Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civic


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ TubeNet BBS ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Jay Bertolet on February 21, 2000 at 23:13:50:

In Reply to: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Civic posted by HS on February 21, 2000 at 21:18:35:

Well, I would submit to you that your experiences are not typical of the industry. At the very least, your experiences are very different from my own. First off, the musicians in my area do not drive Lexus, BMW, or Toyota 4-Runners. In fact, an average car among my peers is a Toyota Camry. Second, there are college instructors who make more money than performers. It just depends on the situations you are comparing. But bottom line, performers don't have higher incomes automatically. This doesn't even take into account the benefits packages which are usually a part of college level teaching jobs. Retirement and health care benefits from an institution like a college are always superior to the similar packages that performers usually have. Many orchestras in this country don't even have retirement benefits and only the biggest ones have adequate health insurance benefits.

And let's dispell this myth right now about how well an orchestra plays is directly proportional to how well they are paid. How well an orchestra plays is a function of how good the musicians are, both individually and as an ensemble. How well an orchestra is paid is contingent on good business. That is, the management does their job in marketing and fundraising, the musicians do their job on stage, and the union negotiates a good deal with the management. If a community decides that they aren't willing to contribute enough money to have a good paying orchestra, then the musicians will make less. Do you think this changes how well they perform? Do you think if you pay them more, they will perform better? Musicians take the jobs that are available.

I hope your comment about owning 3 or 4 horns was meant to convey that they own them simply to have them, somewhat like a collector. Most teachers I know are also performers in one capacity or another and I can easily see needing at least 2 instruments to have any shot at covering the majority of tuba music. Owning 3 or 4 tubas seems perfectly normal to me if you have any intention of playing anything more than symphony band tuba parts.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that being a tuba teacher is not cheap. When you add up all the years of study, the equipment required, and the general financial situation of those who would be teachers, it seems obvious to me that teaching income can be vital to a musician's financial survival. There are many situations out there where if you don't teach, you end up doing some other sort of work to supplement your primary income. It seems reasonable and efficient to me that such people would rather be teaching lessons than waiting tables or working at the local 7-11. Being a musician does not require some vow of poverty. It is like any other vocation and people engaged in music are entitled to their shot at the America dream of prosperity through hard work. If you know musicians who are being successful, I would suggest you try to learn from them how they do it rather than be bitter that they are successful.


Follow Ups: