 The Clarinet BBoard
|
Author: rtmyth
Date: 2012-09-02 22:23
They currently are annually funded $388,000,000. How does this figure compare with the total of nonmilitary professional bands and orchestras? I have never seen such a figure. Thanks.
richard smith
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J Cohen
Date: 2012-09-03 01:34
Where did you get this number from?
If possible please provide a link.
If it is Walter Pincus of the Washington Post then don't bother.
He's had a obsession to eliminate military bands for several years.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2012-09-03 15:39
Google 'military band funding' and you will find a May 2012 article by Pincus, who is reporting what various members of congress are proposing.
From that article: "In a statement placed in the Congressional Record, McCollum said: “Over the past four years, taxpayers have spent $1.55 billion for the Pentagon’s 150 military bands and more than 5,000 full-time, professional military musicians.... At a time of fiscal crisis the Pentagon will have to get by spending only $200 million for their musical arsenal.”
The military has plans to spend $388 million on military bands in fiscal 2013 — roughly $10 million less than this year."
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2012-09-03 16:05
Take a look at this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geG4jHNu9ms
Why is any military band purchasing two new Buffet basset horns? Is there *one* work in the band literature that uses them (not counting the Strauss Serenades, which are chamber music works)?
I know some musicians in one of the major service bands, and they get all sorts of expensive instruments purchased for them, which they often use for jobs outside of the military.
Seems like it would be quite easy to cut a few million from this budget.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Bob Bernardo
Date: 2012-09-03 17:11
I think the Air Force has an orchestra. Not sure about the other branches. With an orchestra the basset horn could be needed and used. The military orchestra can perhaps have clarinet players performing solo's as part of getting promoted to a higher rank. This is very common. The Mozart Concerto has been performed many times and it may be nice to perform it with the basset.
When I got into the DC band the auditions consisted of orchestra music and orchestra sight reading. There wasn't any band music at the audition. I'm not saying that orchestra music is harder than band music. I actually find some band music harder to play than orchestra music for the auditions.
A basset horn really isn't needed, but these are professional groups so why not give them professional gear? Their jobs as proformers can often be heard all over the world when touring. The band I was in performed over 425 concerts a year, sometimes 2 or 3 concerts a day. The instruments were put through serious workouts, so having spares was a must. I carried 2, R-13's with me on the tours and 2 Selmer Mk 6 saxes. I was assigned to play the tenor. Most often you would have 2 or 3 rehearsals and you were off on a 3 or 4 week tour, sometimes overseas. It would suck to have a horn die without a spare.
2 basset horns doesn't seem like overkill to me. If one of them dies well the orchestras have spares. Because of playing so many concerts I should probably say WHEN a horn dies it's good to have spares.
After reading some of the posts I have to add that a lot of the musicians used their own horns as backups.
Although the reeds were free we often bought our own reeds because the reed supply ran out. When the band ordered reeds the shipment was sometimes delayed. The musicians also were assigned to do other work. I did the clarinet and sax repairs. There wasn't much free time. 60 hour weeks were common; no overtime pay.
We also had to qualify to carry 9mm hand guns and qualify for the M16's. In case of war the musicians had to be prepared. No we did not carry weapons, but if needed we were prepared. I was in the service in the 1970's and early 80's.
Not mentioned is how little musicians are paid. The DC bands go in at a higher rank, but the field band players start off at the bottom. They make about the same amount as people working at Burger King. It's bitch for the field bands that tour all over the place. Those bus seats and the C130 planes don't have nice wonderful seats. It's like like riding a horse for 8 hours! The seats are made of straps and you have to use ear plugs. 8 hours on a C130 sucks! I had the pleasure of going on 1 trip to the Azors. Not fun at all and it's very cold inside the plane. About 40 degrees or less.
Lastly we can't forget about how the bands bring a bit of happiness to the military folks overseas. I'm sure people deployed in battle enjoyed hearing a jazz band, a rock band, or even a concert band, perform for them in the middle of hell.
Designer of - Vintage 1940 Cicero Mouthpieces and the La Vecchia mouthpieces
Yamaha Artist 2015
Post Edited (2012-09-06 10:30)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-09-03 17:46
When I was in the West Point Band playing Eb contra, they got a piece with a BBb part. As a matter of course, they ordered a new Leblanc paperclip BBb contra to low C. They also got an R13 for each clarinetist.
That was around 1967, at the height of the Vietnam War, when the money gushed in. Budgets are tighter now, but I'm perfectly willing to believe that military bands (and the military in general) buy things they need only in theory and don't worry much about the price. (Remember the $640 toilet seat for the B-52.)
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2012-09-03 18:23
Any instrument or equipment purchased by a military band cannot be used outside of the military. I have never seen it done.
As one of the basset horn players in the youtube clip, I can say that those instruments are used for military purposes. Just because there isn't a lot of music available for the instrument does not limit its being used. The Army Band is filled with arrangers who will arrange for any instrumental ensemble.
Additionally, in the case of those bassets, the price paid for them was FAR less than what you would pay for them at WWBW, etc.
Yes, most bands have a budget that allows for top quality instruments. So what?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2012-09-03 20:01
DAVE wrote:
> Any instrument or equipment purchased by a military band cannot
> be used outside of the military. I have never seen it done.
I see it all the time. I could name names, but obviously that is inappropriate in a public forum.
>The Army Band is filled with arrangers who will arrange for any instrumental
> ensemble.
To my mind this is not a reasonable argument. They could just as easily arrange music without basset horns.
> Additionally, in the case of those bassets, the price paid for
> them was FAR less than what you would pay for them at WWBW,
> etc.
So, $10,000 instead of $14,000 (each)?
> Yes, most bands have a budget that allows for top quality
> instruments. So what?
The "what" is that every other professional musician has to pay for their own instruments, not to mention supplies and maintenance.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2012-09-03 22:01
Using your logic then, I suppose you might think it reasonable for other soldiers who are not musicians to pay for their equipment too like weapons, etc? What you are missing here is that a soldier in the Army is only a little like a civilian musician; we put our lives on the line all around the world and are trained like all the rest of the Army. So yes, that the Army provides equipment to accomplish our missions makes perfect sense.
People using military equipment for civilian jobs? Like I said. I've not seen it.
Maybe you should consider this: Sure, we get nice instruments, free reeds, free college (sorta), and countless other benefits, BUT we also go to places in the world that YOU would never go and some of us do not return. Your comments are perceived by this soldier as offensive. I'm done with this now.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2012-09-03 22:45
I don't see anyone in the big service bands putting their life on the line for anyone.
Sorry if this offends you.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2012-09-03 23:28
Tell that to the band members on convoys, yes the ones that get IEDs, on their way to entertain troops all over Afganistan. There is a lot you do not see.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2012-09-04 00:05
Please read my post carefully.
I said the big service bands, not the smaller groups, which I realize do go into combat situations.
I don't believe anyone from DC or New London ever had to deal with that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetfixer
Date: 2012-09-04 00:58
I'm speaking only as a person and not officially, but trust me, the USAF is deploying it's "big service bands."
rmk54, you are definitely off base! As a member of The USAF Band in DC, we definitely deploy people. If you think we don't, please ask the 50 plus members we have deployed over the last 6 years alone. Please, also don't hesitate to ask the 15 members who are currently preparing to deploy. We deploy everything from Max Impact, our rock band, Silver Wings, our country band, the Airmen of Note, members of the Singing Sergeants, Strolling Strings, Ceremonial Brass, Concert Band and also operational members who serve in admin positions in theater.
As for people using government instruments for personal gain...that is illegal and punishable under the UCMJ. All members of the USAF Band are briefed regarding the legality of this upon arrival. If they choose to disobey this, then it is their head.
Back to your thoughts on DC military musicians not putting their life on the line...I'd ask you to speak to members of our band, Max Impact who took rocket fire upon landing in Baghdad...were faced with IEDs and shoot on movement orders during a convoy and countless helicopter flights that took fire...and numerous mortar attacks on their home base for their months of deployment.
rmk54, please don't denigrate our service member's sacrifice and dedication to defending your right to enjoy freedom. I understand that you have a right to speak your mind, but you need to investigate your facts and make sure beyond a shadow of a doubt before making blanket statements.
DAVE...thanks for your service!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2012-09-04 01:18
Also keep in mind that focusing on instruments is the wrong way to assess anything. The vast majority of money spent goes towards salaries and other costs. Simply pretending that basset horns are the real culprit misses by a very large figure.
As far as instruments being paid for by the government, that is they way of everything in the military. There are plenty of reasons why you would not want people bringing in their own equipment for that type of work. Where the government owns equipment, they can control how it's used.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-09-04 08:50
I'd like to address the original posting. I've been "lucky" enough to get to a band just as it's budget is decimated. A typical band in the field can survive quite nicely on a budget of $200,000 a year. Keep in mind this includes ALL expenses for ALL travel in that year to include perdiem (roughly $60 per day per musician anywhere in the states), bus expenses ($1,500 on a typical gig out of the area, more for longer trips), and hotel costs (lodging). Now that initial number also includes ALL supplies for the year as well to include paper, pens, file folders, paper towels, toilet paper, tape, cleaning supplies............and musical instruments (with their related up-keep and ancilliary supplies such as reeds).
It seems everytime I get to a band the budget gets slashed to half or less of that $200,000 per year with the end result of the planned trips for that year being cut. This means that we are then only able to travel out and back in one day (just the local area) to play for the public.
How many of you live next to a military base with a band in residence?
If you don't, then chances are with more budget cuts you'd never see one outside of YOUTUBE.
I'm no accountant but it looks to me like we are still a bargain.
.......................Paul Aviles (Bagram Airbase, Afghanistan)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Ken Shaw ★2017
Date: 2012-09-04 13:00
rmk54 -
I VOLUNTEERED for the army in 1965 in order to get into the West Point Band. It was a three-year obligation. If I had let myself be drafted, it would have been two years. I gave up a year of my life in return for a "stabilized" assignment, meaning that you don't get moved around from base to base, and in particular to Vietnam at the height of the war.
You're damn right I didn't want to get shot at. I don't apologize to you or anyone else for that.
When you put YOUR life on the line, then you have the right to comment, but not until.
Ken Shaw
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-09-04 13:55
Let's not forget the tremendous amount these service bands do for the greater community. When I was a kid, my father would take me to the free West Point Band concerts at Ike Hall or Trophy Point. We'd go to every concert we could manage--as well as chamber music concerts, the Jazz Knights, and others.
I'm sure this sort of outreach isn't limited to the USMA.
These groups are a vital part of our musical heritage. Without them, many citizens, young and old, would never be able to hear live Big Band music, our nation's vast contribution to the concert and marching band repertoire, or any other number of styles, performed at a professional level. Far from being an accessory to our culture, the military bands are in many cases preserving it.
If you're a musician who thinks there should be more support for the arts, especially music, you should be thankful for the service bands.
And to any men and women reading this who are serving (Paul, DAVE, and anyone else), thank you for all you've given. It is deeply appreciated.
[Of course it doesn't mean I won't disagree with you guys in other threads...heh...but then you're protecting my right to do so, eh? Thanks again].
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2012-09-04 15:16
Is anyone on here employed by the American military bands? I know several people in Canada who are and they love it. But it's not for me. I'm just curious to know more about what it's like down south from a clarinetist's perspective.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-09-04 15:20
Here is another opinion which is going to raise some hackles -- a very narrow view from my little corner of the world:
I don't know about other parts of the country (or overseas), but here in the Washington DC area there are all kinds of musical groups to hear, available to anyone who is willing to fight the endless traffic and parking hassles to get there. This is also the home turf of many of the 'premier' service bands. Around here, if you want to hear good classical, concert band, or jazz big band music, you have many options. You can go hear one of the service bands for free (but really they're not free, of course --- their cost is spread out among all US taxpayers). Or you can hear one of the many fine professional, semi-pro or amateur groups, and probably pay money out of your pocket.
Either way, there is a cost. Personally and selfishly, as a local musician competing with the salaried military musicians for gigs, I'm no fan of the military groups, because here where I live the military musical groups do two things which hurt me personally: (1) They provide "free" (taxpayer-financed) concerts to audiences who might otherwise come to my concerts or gigs; and (2) their musicians often get hired to play gigs which otherwise I might have been hired to play (and did in fact get hired to play years ago before the military started to allow their musicians to play outside gigs).
This is just my parochial view as a DC-area resident and part-time musician. No offense is intended to anyone, and I have nothing but respect for the many military musicians I know personally and often work with.
Please don't tell me I don't appreciate the sacrifices and risks of being in the military. I spent five years in the US Navy, on a submarine, putting myself in harm's way much of the time and never once benefitting from the services of my musical 'colleagues'. While I was out doing my bit of national service, the service musicians might have been on Mars, for all I knew or cared.
Finally, if you don't think the military musicians aren't using their taxpayer-purchased horns on civilian jobs, then you're kidding yourself. I can't tell you how many times I've sat next to military bass clarinetists with their nice Buffet 1193s or Selmer 67s, or military saxophonists with their shiny Selmer Super Action 80s or Yanigisawas or whatever -- I'll bet you my next paycheck that most of them didn't buy those horns themselves.
The world is changing, and I feel that service bands and orchestras are about as relevant and necessary as cassette tapes in today's world. I'll side with Walter Pincus on this one.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2012-09-04 15:22
David I don't know that what you said makes sense. That could pretty much apply to any competing musician. Why not try and collaborate with them? We all work together here, though I do teach music as a civilian sometimes at the base camp so I'm SORT of involved (not really).
If it's really that bad I'd say: if you can't beat 'em.... join 'em! Why not if the opportunities are so great?
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Nessie1
Date: 2012-09-04 16:24
Just a couple of thoughts -
David, isn't it possible that some audience members who start out going to the free concerts by the military musicians may get the taste for it and start going to your chargeable ones later?
In terms of instruments, would you not expect the musicians in top national bands to have quality instruments supplied and, once they have been invested in, shouldn't those instruments be used? Surely it would be worse if the instruments were purchased and then rarely played. If they get used for private work sometimes call it part of the musician gaining experience and building up repertoire.
Vanessa.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-09-04 17:14
Sean, I do collaborate with the service guys, we play in many groups together. And as far as opportunities, here in DC there are far more competent players than there are opportunities, partly because of the presence of the service musicians. Anybody who lives and plays in the DC area can tell you about their orchestra concerts when the musicians outnumbered the audience, because it happens every day. And you can count the number of jazz clubs from twenty years ago that are still around today on exactly zero fingers, because clubs can't stay in business any more.
I'm just saying, let the service players get their gigs on their own merits, and let them pay for their horns (when used for civilian gigs) out of their own pockets. Although conceptually I believe in labor unions, I don't believe that unions are right to demand that their particular industries be propped up by artificial price supports, subsidies or other means. I'm asking for a "level playing field" in the musical world too. I'm more than happy to compete with the service guys for the paid gigs (and I often do), but to make things really fair, the Army Orchestra (for example) should have to meet its own budget via ticket sales or whatever, just like civilian orchestras do.
Vanessa, please read "clarinetfixer"s post above. Are government-owned automobiles allowed to be used for private transportation? I think not. By the same reasoning government-owned musical instruments should not be used for personal gain by those people entrusted with them in their taxpayer-financed work. If a service-owned instrument is "rarely played" (e.g. the basset horn example) then it shouldn't have been purchased in the first place. A service musician's regular instrument (e.g. Bb clarinet) is used regularly, and to make it last a while before needing replacement it should NOT be used outside the work environment.
We can argue all day about the 'trickle-down' effects of military music, or possible benefits to morale or whatever, but such things are very subjective and impossible to quantify. With the budget crisis we face here and worldwide, everyone has an obligation (like it or not) to justify his/her position and demonstrate the value of his/her work. The U.S. defense budget is going to be cut, there's little doubt of that. Military music needs to be cut with it. Share the pain.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2012-09-04 17:28
So you're saying that publicly-funded concerts that nobody goes to eat into your potential audience? Hmmm...
Sorry, I just don't really get your point here. People must go to shows in DC, it's a big city with some great stuff going on.
Is this really a problem with the military bands or an issue with live classical/jazz concert attendance in general?
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-09-04 17:44
Sean, I can't tell you how well-attended the publicly-funded concerts are, because I don't attend them myself. I'm saying that the CIVILIAN concerts are often poorly attended. Heck, why should a local pay twenty bucks to hear my orchestra or big band play when they can hear the Air Force Orchestra or the Army Blues for free? And do you think I should just quietly accept that, and pay taxes to support my 'competition', and pay for their top-quality instruments, and not be upset that a military player gets 'the call' when an orchestra needs a sub or specialty instrument because he/she has Instant Credentials (even though I might be the better player, as sometimes happens?). Yeah, I'm bitter all right.
But your point is well taken about the larger issue of live classical/jazz music attendance in general. That situation is exacerbated (from my standpoint) by the large number of taxpayer-funded military musicians in my area. More players, fewer listeners.
As far as people going to shows and such, this is a huge metropolitan area and I'd be willing to bet that, in percentage terms, concert-going is far less popular than in many other metropolitan areas around the country.
Here's a data point: We're down to one full-time classical music radio station (publicly funded, and frankly their selection of repertoire mostly stinks), and zero full-time jazz stations. I can go to just about any other medium to large city in the US and find more music on the air. Maybe not a relevant point, but it sure adds to my frustration living here!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-09-04 17:48
David wrote (in very small part):
"...the Army Orchestra (for example) should have to meet its own budget via ticket sales or whatever, just like civilian orchestras do."
This makes absolutely no sense. Civilian orchestras don't have to go through basic training or deploy. They also don't exist for the morale of the troops, or to serve at state functions. It's akin to saying the Air Force should meet their costs in the same way the airline industry does.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: rmk54
Date: 2012-09-04 18:00
@Ken Shaw:
What the hell are you raving about??
I *never* questioned anyone's reasons for joining any part of the armed forces.
Are you trying to bait me into a political argument?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-09-04 18:02
As pointed out above, the 'premier' service bands rarely deploy. When they do, I absolutely agree that all their expenses should be paid for that. As for serving at state functions, then the 'state function' should pay the band as they might pay me to play, say, a wedding reception or corporate event.
As for the morale of the troops....$388 million worth? Give me a break.
The military exists to defend the country. To fight. Not to compete with civilians for the public's entertainment dollars. Not to subsidize artists who would otherwise have to scrabble for gigs with the rest of us. The more you defend the military orchestras and bands, the more I'm convinced that they shouldn't even exist.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-09-04 18:37
"The military exists to defend the country. To fight. Not to compete with civilians for the public's entertainment dollars. Not to subsidize artists who would otherwise have to scrabble for gigs with the rest of us."
Actually, they did scrabble for those gigs like the rest of us. You're free to take the auditions yourself. But aren't you the guy who keeps reminding us you don't have the talent to play professionally? I'm not saying this belittle you, David: you say it all the time here. You have to admit your ranting sounds very odd in that context.
As for the military existing 'to fight' only, this is a tad reductive. Troops have to eat too: should chefs be furious that the military hires its own cooks? Should soldiers have to "find their own food" like the rest of us? I think this has hit a raw nerve with you, David, but you might try to be a bit more reasonable here. Competition exists in any major market. Perhaps yours comes from the military bands, primarily. You'd find in NYC or LA that a wave of highly qualified and underemployed studio musicians would probably squeeze you out there too. And even in the rural Midwest, you'll find that grad students at big universities get "the call" more often than scrambling part-timers.
The military bands make it possible for some of us to remain full time professional musicians--and they do good work. They probably will have to endure cuts, as everyone else. Good luck to you, if and when you have less competition.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Sean.Perrin
Date: 2012-09-04 18:52
Ah sorry David, I thought you were saying that nobody goes to the military concerts so it's a waste that they are funded. I guess I misread. Sorry.
Founder and host of the Clarineat Podcast: http://www.clarineat.com
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-09-04 19:13
Eric, I'm not saying that military musicians haven't earned their positions (via auditions) -- they certainly have, and probably I wouldn't pass those auditions (as I suck at auditions in general), so more power to them. I have no beef with the quality, competence or dedication of my sisters and brothers in the military, personally. My points are that (a) with their taxpayer-enhanced advantages they should not be competing with me for CIVILIAN gigs; and (b) I simply don't believe there is much raison d'etre for military bands and orchestras in general, within what I see as the scope for our ARMED forces.
The military bands do indeed make it possible for their musicians to remain full-time professional musicians. So what? How would you like to pay extra taxes to subsidize me so that I can quit my day job and become a full-time professional musician or instrument tech? This country NEEDS soldiers and airmen and sailors and Marines to deter foreign aggression and to fight when needed. We do not NEED musicians to do that. This country NEEDS highways built, but nobody is saying that the Government is obligated to provide full-time employment for road construction crews. So what's your point?
And regarding competition: The studio musicians in LA are not taxpayer-funded; nor are grad students. Sure, competition is everywhere -- my beef is with the competition being funded by my tax money.
As for cooks in the military, they deploy and they fight with the rest of the soldiers. On our submarine, the cooks went to sea and did the same things the rest of us did. I don't recall seeing any musicians around. Maybe they were back in port playing a ceremony for the Admiral, but they sure didn't do anything for my morale or that of any of my shipmates.
Sean, no worries, these threads get pretty involved and it's easy to misread something (especially my brand of garble!).
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: tictactux ★2017
Date: 2012-09-04 19:20
> "The military exists to defend the country. To fight. Not to compete with
> civilians for the public's entertainment dollars. Not to subsidize artists who
> would otherwise have to scrabble for gigs with the rest of us."
That probably depends on how wide or narrow you define a military's job. The most narrow definiton wouldn't even include fighting - convincing an enemy not to attack you (whether because you're simply not interesting enough or because you're impossible to defeat is irrelevant) wouldn't even include fighting. A broader definition would be "if the taxpayers pay for those hundreds of thousands of service people, they might as well get something in return as long as we got some undeployed folks", and this would include Katrina cleanup, directing traffic during rush hour, and, yes, playing the fanfare at important peoples' funerals.
(I am not wilfully belittling anyone's role in here. I'm just illustrative)
As long as an army has the same status as any other publicly funded entity such as police departments or waterworks, i.e. an "normal" employer, you'll find yourself in a competitive situation, like it or not.
--
Ben
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Veldeb
Date: 2012-09-04 19:34
Hi Dave - long time no see! As one of the non-military band players in the DC area yes it is tough competing for audience when the miltary band concerts are "free" and they have access to much better venues - I do know that while they are issued government purchased clarinets, they do have the opportunity to purchase them before they are sold at GSA auction. For a time when I was at EPA we had a band that played at our award ceremonies, CFC rallies, holiday functions and we found out that as a federal agency we could get first dibs on surplus government property and acquired very good instruments - ultimately, we surplused them back to GSA where they were sold - I do encourage students and other looking for decent top of the line instruments to check out the GSA and sometimes DLA auctions. They do tend to get snatched up when they come up for auction.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2012-09-04 19:46
I'm often amused when people look at a figure like $388 million and go nuts without any context. The defense budget for 2013 is somewhere around $630 BILLION. That means that the military music budget is roughly 0.0005 of the total military budget. So, let's just keep that in mind.
Military musicians are used for things other than the sit-down concerts that David is taking aim at. Music is an integral part of ceremonies that go beyond just providing entertainment. For the DC bands, this invariably translates into funerals at Arlington Cemetery, among many other types of important ceremonies. Just going silent on many of those events is not considered a real option to many people.
And, of course, all of this is without even going into the sour grapes David is expressing. The DC-Baltimore area is one of the absolute best areas for freelance musicians in the country. That's reality. It has more groups active than should probably be the case, yet plenty of non-military musicians do just fine, especially relative to other areas of the country. If the DC bands are hurting this, I have yet to see evidence of that because the ecosystem is strong as it is.
Again, using military instruments on civilian gigs is a violation of ethics rules and shouldn't happen. I'm sure it does, but does that mean that the whole system doesn't make sense and they should buy their own instruments? David, you mentioned being in the military before. Would you care to list the mission-critical equipment that you paid for? As I mentioned above, it only makes sense that the bands buy their instruments because that is the way of the military. It's not an egalitarian situation where someone sits down and determines what's fair and equal to military musicians and civilian musicians. The military will do what it sees as best.
While we're on the topic of subsidies, I have another question for you, David. You are not a full-time musician. You work for the Aerospace Corporation, a "federally funded research and development center." You then use your free time to go out and find gigs. Can you explain to me the difference between you, living off federal dollars, finding additional work in your free time, and military musicians, living off federal funding, finding additional work in their free time?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-09-04 19:48
Mr. Spiegelthal,
As you are beginning to contradict yourself more and more, and undoubtedly teetering on your tight-rope, I am perhaps unneeded in this discussion. But I see something that need be pointed out...
You say that these musicians are benefiting from "taxpayer-enhanced advantages", no?
To what are you referring?
Surely it cannot be their instruments of the highest shiny quality...
Are you not the one that harps on and on here that you would place your old Bakelite and hard-rubber ancient clarinets up against any new instrument in a blind taste-test? Or your crystal mouthpieces against any far more lauded craftsman's work?
That being removed from the equation, I would be curious to know what advantages you are referring to.
Further, would you propose eliminating funding for the N.E.A. as some struggling artist may receive "taxpayer-funded assistance"? He/She may start treading on your turf as a result as well.
Perhaps you are being muscled out of gigs for reasons that you are not capable of perceiving....
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-09-04 19:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-09-04 20:23
"How would you like to pay extra taxes to subsidize me so that I can quit my day job and become a full-time professional musician or instrument tech?"
I'd be doing precisely that if you were a professional who had bothered to audition for and win one of those jobs--and I'd be fine with it (as I am fine with my tax dollars going to help support the musicians who are already there).
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-09-04 20:55
J.J., I think perhaps we differ on our definitions of "critical" missions. You're right that I did not personally pay for any portion of a nuclear-powered attack submarine, but our mission (to deter foreign countries from sending nuclear missiles into our cities) was just SLIGHTLY different than the military musician's mission -- I think you can agree with that. Furthermore, you're misunderstanding my complaint about the use of taxpayer-funded equipment, I'm only saying that they shouldn't use their military-supplied horns on outside (civilian) gigs, which is illegal anyway as has been pointed out.
Jason, regarding advantages the military players have, it's a subtle thing and maybe it's all in my head, but on a couple of occasions I have tried to audition for certain orchestras in town and been told that I wasn't needed because, when they need someone, those groups just call up one of the service bands to get a player. My gripe isn't that I auditioned for the spot and was beaten fair and square, it's that I wasn't even offered the opportunity to audition --- because I don't have the Certified Licensed Professional Military Musician stamp on my resume. The mere presence of these premiere service bands in the area has kept me from gaining entree to more than one group. Not a big deal, granted, but as you can see it's gotten under my skin just a little. So there's a bit more to it than the use of high-grade instruments.
Back to J.J.: If I were to use my "Aerospace Corporation" affiliation as a way of getting a musical gig over an equally-qualified "non-Aerospace" person, especially if I were to make use of my "Aerospace-provided bass clarinet" (yeah, right), then your point would be well taken. But I do neither. I earn my gigs purely on my merits as a performer, and using my own gear. If a military musician in town is playing by those same rules, then I don't have a problem with that. But the reality is, Mr. Air Force Concert Band is more likely to be given a gig in DC than I am, sans audition or any other vetting process, even if I'm willing to audition and (hypothetically) can demonstrate that I play better than the other guy. That's the perception issue we have to fight around here.
I'm sorry to have taken this thread off-course into a hatefest about me and my delusional gripes. Back on topic: Some of us feel that military musicians are a vital component of the armed forces in the U.S.; while others of us (myself included) disagree. I would opine that if a funeral needs to be played at Arlington Cemetery, then rather than keep a full-time band around 24/7 at the taxpayer's expense, call the Musician's Union local and hire some trumpet players to do the job, the way every other corporate or civic or private group does. If you want to boost the morale of our fighting military in a BIG way, then let's have Congress and our political parties show some leadership and cooperation to fix the real problems this country faces. This would be a lot more beneficial than paying musicians to play Sousa marches at a high school, I think.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2012-09-04 21:17
I didn't say "critical mission." I said "mission-critical" as in critical to the mission. I think that's the terminology they use. My point stands.
I agree that they shouldn't use their military horns on gigs. But we're talking public policy here, so what policy change are you suggesting. If it's just better enforcement of existing rules, then no point in making it an issue beyond the mention that it does happen.
As far as getting gigs based on status in the band, what would you have the military musician do? They're not hired because they go out campaigning that they're in a military band. They're hired because the fact that they ar ein one means that they are a solid bet by a contractor. There's nothing anyone can do to change that except ask the contractors to take greater risks (not going to happen) or tell the military people to not take any jobs. My point is that it hardly seems fair to ask them to do so just because they earned a great musical job with status attached.
Would anyone else like to tackle the image of a civilian group of musicians participating in a full-honors funeral? I've been to a few, and I'm not sure I can even put into words how different that would be.
Leadership and cooperation to fix the real problems of the country? With that money just swept out of the budget? Seems like a high cost for very little money in the grand, $600B to $10T scheme of things.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2012-09-04 21:38
Personally, I'm astounded at the vitriol this thread has achieved and question the motive of the original post. Why would any musicians not want funding for musicians, instruments, and the service these outstanding men and women provide?
Forest
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Buster
Date: 2012-09-04 21:41
David,
It is possible to have it both ways:
Rainbows and hopping-bunnies scampering around Congressmen hand holding across the aisle; all the while keeping in contact with the President over a rustic telephone constructed with 2 tin cans and a long piece of string.
-AND-
Abiding around 5 ten-thousandths of a % of the National Defense budget to maintain a military band structure. (And how much is that of the total Federal budget?... it approaches N divided by infinity.)
I strongly doubt the idealized Governmental co-operation will occur, though I do wish it would myself, as you do. But look at the amount spent in campaigns compared with the amount of funding spent on military bands.... Which is the better spent loot?
I have had friends that spent time across seas in Iraq and Afghanistan; both 'behind the lines' and in F.O.B.s. Any diversion was more than welcome whether it was David Feherety and his golfing buddies or a "military music group." Believe it or not, some of the troops actually feel pride in seeing a military band, if it only reminds them what they are there attempting to accomplish for us back here to have.
Further, my Grandfather, who survived malaria in North Africa, served under Patton, decommissioned Nazi officers after the war and had the pleasure of liberating and cleaning up the Concentration camps, while a staunch fiscally responsible Republican, was a supporter of Federally funded (taxpayer!) arts. (I'd think he "suffered" as much as you in your submarine.)
Oh yeah, as he was a Lt. Colonel I think he would have been eligible for a full military funeral; though it was not what he wished for.
I do wonder if he would have preferred a military musician over a union "trumpeter" if only for the tradition and pageantry of the lot he had chosen that route.
-Jason
Post Edited (2012-09-05 05:05)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2012-09-04 21:54
I spent 6 years in a D.C. band. I feel that the bands really set the tone for most every important government function that happens in D.C., whether it be the arrival of the Queen or the burial of a soldier. I played at the White House, Pentagon, Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, Vietnam Memorial, Capital Building, Washington Monument, Arlington Cemetery, Constitution Hall, and the Kennedy Center numerous times. I've played for virtually every important political figure in the world during the 80's, from Gorbachev to Princess Di.
Music has been a part of the military for thousands of years. The West Point Band was founded in the 1700's. Military bands' contributions to not just the military but the government and the country are immense and irreplaceable. Are you going to put a DJ at a military/retirement/change of command review (parade) doing remixes of Sousa? Really? How impressive is canned music going to be at the arrival ceremony for the King of Saudi Arabia, the President of Russia, or the Premier of China?
You do know that we pay farmers to NOT grow crops? We give billions in foreign aid to countries that sponsor and shield terrorists. We spend many billions on pork belly legislation each year doing things like building hundred million dollar bridges that go to places where no one lives or ever even visits. And you seriously want to start cuts with military bands? Given the cost of the bands v. the rest of the federal budget, the military bands may be a bargain and actually one of the few things that the government does well.
It seems odd that, on a musician's board, we have to discuss the value and contribution of live music, even in a military setting. You guys are musicians, right?
Post Edited (2012-09-05 14:50)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-09-05 00:10
"I could name names, but obviously that is inappropriate in a public forum."
If you do name names, I hope you start with your own--that's a lot better than taking anonymous (or semi-anonymous) sideswipes. Anyhow, I'm pretty sure I heard you in a Woodwind Quintet twenty years ago (dang how time flies).
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: andrewcsq
Date: 2012-09-05 02:04
I'm just an Asian kid not from the US (living on an island with 5 million people probably the size of any decent American city if you include its suburbs) so I'm gonna keep my opinions about the main issue to myself.
For argument's sake though, there are two noticeable imperfections in argumentation that have run as a trend throughout the thread.
The first is the use of analogies. While they are healthy illustrations, argument based purely or mainly on analogy is shaky, because at some point the analogy is different from the subject at hand. To give an example, there was something mentioned about soldiers buying their own guns / equipment earlier in the thread. This is disanalogous to being a military musician as your Yamaha 875EX or Buffet RC Prestige is easily used by musicians outside of their military work, without much way of tracking, Vis-a-Vis an M16 (or whatever is standard issue now) and its ammo, which would probably be noticed if it left base while the soldier was working for a private security gig. Example 2: chefs in military. It is unlikely that chefs are analogous because their military employment prevents them from taking on outside gigs (or at least severely limits that freedom) compared to military musicians. That latter argument pertaining to chefs also works when talking about soldiers and private gigs.
The point being: military musicians have a unique combination of freedoms compared to any other military job. As they should. So if there is to be a quarrel about them, it makes more logical sense not to try to bring the baggage (though it is very tempting to do so in an argument) from other occupations in the military beyond what is the common baseline (a chance they might get shot at IF deployed)
The second worrying imperfection is the numbers game that goes on. There seems to be two parallel metrics here. The first metric is some sort of percentage game where one side tries to diminish the weight of the primary topic ($$$ spent. Should spend less) by using small percentages of annual budgets to show hey it ain't that bad. Another side (most notably, though not the only one, being David) prefer to employ visceral anecdotes to show how even a small amount in % terms of the national budget can have pretty unpredictable and detrimental externalities. Until there is a bridge to this gap, this discussion will just remain an echo chamber. With both sides shouting louder to hear themselves better.
FWIW though, I come from a country where there is only one military band (and a small, small handful of other military music groups), and where the only other state funded or state-named jobs are 1st, 2nd and 3rd chair of the Singapore Symphony Orchestra. The military band doesnt really hold public non-ticket concerts. So for me the prospect of having a variety of military bands giving non-ticket (yes, I'm avoiding the word "free") concerts is a pretty inaccessible concept.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetfixer
Date: 2012-09-05 02:20
Dave,
To your comment about getting gigs...I think it all goes to networking. If the contractor goes to the principal and says, we need to hire someone who can do the gig and they say hire "Joe Smith" and he is a known commodity, he is hired. If you have personal relationships with some players and they feel strongly that you can handle the gig, then you may get the chance.
The military is not just used to fight. The military also holds a diplomatic mission. To give a brief example: a few years ago, we played a chamber gig at the USAF Chief of Staff's residence. In attendance was a very important person from a foreign government. The performance helped set the mood for the meeting and great progress was made.
After the evening was over, the Chief spoke to the musicians. He told them that they had done more to further national defense and diplomatic relations than they could ever imagine. He said that in a few months, or a year, he would pick up the phone to call that important person to ask a favor, or for some intelligence information. That person would remember the great evening he had and the demonstration of precision and excellence that was displayed that evening. The person would grant the favor, or information and a major victory would be had for the defense of the nation.
I don't think a nuclear sub could have done the same mission. Also, you'd never see musicians on a sub...why would you risk the detection of music by SONAR equipment.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetguy ★2017
Date: 2012-09-05 03:03
There's another interesting related topic, and I haven't seen it discussed here. Perhaps one of our current or former military band members will know more about it.
I seem to remember hearing once that the military bands do record, but they are prohibited by law from selling CDs or music downloads to the general public. Others, not associated with the military, are able to take these recordings and sell them to the public (I'm honestly not sure how this works, but perhaps one of our experts knows).
I wonder--and I honestly don't know the answer to this question--if the military bands would be able to generate much-needed revenue if they were permitted to sell directly to the general public. Would this be a good thing?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: clarinetfixer
Date: 2012-09-05 04:03
We can't sell them, as the taxpayers have already paid for them. Yes, Altissimo records swoops in and buys the rights to the pieces that were recorded. He then sells the cds. All of the musicians that appear on his companies cds are not compensated!!!! It's sad to see someone take advantage of the system like that.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J Cohen
Date: 2012-09-05 04:20
Wow.... I was the first reply to this post yesterday, I get back from an Air Force clarinet quartet gig and find 43 more replies!!
I won't bother with a lengthy post because I have to pack for a TDY of 3 more quartet gigs this week. In addition, now I have pull out those daggers stuck in my back from fellow clarinet players in this bboard.
A huge thank you to those of you who are supportive of US military musicians.
Dave Speigalthal: I play a Buffet 1193 in a regional Air Force Band and I play in several regional orchestras using my own 1193 paid for by my own money.
rmk54: Why would the Coast Guard Band at New London CT deploy? They are part of the Dept of Homeland Security, not Dept of Defense. If there is an issue at sea in another part of the world, the Navy handles it, not the Coast Guard.
I especially enjoy the argument that we need the "fairness police" to even the playing field for civilian gigs.
We all make choices early on in our careers and have to endure or enjoy the results of those decisions many years later. Complaining about people that made different choices than yourself appears petty and counter productive. This is not directed at anyone in particular.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Tom Puwalski
Date: 2012-09-05 13:59
Very interesting thread this is. There seems to be a lot of animosity to those who have what I feel are some of the best and the last musical gigs there are in the USA. I once remarked to a clarinetist in the National symphony on leaving a lesson, "I guess it's time for both of us to head to our government gigs" and did this open up a heated conversation. I was soon to retire from the U.S. Army Field Band and was starting to finnish my undergrad degree. The basis for my statement was that the National Symphony recieved more government money than the US. Army Field Band. At that time 1999 that was true. It might still be I don't know. The point being Neither the National Symphony or the Army Field Band or any other major Service band was making money of tickets sales from audiences.
Now a very similar thing that has plagued Symphony Orchestras are plaguing military bands. That is relivance! When my grandfather came ashore D-day plus 5 he was a member of an army band. He was part of Patton's "red ball express". They would guide the supply support trucks. When the last truck would pass the band truck with instruments would pick the guys up drive them to the frond of the convoy, when Patton;s army took a town, the band would form up and march through the town playing Stars and Stipes Forever, (something I had a chance to do 45 years later and was my proudest moment in uniform). In the evenening they would put the dance band together and play swing band music for the locals. They would play the music that was on the radio and was the current popular music of the day. This is something that no special military band can do right now. Show me the Military band that will perform "I've got Ho"s in various area codes" and I'll show you an ex- comander.
So the question is " Should the Government support music that isn't relevant to the society?" Be it orchestra or military band. Should art music be left to the free market? Free market or Free music?
One thing I know is, you can try to get same day tickets to Whicked on broadway and you problably won't be able to and when you do it will cost you minumum $150. It's a great show with awesome music and people will pay big money to see it. AND when the house looks like most Symphony Orchestra concerts do the show will close. Build it and they will come!
When I was still active duty I veiwed any money that the Governement spent on music as one less dollar spent on something that's going to kill somebody or do serious damage. Not a bad thing!
Before closing let me add that the Army sponsors and Bull riding team and a NASAR team. Where's the uproar? I bet nobody on the Pro Bull rider Bulletin board is complaining.
Tom Puwalski, Former principal clarinetist and Sr. Soloist with the U.S Army Field Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-09-05 14:50
A weird idea occurred to me yesterday, and I'd be interested in hearing peoples' thoughts on it:
In this country (the U.S.) there is a growing disparity between the majority of us and the rich/super-rich. It's been widely reported that the top 1% of Americans are getting stupid-rich (especially the Internet billionaires and grossly overpaid corporate CEOs) while the large middle class is sinking down into lower-class territory and the lower class gets even poorer. To me this seems analogous to the old feudal days, with some very well-off feudal lords and top clergyman, and everyone else being poor.
So.....what if we were to completely eliminate government funding for the arts, and like in the good 'ole Middle Ages/Renaissance periods, let the rich folks and churches fund everything? We could have a Bill Gates Symphony Orchestra, a Sergey Brin Philharmonic, an Elon Musk Orchestra, an Apple Conservatory of Music, a Mitt Romney Mormon Symphony, etc. Given the rapidly declining financial states of our current orchestras (see current posts on the BB for reports of two more American orchestras going down the tubes), and the difficulties that modern composers have in getting commissions and performances of their works under the current system -- heck, a return to the old ways can't be much worse than the current situation, and might actually work better.
Our friendly local billionaires and corporate CEOs can easily throw a few million bucks a year at their 'personal' orchestras and not even notice -- it would be chump change for them. They could be revered for their civic-mindedness and patronage of the arts (and be rewarded by having the groups named for them, thus feeding their egos), while the orchestras would once again have stable funding and the ability to hire and retain good musicians. Considering how much money our super-rich have, they wouldn't even need their groups to generate revenue, so concerts could be free to all!
And of course our no-longer-military musicians would have new outlets for their talents.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2012-09-05 15:06
The viewpoint that some share is that perhaps the military bands are being a bit too extravagant during times when everyone else is living a much "leaner" life than than before.
I know we would like to think that if one works hard enough in music they can achieve a great job in an orchestra or band where they can enjoy the utopian benefits of free top quality instrumental, all expenses paid for and beyond. But those particularly in service bands should be over. Nothing is ever free and the U.S. budget isn't unlimited. The money going to so say a set of brand new basset horns that will barely ever be played could go somewhere else where it is needed. Who tells the other service bands enduring major operational cuts and the single mother trying to find a job that their unemployment benefits are ending because there aren't any funds left? I wouldn't feel good about myself if I knew I was enjoying an extravagance while somewhere else suffers.
Does the way some of the military bands manage money need to change? Yes. They have to change. Extravagance because of proclaimed entitlement doesn't help support the bands. If anything it threatens the entire existence of these bands.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Paul Aviles
Date: 2012-09-05 16:52
I will be involved in a moment of extravagance in just a few hours. It's called "A Ramp Ceremony." Ramp, of course derived from the fact that the back of the C-130 or C-17 on which we load the body of fallen soldiers is actually a ramp. The "Ramp Ceremony" is our final send off to those who gave the last full measure for their country as they head home for the last time.
I wish you could ALL be here for that.
................Paul Aviles (Bagram Airbase Afghanistan)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: MarlboroughMan
Date: 2012-09-05 17:43
Paul Aviles,
Thank you for your service, and I'm deeply sorry guys like you have read some of the bitter, envious, and ridiculous things on this thread.
To everyone who currently serves or has served in a military band: Thank You and God Bless You.
As for the jealous amateurs and the bitter regional players who have nothing better to do than whine (you know who you are--and now many of the rest of us do too), I hope you get beyond your pettiness someday: it isn't helping anyone.
Eric
******************************
The Jazz Clarinet
http://thejazzclarinet.blogspot.com/
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: GeorgeL ★2017
Date: 2012-09-05 17:50
"The money going to a set of brand new basset horns that will barely ever be played could go somewhere else where it is needed."
Unless procurement has changed in the 50 years since I worked for an Army research lab, there is an obvious reason why those horns were purchased. At the end of the fiscal year a manager would come around and say, "We have $X left in our equipment budget; what do we need?" Someone would say, "how about a better oscilloscope for Joe?" And a new oscilloscope was purchased.
The non-technical term was 'use it or lose it.' Taxpayers may have lost in the exchange, but the office with the money rarely lost it. One reason was that if the money was not spent, the next year's budget would be lowered.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: JamesOrlandoGarcia
Date: 2012-09-05 18:25
Inquiry about how the military band budget does not automatically translate into an attack on the bands. Spending should always be examined and revised. Why do you think our country has a yearly budget plan approved by congress?
Name calling, overly emotional responses with a lack of coherent thought demonstrates an inability of some to articulate what they are trying to say. They are in turn really just embarrassing their organizations. I know many people in the military bands who could eloquently respond to such questions instead of just turning to harassement or bullying of those who ask the questions.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: J. J.
Date: 2012-09-05 19:49
But none of this conversation is actually dealing with facts. It's all anecdotal. Looking at one pair of basset horns and extrapolating from there is worthless.
What extravagance are we talking about with no actual data and hard numbers? Again, military pay is the biggest cost, not an instrument purchase order. If cuts come soon, they will not be primarily to parts of discretionary budgets. It will be to the numbers of people in the bands. People will lose jobs. That is the biggest cost to any military command.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: David Spiegelthal ★2017
Date: 2012-09-05 20:50
This is a very difficult issue for everyone, because it requires a cost/benefit analysis which balances costs (easily quantifiable as $) against benefits (subjective, intangible, and non-quantifiable things such as morale improvement, artistic enhancements to quality of life, sense of community, preservation of history and tradition, etc.). I would sure as heck hate to be the Congressional budget analyst who has to write some sort of rational recommendation on what to do here.
People will likely lose jobs, yes. Here at my company we cut more than 8% of the workforce earlier this year in anticipation of upcoming defense budget cuts. Fortunately for me I was one of the lucky employees who didn't get the axe this time. I've been laid off before, and it's no fun. But when it happens, you do what you have to do and bounce back. Any military musicians who lose their jobs will have to do the same.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Curinfinwe
Date: 2012-09-05 21:09
Another benefit of military bands that I didn't see brought up is that they do liaise with the public. At least here in Canada, the military is not abundantly visible to your ordinary civvy (civilian). I play in the Band of the Ceremonial Guard in Ottawa during the summers, and even though I'm only 20 in the past two years I've had the honour of playing for numerous dignitaries, both military and civilian, including an honour guard for Prince William and Kate Middleton when they toured Canada after their wedding last summer.
One thing we're constantly reminded of during inspection, rehearsal, etc. is that WE are the visible part of the military. We represent all the soldiers who don't have public duties, and often it is through us that the general public gets their opinion of the armed forces. After parades we sometimes get the chance to talk to civilians and while they're often clueless about the fact that yes, we are the military and yes, the military has a variety of roles, etc, we always answer their questions and they leave more knowledgeable than they came. I also know infantry soldiers who truly appreciate what we do as band to improve the military's public image. The Chief of Defence Staff himself often watches our parades and has thanked us in person after some events.
So, even though some people such as Dave Spiegelthal may not appreciate the military bands in and of themselves, it's hard to dispute the fact that a band is often the only part of the military a civvy will see and public opinion may in some cases rest on our shoulders. This summer we did a lot of public peacekeeping memorial and battle memorial gigs, such as the 70th anniversary of Dieppe, and when we played hymns during the wreath laying there were not very many dry eyes among the veterans in attendance. Somehow I doubt that a non-military band or "canned music" could have achieved that effect.
Perhaps the situation is different in the States, but at least here in Canada military bands are well-appreciated and important.
Just my two cents. I am a student who definitely benefits by playing part time in a military band, so view me as biased if you wish!
Edit: There have been some cuts to the Canadian military in the past few years, but my band has not been affected at all- in fact, our budget is healthier than it has been in years. So I wouldn't count on the bands being the first thing to go in cuts.
Post Edited (2012-09-05 21:17)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2012-09-05 23:38
Keep in mind too, our equipment (military band equipment) does get it's fair share of use and abuse. About three weekends ago we started a parade. Halfway through, it began to pour. Yes we were using greenlines, but all that rain doesn't help keep an instrument's longevity. I've played in 120+ degree weather. I've played in 17 degree weather. I've played in snow and rain. Yes it's a big budget, but our instruments are not necessarily shuttled back and forth and only played in a controlled indoor environment. Instruments, maces, baldrics, percussion equipment WILL need replacing every now and then.
Also, there are requirements from up high on certain instruments. I don't know why, but there are. Our band MUST maintain a certain amount of herald trumpets. I have YET to see a military band use a herald trumpet, but it maintains that we HAVE to have it.
Also, this budget isn't even all for "music". Certainly the majority of it is, but we need regular supplies as well. We need printers, ink, office desks, monitors for computers, lawnmowers to mow our half acre spot on base (yup, we mow our own lawn), safety equipment to wear while mowing, rifle cleaning kits, and yes this is nickel and dime stuff in the grand scheme of things, but don't make the mistake of thinking that the entire budget is only for clarinets. It's not. Hell, we even budget in toilet paper and soap and papertowels!!! Hope we don't run out too soon!!!
We do use what money we get, and it can certainly be enough, but like mentioned above, with trips and whatever else, it can get costly. It cost the army 2 grand to send me to clarinetfest. Did I have to go? No. Do I feel like I can make better choices as far as ordering equipment and ultimately put out a better product as a clarinetist after attending the various masterclasses and recitals? Yes.
We have a trip to support a unit coming up in Tennessee. The unit is VERY grateful to have the band there to add more to their ceremony and they'll be happy and proud to have said that they've had a ceremony with the band there. Let's see....2 nights at about 80 dollars per room with two people per room, about 50 dollars a day per person for food, getting a bus to take us there and back....well, it'll add up. And that's ONE ceremony.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: DAVE
Date: 2012-09-06 04:03
Adding to what Alexi said, in the Army band there is no union steward to enforce standards such as rehearsal lengths, overtime, and temperatures. Before the Army, a few degrees over and everything was shut down. HA! That's one thing that doesn't happen here. I've also played in a steady rain with the music getting soaked, puddling on the music stand. Freezing cold? We play. Hell, this Saturday I'm playing a gig at 6:00 in the morning!
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Jack Kissinger
Date: 2012-09-06 12:48
The mission statement for the U.S. Army bands is set forth in Army Regulation 220-90. You can find a copy here:
http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r220_90.pdf
Scroll down to Section 1-5 (page 7 of the document, p. 11 of the pdf file).
In summary, it states: "The mission of Army bands is to provide music throughout the spectrum of military operations to instill in our forces
the will to fight and win, foster the support of our citizens, and promote our national interests at home and abroad."
I suspect the mission statement is similar for the other branches.
The issue for me, and I suspect for most of the others in this thread who have some concerns about amounts budgeted for military music, is not with the validity of this mission or whether military musical units serve a useful purpose. Rather it's whether military leaders might not be more efficient in the way they go about performing the mission -- and, perhaps, the need for more cost/benefit analysis and accountability. I think taxpayers have a right to expect that those leaders use taxpayer dollars wisely. What constitutes wise (as opposed to frivolous) use will vary in the eyes of the beholder.
BTW, FWIW, the Naxos Music Library currently includes over 300 (301 to be exact ) recordings on the Altissimo label. These include at least 53 recordings of the Stars and Stripes Forever by bands ranging from the President's Own to the U.S. Coast Guard Band. Some are likely multiple pressings of the same performance included of different compilations.
Best regards,
jnk
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: msroboto
Date: 2012-09-09 14:33
Wow this is a lively thread.
Keep the military bands and orchestra's and musicians.
Love them!!!
For some reason a memory I have of the military playing at Reagan's funeral and I really felt like they were playing for Nancy. And it was pretty moving and no I don't think a civilian group would have had the same effect.
I have belonged to many a community band and though we did some concerts where we charged admission we did many things for free. In reality our audience were mostly our families so really no big deal I guess but others would come.
Did we hurt someone's chance of getting a gig?
Who cares? We were mostly just trying to play for people and keep up our skills.
So everyone keep making music and let the military musicians alone they do server our country more than you know.
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: Morrigan
Date: 2012-09-09 18:28
My take on this issue is that if it doesn't affect you and has nothing to do with you, what is your problem? Are you jealous of musicians like us earning our living from playing?
Fact is, it's not all playing. There's lots that isn't playing and I'm not going to go into detail here mostly because I don't feel I need to justify my job. I worked harder than my fellow musicians to get it which is why I passed the audition and many don't, I worked hard at my fitness to pass the fitness test when many don't, and I successfully completed basic training which is the toughest thing I've ever done in my life. I've earned my job and my place alongside my fellow military musicians.
Nobody here is responsible for budgets so why speculate?
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: ww.player
Date: 2012-09-09 21:14
I don't know why people have the idea that life as a military musician is easy. We were constantly subjected to conditions and rules not normally associated with the life of other musicians. Extreme weather, at times ridiculous hours, long tours, no leave during important jobs (I had to miss my brother's wedding), varying degrees of PT and PT tests, and more restrictive weight requirements than the rest of the military were just some of the "benefits".
Special bandsman was the only job in the military requiring a college degree that didn't include an officer's rank. We usually flew military, which meant in the jump seats of a C130. Many bandsmen outside of D.C. have to mop floors, clean toilets, mow lawns, and rake leaves on a regular basis. The Airborne Ranger band jumps from planes with their instruments fully assembled so they're ready to play as soon as they hit the ground.
And the music! Who goes into performance so they can play marches non-stop? I mean, I enjoy a good march as much as the next guy, but 6 in a row? And I must have played In the Mood 1,000 times and rehearsed it another 1,000.
Yes, there are some good parts; a regular paycheck, free medical and dental, and a housing allowance. Yes, they provided horns, reeds, and mouthpieces. However, I typically chose to use my own instruments on concerts for obvious reasons, they played better.
It's not an easy gig and certainly not for everyone. In some ways it beats scrambling for a living as a freelancer, but it's no symphony job. It involves a lot of hard work, sweat, and sacrifice.
I'm proud of what we accomplished. We made a difference. We provided a professional atmosphere while history was being made. We brought the proper level of respect and honor to those that were serving our country and especially to those that had paid the ultimate price for our freedom.
How do you place a price tag on that?
Post Edited (2012-09-09 23:26)
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: sfalexi
Date: 2012-09-09 22:06
Well said ww.player
Yup. Oh yeah. And I've been deployed twice. Working 6 and a half days a week each time deployed, except for the second deployment where the second half of the deployment I worked 12 hour shifts every day two weeks on, two weeks off ata gym cleaning gym equipment, mopping, restocking water, taking out trash, etc. and after that 12 hour shift I am expected to practice as the gigs STILL came in during that time.
But it's the job I prefer to do. Can't play stars and stripes enough times! And I march on the parade field at fort Jackson every Thursday for a basic trainee graduation. EVERY Thursday, no matter what, I'm out there listening to speeches and looking pretty. But the families of the basic trainees sure seem to appreciate that we're there by the response we get when we play. And for that, to me, it's worth it.
Alexi
US Army Japan Band
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: FDF
Date: 2012-09-09 23:32
Well said and well done. You guys deserve our support. I don't regret a dollar of the tax dollars I've paid that has gone to your service.
Forest
Honorably Discharged, 7th Infantry Division
Service on the DMZ, South Korea
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
Author: cpark
Date: 2012-09-10 01:43
In the original post rtmyth asks:
>"They currently are annually funded $388,000,000. How does this figure >compare with the total of nonmilitary professional bands and orchestras? I have >never seen such a figure. Thanks."
So far not a single person wanted to take a crack at answering the actual question?
I’d like to give it a shot but first I want to offer a disclaimer and get my opinion on record up front. This comparison is admittedly a bit silly but I think some attempt at gaining some perspective should be made before deciding how much is enough or too much. I’m of the personal opinion that in a perfect world no arts group- military or civilians- should be facing any cuts. I value music highly and believe what these bands and orchestras offer is important.
If we take the figures quoted in the news at face value we have 150 bands/5000 musicians operated on a budget of 388 million. This equals an average budget of 2.6 million per band per year and an average cost of 77,600 per musician per year. Some of this 77.6 thousand figure goes to pay the musician and the rest covers operational costs.
How does that compare to the average orchestra budget? If we take a look here: http://home.fuse.net/clymer/minor/orchbud.html
we can see the budgets of the top 69 orchestras in the US- some of this information is out of date, but for the purposed of this comparison I think it should be close enough. The cumulative budgets from these orchestras it 1.244 Billion. That’s an average cost of 18 million per orchestra per year. But wait- the top ten orchestras alone account for almost half the cost(591 million) of the other 59 so lets take them out of the mix. This still leaves us with an average cost per orchestra of 11 million.
TLDR-
Average yearly military band budget is 2.6m
Average yearly orchestra budget is between 11-18mm depending on which orchestras you want to count.
Chris
|
|
Reply To Message
|
|
The Clarinet Pages
|
 |
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
.jpg){kind=small}
