<p>Almost all professional musicians hold multiple jobs because any one of them does not pay all that much. Many teach at one level or another, some supplement with non-musical jobs.</p>
<p>If you truly are at the top of your profession, i.e. in one of the ten or twelve top paying orchestras, then you can make a decent living. Otherwise, you have to hope your partner has a decent day job.</p>
<p>Another from the Richmond Symphony:</p>
<p>SECOND OBOE/ENGLISH HORN (CORE POSITION)
Permanent full-time position to start September 10, 2006. 2005-2006 salary $32,874.56 38 - week season / 8 services per week. Includes full orchestra, chamber orchestra and woodwind ensemble. Health, dental and instrument insurance are available.</p>
<p>And yes, a "service" is an appearance at either a rehearsal or a performance, usually specified as lasting no more than 2.5 hours.</p>
<p>Here is an interesting link to the Oregon Symphony Players Association with the history of their recent labor contracts</p>
<p>Not to paint too bleak a picture, here is one with a bit more attractive salary:</p>
<p>St. Paul Chamber Orchestra
FRENCH HORN - Principal Horn
Resume Date - April 1, 2006
Audition Date - May 7 and 8, 2006
Starting Date - Beginning the 2006-07 Season
Salary/Benefits - 2006-07 34 week season, minimum annual salary is $63,950.</p>
<p>A link to a blog written by a BSO trombonist that should be required reading for all music majors interested in an orchestral career:</p>
<p>Thanks for that wonderful link, BassDad. I will certainly pass it along.</p>
<p>Random responses to various themes and variations on this thread. (Time difference means posts move fast while I sleep! :) )</p>
<p>None of this is news to us. We went in with eyes wide open to the chances, the options, the money. His teacher was very honest, and yet very encouraging. My S is doing everything in his power to "get" it. We have made a conscious decision to support him completely, because we see the effort and the dream and the passion and the possibilities. </p>
<p>He has put all his eggs in one basket. Chose a single instrument to focus on. A single major. Chose the very best school he could get into (and absolutely refused to consider any safeties - preferred a gap year if it came to that). Scours the web looking for competition and audition ops to prepare himself for job hunting, to hone his skills, and to receive objective feedback. (And, as it happens, to network, meet folks, become known....) Stayed at school over spring break to work extra hours at his work study, and to take as many gigs as possible, in order to buy himself a new instrument. He is extremely single-minded.</p>
<p>If, at any point, he would have been remotely interested in plumbing, or law, or anything else, we would have encouraged it. The only time I think anybody should major in music is if you absolutely can't imagine doing anything else. He has been told over and over that this is not about money. The slim chances require passion. The money requires love. </p>
<p>Speaking of which, $50/hour seems to be the standard rate he's been paid since high school for gigs. (Atlanta area, Germany, and New York. Perhaps it's different in smaller towns.) He made about $1000 over the 2-week break. </p>
<p>He is already, as a sophomore, thinking about what to do after graduation. He will take as many job auditions as he can find, including Europe, where there are more possibilities. If he gets nothing, he is also starting to consider what grad schools to apply to.</p>
<p>It's an expensive Process. Auditioning in itself is going to require hundreds of dollars in plane and hotel fees. School is expensive. Instruments are expensive (although he has chosen a relatively cheap instrument to play.) I was worried about the money at one point. So far it's worked out, with scholarships and such. When and if it gets to be too much, we'll have to make some tough decisions.</p>
<p>Back when he was making the decision to go forward with music, we discussed plan Bs. He acknowledged that there might be a need for one someday, but chose to not work simultaneously on Plan B because he wanted all his energies on Plan A. Again, this was made thoughtfully, and with our - eventual - support. We are practical people; it wasn't an easy or frivolous decision.</p>
<p>Some of the things on his Plan B: Composition (and/or publishing). Music critic. Full-time Teaching. (I think he expects to teach privately no matter what.)</p>
<p>On Plan A: soloist, orchestra member, freelance musician.</p>
<p>This is not to say we have no angst. We joke (or half-joke) frequently about him needing to find the right spouse! I am discouraged that the couple horns graduating from Juilliard this year have not yet found jobs. (Two did last year. The other 2 continued schooling.) S has a friend (BM from Juilliard, masters from Manhattan) who is working freelance in NYC, and apparently making enough to stay there. I doubt he's living in the lap of luxury.</p>
<p>I talk to S once every week or two, and always ask him if he "still likes it". The minute I sense he is becoming discouraged, disillusioned, tired of practicing, anything at all, I will know it's time to start thinking of options. So far, so good.</p>
<p>There's also a Plan C - which is to completely change careers altogether. He would not only have plenty of company with other music majors, but with a large number of other people, too! Including lawyers and plumbers. After all, Alan Greenspan went to Juilliard.</p>
<p>I'm sharing all this, for what it's worth, as an example of someone who has looked at the bleakness and chosen to go forward. I think the arguments to double major, or to keep it as a hobby, are valid ones, and every decision must be made individually, taking into consideration talent, passion, money, values, personalities, and so much more. These, however, are the same things that should be considered for any career. (I would also like to discourage any potential horn players out there .... so there are more ops for my kid. ;) ) (That was a joke.)</p>
<p>Whatever path your kid chooses, I wish him or her the very best of everything.</p>
<p>This thread is excessively depressing. Some of the "salaries" cited should not be a surprise. The orchestras in small cities and communities are not doing very well. Most of the jobs offer only a small base salary and often the health care benefits are financially the most attrative part of the compensation.</p>
<p>My D is very aware of the difficulties of making a career in classical music performance. Through her junior year in HS she was thinking of pre-med or going into the sciences, possibly physics. It was not until the Fall of senior year that she decided to audition because she needed to have music as a part of her life. Now she is doing a double degree and is still trying to decide on future careers which hopefully will be based on music. I am a scientist and very practical about careers, yet I have urged her to continue in music. If she decides not to complete a double degree, I would be happy if she focuses on music instead of academics. I am convinced there is something special about kids who train in music. Partly it is the love of what they are doing, the dedication and self discipline and the quest for excellence. But I think there is much more. There is a balance between competition and teamwork that is needed and re-inforced. I think the training changes how the brain works. You need to be alert and thinking fast to do well in an ensemble. There is clearly a strong connection between math ability and music. I suspect that the training re-inforces these abilities. </p>
<p>When my D was considering premed, I told her that if she wanted to go to medical school, her decision on college should be clear. She should get her UG degree in music. No way was she going to succeed in a competition with 1000's of bright, grade grubbing premeds who already had years of training in the sciences. Music majors have the highest success rate in medical school admissions (about 2/3 of music majors who apply are accepted vs. well less than 1/2 of the biology and premed students). In February I started a thread on the Value of Music Education. That thread is still active about 4 pages into the past threads of this forum. I posted some links which include data about the success of kids who train in music and also include some research about how music affects the brain and brain development. Even if she does not end up with a career in music performance and education is worth it. I would much rather see my D in music than anthropology, history, english lit, philosophy and general multi-disciplinary humanities.</p>
<p>The vast majority of kids who train in music will make their incomes doing something else. To return to the OP's original topic, I do know quite a few people who have successful music careers and some are recent graduates. I have a friend whose son plays trumpet. He was admitted to graduate studies at Eastman, but left to join a touring group doing musical shows. He is having a blast. He has been all over the world, living well and is saving about $20k/year. In this area, music teachers often have waiting lists and the base cost is $50 per 30 or 45 minute lessons. Established musicians get $200/hr. Jobs are available, but no doubt about it, it is a tough life and not easy to become established. What is easy and pays well? I guess plumbing. I don't think my D will be going that direction.</p>
<p>I had my son read this thread, and he just shrugged his shoulders. He isn't doing what he's doing for the money (although still believes that <em>he</em> will be one who will make plenty LOL!), but because there is nothing else that is as important to him. Music is the core of his being; it is what he lives to do. So, I guess it will all have to work out, one way or another, even if it means supporting himself doing something else during the day, so he can play at night.</p>
<p>BTW, I pay $90 an hour for his piano lessons, and $60 for his percussion lessons, so there is some money to be made in teaching, if that is the route people go.</p>
<p>Here's an excerpt about the 2005 Rochester NY Philharmonic Orchestra:</p>
<p>"Favorable financial conditions and a new strategic philosophy have allowed the Rochester Philharmonic Orchestra to sign a new extended contract with its musicians. The agreement ends two years of short-term contracts and concessions.. Over the next three years, the agreement will provide the players with staggered salary increases that will ultimately bring the base pay for full-time players up nearly 7 percent, from $36,100 to $38,610 by the 2007-08..."</p>
<p>Most professional musicians clearly patch together jobs. As RPO members, they command higher teacher pay; I pay $50/hour for their music teachers, but they make more because they are teaching through Eastman's community music school, and they have anywhere from 12 to 20 community students. One of them does sound-overs on TV ads and gets a nice check every time the ad plays. One heads up their church music (it's a huge church) and gets paid for that. One of them is on the collegiate staff at Eastman (part time I think). Various other gigs fill in the blanks.</p>
<p>Will they get super rich? Doubtful. Are they perfectly happy? Yes - they certainly seem to be. And both maintain decent lifestyles in dual income families. They are very happy to have an orchestra seat - most music performance majors will just never have the chance. (Perhaps the only ones guaranteed are Curtis grads.)</p>
<p>Why are Curtis grads guaranteed?</p>
<p>Curtis grads are in fact not guaranteed, but they tend to have a better shot than most. If you look at all of the full-time professional orchestras in the world, something like 15% of the musicians in them are affiliated with Curtis as either a student or a teacher. Not bad for a school that admits fewer than 40 kids a year.</p>
<p>Yes, Curtis certainly seems to improve the odds!</p>
<p>It is no small feat to get into and graduate from Curtis!</p>
<p>Curtis gives full tuition to those students it takes, making it an appealing option for just about everyone. Therefore, they tend to attract a large enough number to allow them to be extremely picky. They admit only enough orchestral instrument students to staff a single orchestra -- which means, for instance, only a handful of horns. If no horn is graduating that year, then no horn is accepted. </p>
<p>That process of high supply and low demand means that Curtis can enjoy a strong and unshakable reputation of admitting strong students and taking them to the next level. That reputation certainly helps Curtis grads, especially in terms of getting "invited" to auditions, being offered teaching positions, etc. </p>
<p>However, many auditions are still done blind, with nobody looking at your resume. In that sense, as BassDad says, Curtis grads aren't guarateed anything more than anybody else.</p>
<p>I even think there are certain instruments that are stronger at other schools, although I can't tell you what they are at the top of my head. There was a book we used way back when, when we were first looking for schools -- I think it was Guide to Performing Arts Programs by Carole Everett -- The music portion of the book was broken down by instrument, and sometimes Curtis was NOT one of the recommended schools for a particular instrument -- surprise, surprise. </p>
<p>This backs up the idea that the teacher is SO imortant, and not every single good teacher lives in the NYC/Philly area. And even good teachers who live and work there may not be good matches for me.</p>
<p>(We did find the book very helpful for ideas, even if it was a bit dated. Some of the programs have changed; many of the teachers have changed.)</p>
<p>I happen to have the 1998 edition of Ms. Everett's book in hand. Her review said, "Curtis is probably the most prestigious conservatory in the world. It is highly recommended for bassoon, composition, double bass, French horn, harp, oboe, orchestral conducting, organ, percussion, piano, trombone, trumpet, tuba, viola, violin, cello, voice, and opera training." </p>
<p>That's pretty much everything they teach except for clarinet, flute and harpsichord. I am very surprised that flute did not make the list since the teacher back then was Julius Baker. Pretty strong stuff coming from the former director of admissions at Juilliard.</p>
<p>Binx is right that no one school can be the best at everything for everyone. The individual teacher is the most important element and they tend to move around. Schools like Juilliard and Curtis tend to attract large numbers of both the best teachers and the best students and it is not surprising that their graduates earn disproportionate numbers of the top orchestral jobs. Even so, you will find many graduates of both schools who are no longer employed in the field of music.</p>
<p>This thread reminds me of the Bassist's Haiku:</p>
<p>Used to have big dreams
Big money, big car, big house
Now, I play the bass</p>
<p>I would also question Curtis having a big advantage for future employment. Not true in the flute world and doubt it is in other instruments. You can find "experts" with favorite schools/programs.</p>
<p>I know a recruiter from Indiana told us they employ more graduattes than any of the so called Conservatories. Michigan has made similar claims.</p>
<p>Curtis is a great place, and the tuition is a big incentive but significantly better than the other big name schools? I have seen no authentic evidence that their graduates are more likely to get jobs.</p>
<p>If anything Julliard School probably had the biggest reputation. Well at least until last year when the NYT had the article showing that 10 years after graduation more Julliard students worked behind the counter at Bloomingdales than had full time employment in the music business. </p>
<p>There is a some networking for getting auditions for jobs, but the auditions are blind so the school matters little. That would leave superior education and that lies in the individual teacher of that instrument and not all the best are at Curtis.</p>
<p>Do not count on blind auditions as the great equalizer. Judges can often identify a colleague, someone they have taught, or another student of their own teacher by sound alone. Whether consciously or not, this information can and sometimes does influence the outcome. The process is still not as open as some employers would care to admit.</p>
<p>There are certainly a lot of great teachers out there not affiliated with one of the big name conservatories. If you look at a lot of orchestra websites and start reading bios of the players, you will notice that a large number of the players on a given instrument have studied with a rather small number (generally two to five) of common teachers. Sometimes you need to go back a couple of generations of teachers to find these common denominators, but it is there in most of the cases I have explored. In the past, many of these important teachers have been employed by the "name-brand" conservatories. That is probably less true today as more and more colleges and universities are building excellent programs to rival those of the old-line music schools.</p>
<p>I certainly agree that Juilliard has had the bigger reputation, particularly among the general public. Inside the industry, Curtis has long been known as one of the most prolific producers of professional orchestral musicians even though it is only a quarter of Juilliard's size. Both are great schools and there are a lot of other great schools out there. What will happen to classical music in the future is anyone's guess.</p>
<p>Interesting article!</p>
<p>Are Music Schools Selling A Fantasy?
LA Times
April 7 2006 at 12:23 PM</p>
<p>By Chris Pasles, Times Staff Writer</p>
<p>"There are now too many musicians in San Francisco, more than enough to fill all the 'jobs.' What we need is work, not musicians. Stay away from San Francisco. You will find it cheaper in the end."Anyone who supposes that American musicians have a tough time finding jobs compared with their forebears obviously hasn't looked into the matter. The advisory at above shows just how little times have changed.</p>
<p>Yet in at least one respect, the situation for musicians at the beginning of the 21st century differs markedly from the one that prevailed a hundred years ago: In those innocent days, there were just a handful of American music schools.</p>
<p>USC had opened its music department in 1884, four years after the university was founded, and upgraded it to a college of music only in 1893. The Institute of Musical Art precursor of the lofty Juilliard School in New York started 12 years later. But even then, USC's music enrollment was a mere 100.</p>
<p>Things began to accelerate in 1924, the year that Douglas Fairbanks soared through "The Thief of Bagdad" and George Gershwin's "Rhapsody in Blue" premiered. Meeting in Cincinnati, representatives of six American music schools decided they needed to band together to work out problems and curriculum concerns. In short order, the National Assn. of Schools of Music and Allied Arts was formed, with an initial membership of 16 institutions. USC joined in 1925. Within three more years, there were 32 member schools. In three decades, there were more than 200. Today, the figure tops 600.</p>
<p>In the 1980-81 season, according to one study, more than 1,100 members of the American Federation of Musicians competed for 47 full-time positions. Now, an estimated 2,700 music performance majors graduate from American centers of higher learning every year. The usual number of jobs available: 160 or fewer.</p>
<p>There's always room at the top for the very gifted, of course, in any profession. Even in academia, Yale announced last fall that, beginning in 2006-07, it will join the prestigious Curtis Institute in Philadelphia in providing free tuition to all its advanced music students. But keeping a music school healthy requires something more than the cream of the crop it takes a steady stream of hopefuls. As one music school recruiter bluntly put it: "If you want a circus, then you've got to have animals."</p>
<p>No easy answer</p>
<p>Still, that raises the question: Does he mean a nurturing playland or lambs about to be slaughtered? What are the real prospects for music students today?</p>
<p>The answer depends on which side of the academic fence you're standing on.</p>
<p>"We have too many outstanding music colleges turning out too many graduates for whom there will be no work in music," says maverick British critic Norman Lebrecht.</p>
<p>"It's close to false trading. You take the kids into schools, fire them up with the idea of making careers, knowing from the outset there will not be opportunities for most of them. Very few conservatories are giving students any kind of alternative programs or a sense of the reality ahead for them."</p>
<p>Nonsense, counters Derek Mithaug, director of career development at Juilliard.</p>
<p>"That's the vocational prism that people use in their evaluation of music colleges," he says. " 'What is the placement rate?' That model is disturbing. The idea behind a college or conservatory training goes way beyond being a performing musician."</p>
<p>Juilliard graduates enter many fields, says Mithaug. "Performing is just one of them. Education is another." Others include producing, consulting, directing, journalism, publicity, marketing, advocacy and community outreach. "In these areas, you'll find a wide range of our graduates."</p>
<p>Robert Cutietta, dean of USC's Thornton School of Music, agrees.</p>
<p>"Our students get a full college education that prepares them for all kinds of things," he says. "So many of them are involved with teaching, playing, recording, almost running a small business and they are the business."</p>
<p>Cutietta is happy to report that 74% of USC's music alums over the last 10 years earn their primary income from music.</p>
<p>"I'm surrounded by people who make a living at music," he says. "It's a very lively profession, especially in a city like Los Angeles."</p>
<p>Such issues were more recently brought to the fore in freelance oboist Blair Tindall's book, "Mozart in the Jungle: Sex, Drugs, and Classical Music," which details Tindall's and other musicians' successes and failures in securing livelihoods. But most critics focused only on Tindall's kiss-and-tell adventures, dismissing her analysis of the job situation as sour grapes.</p>
<p>"OK, maybe I failed," says Tindall, who attended the Manhattan School of Music. "But what about the 99% of the other grads? We can't all be untalented, undisciplined and without goals. There's just not that much work available."</p>
<p>Others argue the opposite. There are jobs available, says Raymond Ou, a former pianist at the Peabody Institute in Baltimore, part of Johns Hopkins University. But they might not be your first choice and you have to go where they are.</p>
<p>North Carolina was "ripe with possibilities," says Ou, 31. After earning a master's in piano performance at Peabody in 1998, he headed south for three years to teach at a North Carolina private music school and work as a church organist.</p>
<p>"With a performance degree from Peabody, doors opened," he says. "But in the end, what made it work was I was willing to do the jobs instead of just aiming for the top. Lots of conservatory graduates aim high, not wanting to do anything they consider beneath them. But the bottleneck is tight at the top."</p>
<p>For all that, Ou is now on the other side of the fence. He switched fields, going back to Peabody in 2001 to become director of the residence life program. Although he occasionally performs, he sees his immediate future in administration and recently buttressed his credentials with a second master's, in clinical psychology.</p>
<p>Even musicians who make it have complaints. In 1996, J. Richard Hackman and Jutta Allmendinger surveyed members of 78 professional orchestras in the U.S., Britain and Germany, examining their sense of job satisfaction in comparison with 12 other professional groups.</p>
<p>For general job satisfaction, orchestra players ranked seventh, right below federal prison guards. They ranked ninth, again just below prison guards, for growth opportunities. (On the other hand, members of string quartets ranked No. 1 in both categories.)</p>
<p>This unhappiness squares with a recent report in Britain focusing on orchestral musicians who had quit their jobs because of low pay, lack of opportunities for advancement, the repetitive nature of the repertory and the necessary stifling of individuality to fit into a group.</p>
<p>"To be told every day to play a passage in a way you might not agree with it's like being told to sing out of tune," former Hallé Orchestra violinist Morris Stemp told the Guardian Unlimited in February. "The notes get played but without your own feeling. And the money is so poor that if you lose your artistic integrity, what have you got?"</p>
<p>Soloists are not immune. Naida Cole, a 31-year-old Canadian pianist who won prizes at the Van Cliburn International Competition and recorded two discs for Decca, is abandoning her concert career to study medicine.</p>
<p>She feels her life wasn't "balanced" by being on the road all the time, and she missed having more contact with people.</p>
<p>"As much as I love music, what I enjoyed most was meeting people afterward, after the concert," she says. "I looked forward to the receptions, where I connected with people and found out if I communicated something. When you go onstage, the audience is 10 feet away, sitting in the dark. You go on alone, leave alone and wonder, 'Did I actually do anything?' "</p>
<p>She also felt constrained by what she called the "compromises" required to build a professional career. "You're very restricted in what you can play at a concert. It gets in the way of making the best music you can because you're told you must do this and not do that. It's a struggle."</p>
<p>Given this turmoil, some members of the academy are posing alternative ideas about how best to educate their students.</p>
<p>"We are not producing too many musicians," says Leon Botstein, a noted conductor and the president of Bard College. "We are producing too many musicians the wrong way, too many in a very old-fashioned, very out-of-date system of professional training. Conservatories are still training people to win the Queen Elisabeth Competition 50 years ago. And to that, nobody's listening."</p>
<p>Botstein thinks that every musician should be trained to improvise, "to write his or her own material the way pop musicians do and classical musicians used to do." He also feels they should rethink concerts as "a form of theater that is not reproducible on a recording" and learn to connect more immediately to audiences.</p>
<p>Last fall, to supplement these goals, Bard started a mandatory double-degree program requiring all its conservatory students to also earn a bachelor of arts with a major in a field outside music.</p>
<p>"We're not doing this because we think there will be no jobs and this will be a safety net," says Robert Martin, Bard's Conservatory of Music director and vice president for academic affairs. "We think it's what musicians should have, what young musicians deserve and need. Our view is that musicians need a broader education."</p>
<p>cont'd...</p>
<p>A bigger-picture approach</p>
<p>Bard is not alone in offering double degrees. So do such other schools as Peabody, the Oberlin Conservatory in Ohio and the Eastman School of Music in Rochester, N.Y. But only Bard's program is mandatory.</p>
<p>Still, it's not always easy to navigate between the two worlds, as Juliette Wells found when she embarked on a dual-degree track at Peabody and its affiliate, Johns Hopkins, studying violin and English.</p>
<p>"I was constantly explaining at both ends," she says. "It was a lot harder to explain at the music school than at the college. At the music school, from the beginning, I was asked, 'Why are you doing this other thing? If you were a real musician, really committed, you wouldn't be doing this.' So I found a lot of resistance to even trying to train in both things."</p>
<p>A repetitive stress injury a result, ironically, of typing too many term papers, not over-practicing ended Wells' music career. She's now an English professor at Manhattanville College in New York.</p>
<p>"Both careers are really competitive," she says. "But it's harder to win an orchestra position when it comes down to three minutes to make an impression. With academic jobs, you have more of a chance to make an impression."</p>
<p>As things stand now, many if not most graduates of even the best conservatories will fail that three-minute test. And they may not find themselves prepared to do anything else.</p>
<p>"Some will make it," says Tindall. "Somebody has to make it. But there are so many music conservatories out there, cranking out more people than the market can bear, it's important for people to consider what they're going to do with their training in music when they're out of school."</p>
<p>Short of an unlikely explosion in job opportunities, "the tragedy," writes "Music Matters" author George Seltzer, "is that there are so many fully qualified applicants for any orchestral vacancy.</p>
<p>"For each outstanding talent that is permitted to be heard in our orchestras, there are probably 99 equally outstanding talents that will fall silent. A terrible waste."</p>