of the US had 52-week seasons. Most musicians did something else during the interim summer months.
Much like other poorly run US industries (auto and airline come to mind) the AFM has run up the scales in many (mind you not all) orchestras to the point that the BOD only has the option of declaring bankruptcy and starting over. This has happened in Columbus, Charleston, Ft Worth Ballet, and Baltimore Opera, among others.
Other orchestras are making major concessions in their CBA.
Being a musician, I am all for a decent living wage but as in any industry, an arts organization has to be able to ride out the cyclical nature of business.
This again leads to the kernel of what this thread started to address.
If there are a limited number of 52 week jobs now, there will definitely be less in the next 10 years.
While that does not mean that talented students should not pursue a performance degree, it does mean that the vast majority of music students will either do something different than perform on their instrument for a living or they will do a combination of activities that allow for a musical life while providing for themselves and their families through a practical endeavor that can earn money.
Follow your bliss but perhaps wear a parachute on your back while doing so.....
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2009-04-06 05:40
Ed, I think perhaps I can help you out.
A number of studies have tried to prove that music is essential for brain development. Other studies have tried to prove that music education provides benefits in other subjects in addition to music. I'm not an expert in this type of research, but I'm guessing that some of the studies do have value. To be fair, I'm also guessing that some of them don't have much validity.
Having said this, I am impressed by the work of Dr. Howard Gardner with his theory of multiple intelligences (one is musical intelligence). I do recognize that Gardner has some harsh critics. Still, he is a serious scholar, a Ph.D. with serious academic credentials. After having taught (not just music) for over thirty years in a variety of settings, I'm strongly convinced that there is something to Gardner's theories.
I'm not sure if Gardner has a musical background, but he is a firm believer in music education. Here's a link to an article:
http://www.menc.org/resources/view/an-intelligence-view-of-music-education
If I had to provide a good answer as to why music education should be a part of the curriculum, I'd say that it is the responsibility of a school to provide children with a balanced/well-rounded education. No education would be complete without training in math, science, English (reading, public speaking, and writing), foreign language, social sciences, physical education, art, and music. Although each of these subjects is often taught separately, there is a lot of overlap. Knowledge of each of these subjects is helpful, and even necessary, to assist in the aquisition of others. If one is doing a biology lab, he/she must often draw what is seen under a microscope (that's where the art comes in handy). One cannot be successful in chemistry or physics without a strong foundation in math. A healthy body helps to ensure success in other classes, and that's where the phys. ed. comes in. Students who are assigned to read the novels of Mark Twain cannot fully appreciate them if they don't know the history of the United States in the 19th century. Likewise, listening to and performing the 1812 Overture is a wonderful way to supplement a lesson on Napoleon's march into Russia. Yankee Doodle and Chester--how can you really know the American Revolution without being familiar with these songs? Listening to and performing sprituals is one way to help teach the African-American experience. For a lesson about England in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, performing and/or listening to Elgar is almost a must. The study of sound is an important part of science courses, and knowledge of how a musical instrument works (from actually playing one and being in an environment where they are played) is extremely helpful.
Post Edited (2009-04-06 05:44)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-06 13:47
Sorry Mark, I don't remember the specifics of where or when. I know I've heard it on several occasions via several different mediums and forums. It's a little like global warming, we tend to believe the "expert" that we want to believe and discount those that we don't want to agree with. You may be right, I may be right, but we probably both agree that music should at least be offered to our children in our school system. In any case, there simply are not enough symphony jobs to employ all the students graduating from our music schools so students have to prepare themselves for that reality. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Mark Charette
Date: 2009-04-06 14:04
Ed Palanker wrote:
> Sorry Mark, I don't remember the specifics of where or when. I
> know I've heard it on several occasions via several different
> mediums and forums.
I know, it's off-subject, but we need to be sceptical when reading reports.
This is one of those "everyone knows" things where every reference seems to end up pointing to the same mis-reported information.
Every time you hear "studies have shown" on the TV or read that in the paper or online you should see red flags waving ... There's one ad right now for a breakfast cereal that says "studies have shown that children whose families eat together have higher grades" .
YYYYYYYYeeeeeesssssss. What does that mean? Does eating together lead to higher grades? Do higher grades lead to eating together? Is this just a ploy to sell more cereal? Is there any relevance at all (no cause or effect)? It's one of those things that sounds good (and I have nothing against families sitting down together for meals!) but this kind of statistical abuse goes on all the time, and few of us have the time - or inclination - to parse what they're really saying. It all sounds so ... authoritative ... and it appeals to our "common sense", so we take the implications as fact.
"Still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest ..."
- "The Boxer", Simon and Garfunkel.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: skygardener
Date: 2009-04-06 14:59
Just popping in for a comment...
Mark C.- "None of the studies to my knowledge have differentiated whether there is any correlation between studying/playing music (where music wasn't studied before) and increased math/science grades, only a correlation between those that already have good science/math grades and an aptitude for music. That is a huge distinction! In other words, people who are very able math and science students tend to be better than average music students. There is no back correlation in any of those studies that I have read, though, where better than average music students tend to be better than average math and science students."
--
I have also always found the "music causes genius" statement to be a little strange. I think of the correlation like this- Music requires a lot of concentration. Math/Science requires a lot of concentration. Thus, people that naturally have more mental ability will tend to do better at Math, Science, or Music. If they do Math AND Music then they will tend to excel at both.
What if we turn the coin over and then "music causes good math ability", could we say, "sports causes poor math ability"? [joke] ![[hot]](http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/smileys/hot.gif)
Post Edited (2009-04-06 15:01)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2009-04-06 15:51
Not that I consider myself an expert or a psychologist, but I have read one or two studies that show that musical ability is one ability which does not necessarily correalate with overall IQ. There are those who are extremely fine musicians who are no more than middling at most academic subjects and even struggle with some.
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-04-06 16:06
Truth is, we don't really need to see a study to know that music is highly mathematical and requires us to think in some of the same ways we do when studying math. Music involves everything from simple math concepts such as fractions to advanced concepts such as group theory and harmonic analysis (Fourier theory--a field that appears to have been possibly inspired by music). They may not be addressed as such in the context of music education, but studying music can give you a valuable intuitive understanding of these ideas so that when you do study them formally they are easier to grasp--at least that's my experience.
For example (and don't worry if you don't understand what this means--you'll still get my point by the end of the paragraph), there are theoretical limitations on one's ability to analyze mathematical functions in the time domain and frequency domain simultaneously at high levels of resolution (sounds daunting doesn't it). However, the concept doesn't sound so foreign when you can recognize the concept as a familiar one from music--if you trill fast enough, it doesn't matter if your trill note is out of tune, because the listener can't tell (because at fine time resolution, one's ability to discern different frequencies with high resolution diminishes).
One of my engineering professors from college--a very intelligent guy (he had helped design the very sophisticated radio uplink/downlink system used on the Apollo spacecraft)--used to talk about how much of the skill needed to work in mathematics involves the ability to translate concepts back and forth between symbolic notation (left-brain thinking) and abstract conceptual formulations (right-brain thinking). My own experience has shown this to be true. When you work on mathematics, you may visualize something for a while, then translate it into symbols, manipulate the symbols, translate it back into something you can picture in your mind, etc. The harder it is to do this translation, the harder the mathematics becomes.
Well, the truth is, this is the same thing you have to learn to do to be successful in music. Sheet music is a symbolic system and the ability to make a convincing performance hinges on your ability to translate the symbols into musically meaningful sounds in your mind, then translate those sounds into actions. Also, as in mathematics, you have to apply certain rules to the symbols to understand them and practice these rules until they become intuitive. For example, the rule that accidentals carry through a bar is like this.
Pattern recognition is also important--in higher mathematics much of what you do is recognize patterns where you can apply some kind of rule to prove a theorem. We develop that kind of pattern recognition when we do things like practice scales or learn to sight-read passages where you have to figure out which pinky key to use. Figuring out which rule to apply in a mathematical proof is not really all that different from figuring out which pinky to use when you're sight-reading--you develop a sort of intuition about it that enables you to make the right decision on the fly without having to think all that hard about it. You can only develop that kind of intuition (whether in mathematics or music) through practice. Music education teaches students how to practice, and, thus, how to acquire those sorts of intuitive skills.
Now I think brycon raised a really good point when he said that we have to value music education for its intrinsic benefits rather than on its supposed side effects on math/science ability, because otherwise why not just place more emphasis on math and science itself. That's a very logical argument.
Here's what I have to say about that, though. Once upon a time math educators actually did try to introduce more of the abstraction found in "higher math" to K-12 math--it became known as the "new math." The problem was that the "new math" proved to be so far removed from people's everyday reality and of such little immediate practical value that it quickly fell out of favor and everybody went back to starting with plain ol' arithmetic.
Music is different, though. Music requires abstract and symbolic reasoning, but does so in a way that makes the practical utility of that kind of reasoning more immediately apparent to the student. Music, because it is understood as an art form, can provide an additional level of motivation to the student to develop their mental abilities (including those that are necessary for success in math) that pure mathematics cannot. Music gives students a laboratory to familiarize themselves hands-on with ideas that the rest of the educational system seems to take an eternity to address. In other words, music can provide additional benefits to one's study of other disciplines that may be more difficult to achieve when studying those other disciplines alone--particularly if we are talking about younger students, who may not yet possess the requisite knowledge to apply these kinds of skills to other disciplines but can nonetheless develop these skills in the context of music.
I can also think of no other discipline in which the benefits of frequent and well-organized practice as a means of improvement are as well demonstrated to the student. To be good at anything requires practice, but in what other discipline do we spend so much time teaching students to think about *how to* practice and how to think introspectively about one's one methods and technique?
One of the key values of music education, as I see it, is that music is a great "unifier" subject, in that it requires you to think on many different levels simultaneously. A lot has been said about the connection between mathematics and music, but the truth is that music is much more than that. It's really at the crossroads of art, science, and kinesiology, and whatever progress you make in music enhances your abilities/knowledge in all three of these fields. For example, being primarily a science/math type, I credit much of my understanding of the arts to the perspective afforded me by participating in music.
Do I have a scientific study to back any of this stuff up? No. These are just my own observations from experience. But I also don't know of any scientific study that *disproves* my observations, either. And since they seem theoretically sound in light of my own experience (including the fact that 3 out of the 4 valedictorians at my high school when I was there were in band), I'm inclined to believe them. I won't go so far as to say "music causes genius" (as in some of the [IMHO overblown] claims you hear out there), but I do believe that participation in music has extrinsic benefits that complement or enhance one's abilities in other subjects.
I think I should add, though, that these studies that indicate some correlation between classical music listening and IQ test scores (the so-called "Mozart Effect") are much easier to conduct than would be a study to determine what actual benefits students derive from music education. Some of these things are not so easily quantifiable, and as Mark has correctly pointed out, correlation does not imply causation. We read a lot about studies like this not so much because they reliably describe the way the world works, but because these kinds of studies are easier to conduct objectively in a controlled setting than a more in-depth study would be. These "easy studies" are interesting and are useful in that they identify questions that should be more intensely studied, but at the same time you have to careful not read too much into them either. They may be the best objective information we have, but the objective information may not have that much value as compared to what we know from subjective experience.
I'd also like to add that (at least in my experience) the real value of music education comes not just from mere exposure to classical music (which was the premise of the "Mozart Effect") but in the skills necessarily acquired to be able to participate actively in music oneself (including not only performance skills, but also those associated with informed listening--that is, music listening that is informed by knowledge and critical thinking about music). So while mere exposure to music will not make anyone a genius, active participation in music (including performing and active listening) and in other arts, I believe not only to be excellent mental training, but to be an important part of a good education. So what I'm talking about is not the "Mozart Effect," but an entirely different phenomenon--one that needs its own name. That's part of the reason why I (with a little humor) referred to it as "the Monk Effect."
Post Edited (2009-04-07 02:42)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetwoman
Date: 2009-04-06 22:00
The truth is that few people make it. However, give it a shot. Remember that as Kalmen Opperman once said in a class all we have is ten fingers and some chops. If you don't do it someone else will. A lot of people talk the instrument, but few play it.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: jsc
Date: 2009-04-06 22:00
How about this...a music education offered in the elementary thru high school grades are programs that can persuade students from falling from the tracks. I grew up with other kids that were involved music through jr. high. Pianists, violinists, clarinet, flute, combinations of the aforementioned, and such. As they began to drop out of music, they became involved in less respectable activities like gangs. One is dead, others have been in and out of jail, and what have you. How about just saying it is one of the most positive activities out there that is getting little funding?
Having been a kid that could have taken a different route in life, I can now say that I make a living teaching high school music and hoping that my students and the students that have come across my program will continue on. This could be in the form of majoring in music or music related fields, playing in college and hopefully after college, or just appreciating music. As some of these people get into the real world and see problems with support for the arts, they may be in positions to help. Could be that they can donate money or time to a program.
I don't want to discredit any theories or such but let's look at some realities that can be seen and supported. If the kid never becomes a professional orchestral player, will they have wasted their time? No! They will be part of the small percentage of people with a college degree or two. They will show an employer that they succeeded at something. Some companies will see the degree and accept the person as a college graduate and higher them on the fact that they have an education. Also, the kid that involves him/herself in music (or other activities) will have less chance of getting into troubles than less involved kids.
Sorry, I get into my "from the streets survivor" mode sometimes. But from support at the younger levels of music making come future ensembles to perform with. Imagine those kids looking for an outlet as they get older and starting their own ensembles. I currently play in a couple of groups that have started in the last couple of years. Are they professional? No but they could lead to some paying gigs through networking.
Support your local school programs, please! Future principle players, hobbyists, and supporters of the arts may be lurking behind a school desk and haunting the playground.
Post Edited (2009-04-07 00:22)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ed Palanker
Date: 2009-04-07 00:35
Apparently we got off topic but it is an important subject.
Vanessa said "Not that I consider myself an expert or a psychologist, but I have read one or two studies that show that musical ability is one ability which does not necessarily correalate with overall IQ. There are those who are extremely fine musicians who are no more than middling at most academic subjects and even struggle with some." I totally agree, it speaks about me to a tee. Thanks god for spell check!
Anyway, whatever study you want to believe, learning music at a young age can only be a plus to a Childs education. It may not make a mathematical genius or a great scientist but if a child actually practices a few minutes each day and makes progress, learns the names of the notes and the rhythms it has to at least be beneficial, study or no study.
Like most people, I tend to believe what I want to believe and I believe the studies that I want to believe, though I must admit I am skeptical of all studies and never really believe any of them. ESP
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: mrn
Date: 2009-04-07 03:24
Ed Palanker wrote:
> Apparently we got off topic but it is an important subject.
I agree.
I apologize if I got a little carried away with writing about this (I write really fast and sometimes I lose track of how much I've written), but music ed. is kind of a big deal to me. I feel my life has been enriched in many ways because of the great music education I received growing up, and it angers me to see people treat arts education (but especially music) as a low priority.
When will they ever get it through their heads that arts education *promotes* and *incentivizes* learning and academic accomplishment rather than interfering with it??
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: reprise
Date: 2009-04-07 19:02
This is a great thread -- I hope it goes in the Keepers file.
And, I'm glad that Ed's students are getting the benefit of his pragmatic wisdom. I realized recently that when I was in music school (both undergrad and masters), career discussions really always seemed to center around orchestral positions -- lots of focus on excerpts, on what auditions would be like, etc. I don't really remember our professors ever talking much about alternatives --- with the exception of the option of going on for a Ph.D. and getting a faculty position. Also, I was at schools not located in major cities -- so the opportunities for freelance work and outside gigs was fairly limited.
Now as I'm playing seriously again (many years later, as I work in a completely unrelated field to make a living), I find myself wondering from time to time what my life would've looked like if our teachers had been more proactive in discussing with us the varieties of forms that music careers could take, the ways that many cobble together bits of teaching/performing/repair work/etc. to make a living. But it did seem that both teachers and students were very caught up in the orchestral musician model of success.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
