.

[tubanh84]

I should have taken my high school math teacher’s advice and played the tuba for enjoyment, and had a different career that put food on the table that I liked doing. I might still be playing if I did that.I haven’t played the tuba in a number of years because I played so much in university that I got sick of even looking at it. And I learned most of what I learned about teaching by doing it, not by sitting in a classroom and hearing what teaching was going to be like.

It's a double edged sword. I finished my performance degree and immediately went to law school. I had a number of people who I respected telling me I shouldn't, and I should take auditions and go for a masters, etc...And given who they were, I didn't take their implicit compliment lightly. But I had to take inventory of a lot of things. On the one had, I loved and still love music, passionately. It hurts that I didn't continue on in it, and I struggle to enjoy going to symphony concerts as a result. And this is almost 20 years on at this point. On the other hand, I did want stability that the audition circuit, adjunct professorships, and constant contract negotiations didn't provide.

As a player, I was always cognizant that I wasn't the technician that many others were. I would never win an audition that Bydlo was on. I'd never have the best VW concerto if you made us play back-to-back-to-back. I didn't have and still don't have a great high range, and I have literally zero endurance. But you put a Mahler, Bruckner, or Prokofiev symphony on the stand, and the ensemble would love me. So I did well in ensembles. Conductors loved what they heard. Always got call backs when I subbed for others. But I had to accept that I probably would never win an audition, for the frustrating reason that I couldn't do something that we were never really called to do as well as the top guys.

So anyway. I left music full time. I've had a decent time playing in local and community ensembles. But it's not completely satisfying. I have a good life outside of it, but it doesn't fill that specific void. I still make myself play to a high standard. I don't know why. But I do.

So I'm coming from the other side of it - I left music and wonder if I should have taught or found another way to stay in it. Never a right answer.

[bloke]

The remedial vs. advanced line is blurrier than the argument suggests: not every region has equal access to high-level private instruction before college, so the university may be the first place students get it.

This smacks of elitism, but I'm not looking for an argument.

[bloke]

The remedial vs. advanced line is blurrier than the argument suggests: not every region has equal access to high-level private instruction before college, so the university may be the first place students get it.

This itself somewhat smacks of regional elitism, but I'm not looking for an argument, and I'm pretty accustomed to the way people perceive the part of the country in which I have chosen to live (as well as being delighted that such a large percentage stereotypically view it as an undesirable place to relocate).

Going back to the more specific topic...
I always get widespread disagreement (with those who matriculated through the secondary instrumental emphasis music education degree in the past), because those who have been through music education programs like the way that they are structured (in that - during matriculation - they were able to fantasize and pretend to be a performance major, because they were required to take so much private studio instruction, to have a "major instrument", and be required to play a recital), but - retreating to reality - the secondary schools instrumental emphasis music education degree is really for someone (what else?) studying to become a band director. To have a "major instrument" - regardless of the fact that they played a single instrument in high school, doesn't feed well into those required qualifications (though it probably feeds the college marching bands fairly effectively). What such young adults actually need to do is to probably be able to play all the school band instruments at least at the 9th grade level, and to additionally know enough more about all of them to be able to teach them up to at least the (well) 12th grade level... and (as we all know, from brass class, woodwind class, percussion class, string class, and so on), only lip service is paid to all the instruments other than the "major" instrument.

As far as performance degrees are concerned, I (do we agree?) don't believe that state universities have any business being involved in adding to the cattle calls at all of the auditions for (a collapsing industry in America) symphony orchestras and military bands, as well as all of the out of work small combo musicians, particularly with your stated original purpose and motivation of establishing state universities (ie. training young adults to fill occupations in working class society as people are needed). In other words, it's not the obligation of struggling and hapless taxpayers to enable anyone-and-everyone to "see if they can fulfill their dreams", while those taxpayers themselves are simply trying to keep the lights on and keep gas in their cars.

off on one last tangent:
I hear so many people talk about the state university experience having changed from teaching people how to think to teaching people what to think (and mostly this is in reference to sociopolitical views), but the truth of the matter is that the purpose of state universities and public education has never been to teach the masses how to think, but to train them to follow instructions...
... Only the most elite of the elite schools direct any time and energy towards teaching their students how to think (or to teach those students how to eventually persuade others to follow their instructions ).

[bloke]

What responsibility does the university have in ensuring students are being trained in something useful?

I put this pic up in another thread, but will drop it in here as well. A recent pic of a large university tuba studio. A whole lot of people. Some will become band directors, some will wash out of music entirely, and I'd wager maybe 2 or 3 will end up playing for a living (most likely military field band or regional orchestra).

As you wonder: is this responsible recruiting, consdidering the job market?


539633618_24767613376178112_5595552379859478906_n.jpg

When my daughter was working on her performance degree at Eastman, the oboe professor was only allowing four students (and multiple dozens of students annually would flock into Dick Kilmer's studio, were he to allow it) into his studio each year. Most all of them ended up finding work playing or teaching the oboe somewhere, but he was concerned that allowing any more students into his studio than that would result in some of them spending all that money (it ain't cheap) for that conservatory experience, and then not finding work and that field.

[2nd tenor]

As a generalisation I note that far too many people are led to seek formal education at a higher level than is good for either them or the society in which they live in. The activity costs large sums, which have to be funded, and it doesn’t reliably lead to gains (financial, by the student) which would otherwise have not been made. That said I’m a strong supporter of part time studies in which a student follows a career path based on paid experience in the workplace supplemented by academic studies at some recognised college. The post school qualifications gained don’t have to be graduate level, they just need to be useful to student and employer.

When everyone does a degree its financial value is diluted. Unfortunately Universities have become large factories which generate profit - or at least financial turnover - from turning high volumes of school leavers into graduates in any subject that the youngster fancies. The link between employment and subject matter has been lost. There are exceptions, but as a general rule of thumb the only subjects worthy of student and tax payer support are those that employers also value enough to in some way support - ideally by paid work as you (also) learn.

To an extent I suspect that Universities were places that the rich sent their teenagers to associate with suitable people whilst they grew up. Now we’re in a situation where the masses do the same, but after they graduate the masses need to earn money and they don’t have a wealthy family to pay their University bills. The masses shouldn’t be attending Universities (they should instead be in gainful employment) and governments have been negligent in allowing this social change to happen.

When thinking of financially successful musicians one name that comes to mind is Acker Bilk, the Clarinetist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acker_Bilk
He didn’t study music at University but instead climbed up in his ‘industry’ via talent, determination and hard work with paying customers. He left school at about fourteen years old and didn’t really start playing until his early twenties, as far as I know he was mostly self taught - a fantastic rise from such humble beginnings.

[bloke]

Most people don't understand what national socialism is.
National socialism is obviously a list of things, but the most important thing about it is that it is when the government decides which industries are to be funded and which ones are not - even though there's still a semblance of private property in this system, though again heavily socialized because the government holds so much sway. When we hear terms used by talking heads on our televisions such as the government "picking winners and losers" or "corporate welfare", this is simply people avoiding using the word "fascism".

With the US centralized super funding of post high school education (which began not coincidentally around 1980 - for those who know US history) and built from there, we've witnessed reasonably modest but perfectly adequate physical architecture in state universities morph into buildings that more resemble palaces and luxurious shopping malls, as well as explosions in other ways, including all sorts of things with labels that are very difficult to guess what those things actually are. Money for college attendance became easy to obtain, but also soared to astronomical rates. I recall $150 a semester for full-time tuition at my state university which today would transfer to maybe a little under $1,000, and I can't imagine any state university today which only charges $1,000 for a semester of full-time tuition.

What has resulted is a remarkably high percentage of the American population that knows "about" things, but really doesn't have the skills to ~do~ things (with a few blue collar field exceptions, such as medical industry skills), while - at the same time - owing tremendous amounts of money for sitting around in classrooms in the early years of their adulthood - a time period in humans' lives which are typically the most energetic and potentially the most productive.

It seems to me that the most important thing for someone approaching adulthood and entering into the early stages of it is becoming skilled enough (with in-demand skills) to be able to get out of their own way (ie. fend for themselves). Once young adults can fend for themselves, I believe it should be on them to decide if they want to spend their own privately-earned money to learn "about" additional (sure: including esoteric and culture related) things. ie: The State: "We can loan you some money to learn how to hang sheetrock, run a milling machine, or even become a general practice medical doctor, but you're going to have to find funding for studying Mahler excerpts on your own, or via private sponsorship or totally private (not government underwritten) financing ."

[graybach]

What has resulted is a remarkably high percentage of the American population that knows "about" things, but really doesn't have the skills to ~do~ things (with a few blue collar field exceptions, such as medical industry skills), while - at the same time - owing tremendous amounts of money for sitting around in classrooms in the early years of their adulthood - a time period in humans' lives which are typically the most energetic and potentially the most productive.

Very true. At one point in my life, I spent two years at a technical college taking HVAC. That particular college would not hire a teacher unless they had minimum 10 years of experience in the field. It was a whole different ball game. These people that were teaching me had actually done exactly what they were teaching me how to do, and it made a lot of difference, not only in the way they taught it, but the degree to which we were prepared to do it when we finished. There was a tiny amount of sitting in a classroom and learning scientific theory, and a whole lot of being in the HVAC lab and out in the community actually working on HVAC equipment.

( @tubanh84 Would you be so kind as to tell me how you quoted only that part of my post in your reply above? I usually just quote the whole reply and erase what I don’t need. I googled how to do what you did on this type of board, phpBB, but the process that I found does not work here. Thanks.)

[gocsick]

@bloke you are missing that your tuition was heavily subsidized by the government...

If we take Ohio State as an example:

In 1960 the tuition or Ohio residents was $270 a year but they state directly subsidized that tuition to a tune of $852 making the total collected in tuition by the university $1122. Students paid less than 1/4 the tuition bill. In today's dollars that would be students paid $3,000 year but the state paid $9,300. In 1960 minimum wage was $1.00/hr.. so a student could work a minimum wage full time summer job and earn enough to cover their tuition bill.

Today tuition is $13,244 and the state contributes $6,544 so the total bill is $19,788 with the student responsible for 2/3 of the entire bill..

For OSU 1990 was the tipping point where students started to pay more than the state.. Declining state support for public universities lead directly to the revisions in US federal financial aid and student loans (1992 creation of the FAFSA and Stafford Federal Student Loans)... which made un-subsidized variable interest rate student loans insanely easy to obtain and almost impossible to discharge through bankruptcy or forgiveness.... saddling millennials and Gen Z with crippling debt (Thanks to the main architects of the policy Senator Joe Biden from Delaware, Ted Kennedy from MA and Nancy Kassebaum from KS).

If you went to college before the 1990s you benefited greatly from the Socialist Educational policies of the United States during the postwar era.... funded by a federeal and state wealth tax to boot (91% top federal income tax bracket over $400,000)

[bloke]

Assuming all those statistics are valid, it just seems to me as though the most heavy subsidies have shifted to the federal government through the so-called PELL grants (as the cost of receiving these experiences has become so astronomical that a huge percentage of applicants now qualify under the definition of "exceptional need") and federally underwritten loans, but they're still forcing taxpayers in all the states to fund not only folly fields of study (in their own but also all other states), but also the wilsonian sociopolitical brainwashing that goes along with it (our esteemed academician president having pointed out to us that the main purpose of higher education is to convince young men to abandon those values that their fathers instilled in them and embrace substitute values which are implanted into their minds via those institutions).

Of course there's also the grade inflation factor of which we're all aware (charts readily found on the internet), which show us that today's A or A+ is the equivalent of yesteryears' C or C+, which provides a safety net to academia so as very few students actually "flunk out". (The grade inflation thing is maybe one reasons I call my university of matriculation by its former name rather than its current name - "State University" vs. the "University of" trend. Again, I have a "summa cum laude" sticker - having graduated in 3 years, realizing I was wasting my time so I simply hurried through it - on my diploma, but a music education degree - or most any education degree - is such a ridiculously easy degree to obtain - and the fact that grade inflation was already well underway by the 1970s, that diploma - along with a few honor/award types of things - actually hangs over my solder bench covered with soot, to which customers of mine here will attest.)

current events related:
Minimizing the personnel in the federal Department of Education accomplished nothing, as far as the tremendous amount of money wasted. To my knowledge, it's elephantine budget (the burden that we all bear) is still the same...but perhaps some of those former bureaucrats could be retrained to be steamfitters, top of radio tower light bulb changers, and other useful things.

[BopEuph]

Let's get it back on track outside of the finances of education:

Jazz education programs were initially brought to middle/high schools by Stan Kenton, in an attempt to bring modern popular music to education. Problem is, music education is dismally slow in keeping up with the times. Say what you want about current music trends, but it would behoove education to include it because that's what would help create working musicians.

A moderately good tuba player might not have a great income if they stayed as an orchestral musician in a regional orchestra, but a guitarist at about the same level can clean up financially. It's the versatility that we should be teaching.

I started my major at FSU, and while there were tons of opportunities to learn more instruments, I was told on a daily basis to "just stick to euphonium, because you're so good at it, and you could be amazing!" I wonder which coffee shop I'd be working at if I listened to that advice?

I was a decent cellist in high school, and figured I could get secondary lessons when I made it to FSU. The cello professor scoffed at the idea, and said "my students ONLY play cello!" The bass professor caught wind of that and gave me open access to the school basses if I wanted to learn how to play bass. Once I started getting my footing, I transferred to UNF so that I could study jazz euphonium with Marc Dickman. While I didn't REALLY need to study specifically with a jazz euphonium professor, the smaller school meant I was needed much more on trombone and bass, which really helped my versatility.

STILL, it's still not easy to freelance on bass, tuba, and trombone. And, musicians in the live scene can be extremely cutthroat and get offended when you decide your phone isn't ringing enough so you decide to create your own product. I have to work twice as hard to make half the money of a standard 9-5er, it seems.

Still, I'm playing music.

[bloke]

It's a really interesting point that you make that jazz education was an attempt to modernize music education and keep it up with trends in music, yet institutionalized education and academia are so stifled, stifling, and just about as flexible as granite, that once that found its way in, it just (fairly quickly) became another stagnant musical educational object of the past (as are the Sousa-like instrumentation bands, which make up our high school bands today).

By the way, the Stan Kenton Orchestra came to Memphis when I was in high school, and we listened to them in the afternoon in one of the nicer newer high school auditoriums (50 years later, now considered a ghetto school) and then attended master classes with the individual musicians.
I'm an absolute nobody, but when I think about all of the historical things that bumped into me - or else I bumped into - during my life, I almost feel like Forrest Gump.

[2nd tenor]

A moderately good tuba player might not have a great income if they stayed as an orchestral musician in a regional orchestra, but a guitarist at about the same level can clean up financially. It's the versatility that we should be teaching.

I started my major at FSU, and while there were tons of opportunities to learn more instruments, I was told on a daily basis to "just stick to euphonium, because you're so good at it, and you could be amazing!" I wonder which coffee shop I'd be working at if I listened to that advice?

That’s about the core of it, a lot of teachers have little useful idea of what’s best for their students and maybe aren’t even interested … maybe busy securing their own future with full classes.

Excellence and expertise sometimes gives advantage within specific niche roles, but by definition niche is rare and sometimes sees very well qualified people reduced to doing the most menial of tasks to keep some income coming in. In contrast it’s my experience that whatever your line of work versatility can make a crucial difference in getting and keeping well paid work. I've done ok, but if I’d understood the (high) value of versatility earlier then I’d have made a few different choices which likely would have given better life and career outcomes. Whatever your line of work is a broad and complementary set of skills helps you complete your work and stay in employment.

You could be amazing . A friend of mine did well at languages and their school wanted them to study languages at a higher level - the school said you must study what you’ll be amazing at. Said friend fought the school and did sciences instead, it was a more difficult path for them but they ended up with a secure and very well paying career - better than being a PhD serving in a coffee shop .

Edit. ‘you must’ added in the paragraph above.

[Ted Cox]

This thread has wandered a bit off the topic of the post. ALL of it is great! Harvey knew how to talk to people. That may sound like a simple statement, but Harvey could talk to anyone - with respect! Over the past 21 years of teaching public classes - where anyone and everyone can participate, I've learned how to talk to anyone as well. When I was working in my orchestra, I would ask other musicians about themselves, their children. Not "shop talk".
Harvey would tell us our symphony gig could be whatever percentage of pay we wanted it to be. IF said job is half your income, then where does the other half come from? My wife and I started our own business in 2004, and it survives to this day. We both have music degrees - and together, we figured out how to run a small business. To this day, I credit Harvey for its success. In 2000, my wife and I started our own chamber music festival in Eastern Arizona. We ran that for four years, doubling our audience size each year. That success was also rooted in Harvey.
One day when I was his teaching assistant, I told Harvey I didn't feel like I was doing a very good job for him - that maybe I could do more. He told me to keep doing what I'm doing - which was setting an example to everyone else on all things related to practicing the instrument. Back in May, I had a student over (not my student) who was getting ready for an audition. My wife was out in the yard working, and when the student left, she said, "he doesn't know how to practice?" Much of the time we spent was teaching him how to practice. Harvey would tell us we should sound bad in the practice room. Meaning, we should be working on those things we don't do so well - NOT on the stuff we play well. Learn how to practice!
There is so much more, but those three things will take one far. F-A-I-L means, First Attempts In Learning. Fail fast - we don't learn through success - only failure. One more thing this morning, serving coffee at a business with a PhD in anything is NOT failure. It's honest!

[bloke]

One thing's for sure, Harvey was all about tuba.

[tubanh84]

Let's get it back on track outside of the finances of education:


A moderately good tuba player might not have a great income if they stayed as an orchestral musician in a regional orchestra, but a guitarist at about the same level can clean up financially. It's the versatility that we should be teaching.

I think there are two things at play here - versatility and available gigs. Piano players can find all sorts of varied performing, accompanying, and teaching gigs. Their instrument is widely sought after. A ballet company doesn't need a rehearsal tubist. A church doesn't need tuba player every week to get through hymns. There aren't 50 kids in any given town wanting to take tuba lessons from the age of 5.

You can be an amazing jazz tuba player, but you won't have a tenth of the gigs needing you as a pianist or guitar player would. When I was younger, I made my spending money playing bass. Even at 16, I was on time, dependable, laid down a good line, and because I had studied piano and tuba, I knew my theory, so I could figure out anything you put in front of me. I did churches, bars (shhh), jazz clubs, pits, the works. It wasn't a full time living, but as a high schooler I was doing just fine. I put it down when I went to college for tuba. Probably shouldn't have, but here we are.

[prodigal]

Speaking with my colleague at school today, we both wished we would have had more time on OTHER instruments rather than our primary one during undergrad.

I've learned a bit of cello and classical guitar as I've went due to teaching assignments, but you can't make up for time.

Future music teachers, PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE BE VERSATILE. Learn everything you CAN BEFORE you earn your degree, because teaching today is about 1/10 doing what you know and like to do.

Get a second verification area, special Ed will make you priceless.

[2nd tenor]

One more thing this morning, serving coffee at a business with a PhD in anything is NOT failure. It's honest!

Said friend fought the school and did sciences instead, it was a more difficult path for them but they ended up with a secure and very well paying career - better than being a PhD serving in a coffee shop

Perhaps my comment above was referred to. I can see why someone might say as Ted and particularly so if they have created and run a business themselves. If I had a PhD and involuntarily ended up serving coffee the I’d regard myself as having significantly failed to deliver the present experience that someone with the wit to earn a PhD should be having - it’d be a poor return on the time and money invested too. At the same time though serving coffee is honest toil and that would be some comfort in (what I’d consider to be) an otherwise dire situation. I’ve got good academic and professional qualifications but sometimes I’ve ended up doing menial stuff to get by, I’ve sometimes failed to capitalise on my qualifications but I still took pride in the honest labour I ended up doing.

YMMV but as far as I’m concerned failure and honesty aren’t always mutually exclusive terms.

Whatever, my comment above was meant to illustrate the importance of not automatically following on in what you’re good at - or told your good at - and in not automatically aiming for excellence or the highest qualifications, but instead of aiming to follow a happy career path in something which other people will pay you well to do. On excellence and the highest qualifications they’re nice to have, but when the chips are down those with the widest range of (usually complementary) skills and qualifications are the ones who either find or retain employment.

[bloke]

Good pay for a combo gig in the early 1980s was something like $85 for a sideman.
Today, a lot of combo gigs still pay sidemen $85 , or they're canceled because the venue found that - after a couple of weekly engagements - it really couldn't afford to pay three to five musicians $85 each.
Back in the 1970s, it wasn't that unusual for musicians to be paid $3,500 a year to play in per service orchestras. Adjusted for inflation, $3,500 in 1971 was about the equivalent of $30,000 today, which today is considered to be enough pay to be considered full-time orchestra pay.
Seriously, a large percentage of people who are playing for money today are actually playing - overwhelmingly - "for the love of it" whereby remuneration has become token.
The recording industry has become even more of a joke. Even pop headliners aren't receiving crap in revenue off of recordings, and if they didn't tour they wouldn't make any money at all.
Music performance just isn't much of any sort of a business anymore. It rarely has been. The reason why some of the symphony orchestra gods (that some of us remember from a half century ago) stuck around and played well into their old age did so, was because finally - around that time - they started actually making some halfway decent money. Before that and beginning again about 15 years after that, the money was never substantial. Musicians cling to their orchestra "positions" just as 16-year-olds wear their all-state patches on their band jackets. Indeed, most all orchestra musicians refer to having "won" their jobs.

Harvey Phillips helpful messages to young musicians were mostly delivered during that very short era of heightened performing musician prosperity - back when (albeit for a very small percentage of the population) there actually was a "music business". I lived through those times, and those were good times. I actually quit a major university teaching job, because I could see that - even after it would become full-time - it still wouldn't pay as much as I had been making freelancing. (Thus, I returned to freelancing.). Those times are gone.

"Being a novelist" (as an analogy) has never been any reliable sort of way to make a living, yet - within academia - people are paid full-time salaries (with benefits, summers off, and pensions) to teach barely-adults the art and craft of writing prose...but even those jobs - more and more (thankfully for the sake of struggling and hapless taxpayers) are becoming adjunct...
... I just recalled a little episode from at least 10 years ago (long before our recent economic shutdown and hyperinflational period)...

full-time college professor (speaking to me after a gig rehearsal) :
"How much would you charge to drive down to my university (three hours away - 6 hours round trip driving, plus gasoline) and do a talk and demonstration about musical instrument maintenance and maybe repairs that people might be able to undertake on their own?"

me: (after thinking for maybe 15 seconds)
"I don't know, maybe $300 (??)"
... thinking I was sort of offering a suggestion of a token remuneration

full-time college professor:
"Oh! We could never afford to pay that."

as of last year:
That same university's entire music department was shut down.

[prodigal]

Do a job that's easy for you that pays well. (Do as I say, not as I do.)

[Ted Cox]

R.O.I. - return on investment. At age 66 and having retired from my 45-year music career in May, I have much to say about this. Too much! As a symphony musician, primarily, I regarded myself as a "sound artist". My job was to make sound. I wasn't paid to lecture before the concerts about the composers and compositions. It was never my intention to teach - yet I'm still doing it 43 years later. One doesn't have to have a terminal degree to be a good teacher. I don't - and I am! For the last 22 plus years, I have barely taught music. Playing an instrument isn't that much different than learning a trade - plumbing, drywall, HVAC, framing, etc. Have you had to call a plumber lately? Are there terminal degrees for plumbers? What does school cost? How long will it take? What can I expect to make on the job? A lot of trade's people break off and start their own business after a few years. We'll always need plumbers - and the trade professions are experiencing shortages of new people into the business. We are not experiencing that problem in the music profession. How many DMA people do we need for the jobs we have available? What else can you do with a DMA in performance? Having an MBA, for example, opens a lot of potential opportunities in a variety of professions. Our economic future is bleak. School is crazy expensive. My first year of college cost about $600. Instruments are expensive. Student loans are a back breaking reality too many young students can't quite comprehend. Buying a house becomes out of reach - and for those who can, me included, it's the best investment one can make. Playing in a professional symphony orchestra isn't all sparkle ponies and rainbows - it can be a grind - a J. O. B. And having taught for 17 years in universities, that can also be a grind - not everyone is cut out to do that kind of work. I wasn't. IF there is anything else in your life you have a glimmer of passion about, consider following that passion before committing a whole lot of time, money, and energy with little guarantee of a return on your investment.