Not enough gigs

[tbdana]

This is parallel to the thread about there being too many music performance programs. I didn't want to derail that thread.

My proposal is that it's not that there are too many performance degree programs and students out there, it's that there aren't enough gigs. So I'm asking the following question:

What do performance majors plan to do with their degrees? As stated in the other thread, there aren't enough symphony chairs for the tsunami of students graduating with performance degrees. So, if you're going to pursue a career in music after receiving your degree, how can that be done?

[robcat2075]

... a career in music after receiving your degree...

That is potentially a very broad term and I suggest that, for this discussion, answers contain themselves to careers that merit having gotten that performance degree.

IOW, there remain infinite things one can do after having gotten a performance degree, but what are the other non-orchestral things one may do because one got that performance degree?

For example one might teach after getting a performance degree, but one does not need a performance degree to do that. (Indeed, some performance degrees will not qualify one to teach in a public school.)

[WilliamLang]

A large majority of professionals do not have full time gigs or steady paychecks. It is a combination of playings freelance gigs, whether orchestral/commercial/jazz/chamber/pit, teaching, and other ancillary music gigs (arranging, composing, arts administration, recording, production, etc...) or just playing on the side and having a "regular" job.

I'd say 75% of working musicians in the industry fit the above description, and even that feels like I'm hedging my bets on the low end. My gut instinct and experience tells me it's closer to 90-95% that make a freelance living vs. full time payroll jobs.

As an aside, I make no value judgements on teaching vs. performing. I believe that both are worthwhile arts, and that neither is superior, and the old axiom of "those that can't do, teach" is frankly quite dumb and insulting to all.

Almost all schools, including top conservatories, have resources dedicated to an emphasis on creating "whole" musicians who are capable of putting on many hats. Not all schools are good at this, and students don't often take full advantage of what's offered, but that's a different story.

Most teachers are up front about the different paths that a career can take. Those that aren't are often in an older generation that didn't have to navigate the same waters as current students, or are those that succeeded young enough to avoid having to learn, and simultaneously were incurious enough to put in the effort.

[harrisonreed]

This is parallel to the thread about there being too many music performance programs. I didn't want to derail that thread.

My proposal is that it's not that there are too many performance degree programs and students out there, it's that there aren't enough gigs. So I'm asking the following question:

What do performance majors plan to do with their degrees? As stated in the other thread, there aren't enough symphony chairs for the tsunami of students graduating with performance degrees. So, if you're going to pursue a career in music after receiving your degree, how can that be done?

There aren't enough gigs, is right. Unfortunately, unless someone is singularly talented, they can't magic a paying gig out of thin air. Somebody has got to pay you. And not too many are buying. I'm not sure why musicians seem to think this is someone else's fault, though. In any industry you want to earn a living in, you must have a product someone wants to buy.



You can't force someone to pay up, other than with subsidies that someone voted for. And a lot of the pay is already subsidies, rather than employers/customers giving money directly.

So, anyways, maybe it's not just that there aren't enough gigs. It's that the market only wants to buy so much instrumental live music, and it's apparently saturated.

(NB, the video is a joke, but I'm sure many musicians have felt that way at some point)

[TomInME]

And a lot of the pay is already subsidies, rather than employers/customers giving money directly.

Given the current political climate in the US, any performer who depends on those subsidies in any way should be terrified.

Also: the correct title for this thread should be "not enough adequately-paying gigs".

[tbdana]

... a career in music after receiving your degree...

That is potentially a very broad term and I suggest that, for this discussion, answers contain themselves to careers that merit having gotten that performance degree.

IOW, there remain infinite things one can do after having gotten a performance degree, but what are the other non-orchestral things one may do because one got that performance degree?

No, I am not limiting the discussion to that. That doesn't even make sense. You don't need a performance degree for any performance career.

[tbdana]

As an aside, I make no value judgements on teaching vs. performing. I believe that both are worthwhile arts, and that neither is superior, and the old axiom of "those that can't do, teach" is frankly quite dumb and insulting to all.

But, in effect, aren't people saying exactly that in the performance degree thread?

[tbdana]

There aren't enough gigs, is right. Unfortunately, unless someone is singularly talented, they can't magic a paying gig out of thin air. Somebody has got to pay you. And not too many are buying. I'm not sure why musicians seem to think this is someone else's fault, though. In any industry you want to earn a living in, you must have a product someone wants to buy.

Not everyone has to be a sideman. Some folks do create their own gigs. Lots of musicians, actually. They'll write some stuff, put a group together, and go find places that will pay them to play. This goes on in everything from the lone guitarist in the Mexican restaurant to Taylor Swift. People often make their own careers in music by doing their own thing, rather than relying on others to hire them as sidemen.

Some musicians have made a career just out of social media and YouTube posts. A friend provides live music as part of several educational modules for children, and he's very much in demand, as kids seem to absorb a lot more when there's live music connected to it. So, there are creative opportunities out there to be had.

So, anyways, maybe it's not just that there aren't enough gigs. It's that the market only wants to buy so much instrumental live music, and it's apparently saturated.

Maybe. Covid sure put a damper on live music, which has yet to completely recover. But my own anecdotal experience is that live music opportunities are on the rise. I think a lot of times it's the product that isn't worth booking. But also, even when there are gigs to be had, the pay is ridiculously low.

I'm not sure how to increase gigs. People in the right places have to want to have live music. I'd love to see the AFM start a national campaign in the U.S. to encourage live music. (Instead, the AFM often discourages live music by shutting down performances that won't sign a union contract, but what can you do?)

[harrisonreed]

As an aside, I make no value judgements on teaching vs. performing. I believe that both are worthwhile arts, and that neither is superior, and the old axiom of "those that can't do, teach" is frankly quite dumb and insulting to all.

But, in effect, aren't people saying exactly that in the performance degree thread?

I think the other thread is more getting after the fact that there are people paying significantly for teachers, but much less people paying significantly, if at all, for live performers. So the programs are creating many musicians, and three is still a demand for those musicians to teach more musicians. But much less of a demand for them to become paid performers.

Hence the idea that there are lots of programs training musicians for jobs that don't exist, except teaching. It's got kind of this vicious cycle feel to it, even though that isn't anyone's intent while they are teaching or being a student. It just is.

[harrisonreed]

Not everyone has to be a sideman.

That's what I'm saying too. Cuz who else is going to hire new people in this climate?

Some folks do create their own gigs.

You've mentioned specifically "career" in the first post. There's a big difference between a gig and a career. Lots of gigs can make up a career, though, for sure.

People often make their own careers in music by doing their own thing, rather than relying on others to hire them as sidemen.

I would argue that that would be actually very few. Taylor Swift only went truly independent very recently, when the Taylor's Version albums started coming out. She is an extremely unique case, with literally billions of streams and views on many of her songs. She is indeed selling what people want. The people playing in the restaurant, for example, are still relying on others to hire them as an act. Unless you wanna say playing for tips is a full career.

Some musicians have made a career just out of social media and YouTube posts.

In our trombone world, I think Christopher Bill has had the most success doing this, and he has been pretty open about what he earns. Yes he was independent doing this, but was living out of a tiny home and then later a vehicle. I'd say he was indeed making a career though. Monetary success isn't the only factor in overall success. He had a pretty decent following too.

A friend provides live music as part of several educational modules for children, and he's very much in demand, as kids seem to absorb a lot more when there's live music connected to it. So, there are creative opportunities out there to be had.

To say nothing of the power of music for memory health in the elderly. Absolutely, this is a real career

Maybe. Covid sure put a damper on live music, which has yet to completely recover.

I think people just broke with habit and reassessed what really matters to them

I'm not sure how to increase gigs.

You've already got some good ideas here.

[Burgerbob]

Harrison is not wrong that the market only supports a certain amount of live music. But there are some serious thumbs on the scale making it worse.

[BGuttman]

Here are a few friends who had music degrees and who wound up not earning a living from music:

No.1: Moved here from Texas. Got a job as a pipe maker at Andover Organ. Left that to work at SE Shires. Had to leave that job because Steve wasn't paying the help (MAJOR cash flow problems). Worked at a computer store as the Apple specialist. Left there to work at a large company as an Apple specialist. In his off time played tuba in my orchestra and in several local bands.

No. 2: Degree in trombone from New England Conservatory. Spent 3 years in the Fort Dix (NJ) band instead of serving as a draftee. Worked as a bar pianist and singer. Wasn't paying the bills. Went back to school and became a Database Analyst and Programmer. Made a great living at it. Played trombone in my orchestra and several local concert bands.

No. 3: Trombone degree from UMass. Worked as a clerk in an office. Arranged music. Led some small organizations. Played in a number of local bands, including several Union groups (MPTF concerts). Played in several orchestras (including mine for a while).

No. 4: Bassoon degree from UMass. Worked as a technical writer for a major tech company. When that company went bust he got a job at the Post Office, from which he recently retired. I was not aware of him playing in any organizations.

Some of these folks managed to make good livings (eventually) from something outside music. Most continued to play with amateur or semi-professional groups.

Also note that none of them had crippling student loans.

[psybersonic]

My grandfather was a British army bandsman who left the army in 1910 after 25 years service. He wouldn’t let my father take up the trombone until he was half way through his apprenticeship in 1930 as a sheet metal worker. His reasoning? ‘Music is a good crutch but a poor leg’ .

[Finetales]

Not everyone has to be a sideman. Some folks do create their own gigs. Lots of musicians, actually. They'll write some stuff, put a group together, and go find places that will pay them to play.

The problem is the places that will hire a brand new group to play are paying next to nothing. I've started and participated in enough bands to know that firsthand. You have to grind out lots of gigs for essentially no pay at all before you get anything that will put food on the table, unless you're really lucky.

People often make their own careers in music by doing their own thing, rather than relying on others to hire them as sidemen.

The modern music landscape of being an "artist" rather than just a sideman is a complete paradox.

On the one hand, the barrier for putting out your own music and getting it heard is MUCH lower than it ever has been, thanks to laptops, DAWs, free VSTs, social media platforms, and streaming services. I think this is great! Making music should be accessible to everyone. However, said streaming services pay shockingly tiny amounts of money so you have to make it REALLY big to actually make a living with your albums.

Back in the day, physical albums were the only way to listen, so artists/bands made their living through selling albums and touring (which sold more albums). Nowadays, touring artists (who aren't stars) basically rely on merch sales to stay afloat because they're getting very little from streaming.

And so:

Some musicians have made a career just out of social media and YouTube posts.

Yes, the Internet has provided musicians with a whole new avenue of potential income. However, succeeding as a career YouTuber/TikTokter/etc. requires an absolutely absurd amount of luck (in addition to hard work), and the overwhelming majority of people who try to do that as a career (in any form, not just musicians...video game streamers, for example) do not succeed. The Algorithm is a very fickle mistress.

Also, being an Internet star is crazy hard work as you have to be uploading and working on content 24/7 to feed the algorithm. There are certain YouTubers who have found a way to buck this trend (LEMMiNO and Bill Wurtz are two great examples), but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Maybe. Covid sure put a damper on live music, which has yet to completely recover. But my own anecdotal experience is that live music opportunities are on the rise.

There is still an enormous amount of live music happening all the time, especially in big markets. IMO, while there are certainly fewer gigs than there used to be, the problem isn't necessarily the amount of gigs. The problem is that a lot of clubs/venues haven't increased their pay at all for decades. In the '70s or '80s, $100 for a club date was good money. In 2025 that same club is still paying musicians that same $100 for the same work. Those kinds of club dates are how a ton of musicians make (or used to make...) their living, so in the process of just never keeping pace with decades of inflation, the venues have effectively eliminated the way for local musicians not at the top to make a living.

IMO, two things need to happen for the prospect of being a working musician to become favorable again:

1. Get local venues to actually pay a fair wage for the year 2025
2. Depose the greedy leech CEOs of Spotify etc. and establish streaming rates that actually support musicians

It would also help to have music schools include non-classical styles in a classical performance degree, because most undergrads who are laser-focused on getting into a big orchestra...won't.

Every adult musician I know works in some capacity. There is work out there. But the problem is a lot of them have to work day jobs as well because most gigs just don't pay enough to live on anymore.

[ghmerrill]

Given the current political climate in the US, any performer who depends on those subsidies in any way should be terrified.

Any performer who ever performs at the largess of a patron of any sort must lead a life of apprehension, if not terror. It has always been so.

[ghmerrill]

I think the other thread is more getting after the fact that there are people paying significantly for teachers, but much less people paying significantly, if at all, for live performers. So the programs are creating many musicians, and three is still a demand for those musicians to teach more musicians. But much less of a demand for them to become paid performers.

Hmmm ... seems quite similar to the situation with professional chess players and professional chess coaches -- except, of course, that we don't seem to have numerous university departments devoted to chess playing or chess coaching, and people getting educational funding or subsidies to become chess players. Then again, chess is pretty much of a niche spectator sport ("The Queen's Gambit" notwithstanding), although huge audiences existsin such venues as Chess.com and 24-hour availability of streaming chess games (and not merely tournaments -- you chess nuts know what I mean, eh?).

I'm not entirely sure what to make of that except that musicians have definitely won in terms of available public funding for pursuing their passion at the organized college and university level. It's real hard to find a university chess department or chess conservatory.

[blast]

There have not been enough gigs in the UK for as long as I can remember. There are about 20 bass trombone jobs in the UK, so 40 tenor gigs. West end shows are a significant employer....then it's whatever there is. Like the US, pay has not kept pace over the last 20 years. I feel stupidly lucky to have had a playing career.

[claf]

As an aside, I make no value judgements on teaching vs. performing. I believe that both are worthwhile arts, and that neither is superior, and the old axiom of "those that can't do, teach" is frankly quite dumb and insulting to all.

This is 100% true.
It is easier to work as a bad teacher than a bad player, because most kids' parents don't notice that they have a bad teacher, and a bad player would be very quickly become out of work.
But being a good teacher requires skills that are not required to be a good player.

[harrisonreed]

I think the other thread is more getting after the fact that there are people paying significantly for teachers, but much less people paying significantly, if at all, for live performers. So the programs are creating many musicians, and three is still a demand for those musicians to teach more musicians. But much less of a demand for them to become paid performers.

Hmmm ... seems quite similar to the situation with professional chess players and professional chess coaches -- except, of course, that we don't seem to have numerous university departments devoted to chess playing or chess coaching, and people getting educational funding or subsidies to become chess players. Then again, chess is pretty much of a niche spectator sport ("The Queen's Gambit" notwithstanding), although huge audiences existsin such venues as Chess.com and 24-hour availability of streaming chess games (and not merely tournaments -- you chess nuts know what I mean, eh?).

I'm not entirely sure what to make of that except that musicians have definitely won in terms of available public funding for pursuing their passion at the organized college and university level. It's real hard to find a university chess department or chess conservatory.

Chess is an unusual comparison.

Whatever occupation you want to talk about has to be valued by society or people with money in order for someone to make a living at it. Chess is such a singular study that you don't need multiple teachers sustained by a university to learn it. You need a single really good teacher, a chess engine, the Internet (to study games), and opponents or tournaments to play. So once a chess player exceeds a 2200 rating, or whatever, then they can scrape by teaching at $30-75 an hour. I would argue that it's a lot easier to get a music degree and teach at a good level, and be a good teacher, then it is to earn a 2200+ rating in chess. In fact, if you start after a certain age, it's essentially statistically impossible (perhaps biologically impossible) to ever reach that rating. People who go further than that start at age ten, study chess for hours every day -- it would be too late to start by the time they reach college age. So that's probably why it's not offered as a course of study. Also, the fact that it is a game is probably also why it's not offered as a university major. Same with football.

Chess is also (outside of the defunct CCCP) not very popular with your average person. People might think that the TV show you mentioned is cool, but that doesn't mean they are going to put in the effort to even reach a skill level of 1200 (the equivalent of 5th grade band level) or watch tournaments. So the only money available in the sport concentrates around the world championship, and you get one guy (Magnus) who wins all the money and is on all the magazine covers, making millions.

I'm not sure if it's worth noting but unlike with music, humans are powerless to beat computers at chess. When you play Google's engine it's like playing chess against an alien from another universe. It makes weird moves, and then you lose. Really not fun for anyone involved. Music isn't there yet.

[ghmerrill]

I would argue that it's a lot easier to get a music degree and teach at a good level, and be a good teacher, then it is to earn a 2200+ rating in chess.

I'm reminded of the chairman of a philosophy department I worked with as part of my cognitive science internship program once saying to me "Let's face it -- physics is more difficult than philosophy."

if you start after a certain age, it's essentially statistically impossible (perhaps biologically impossible) to ever reach that rating.

Tell me about it. I doubt that at this point I can get to 1800 -- partly because of some cognitive decline and partly because I just won't/can't devote the genuine effort to it. Maybe a steady 1600 is a good target. But I play the game for a variety of reasons not oriented towards a professional career. Similar to playing trombone.

I'm not sure if it's worth noting but unlike with music, humans are powerless to beat computers at chess. When you play Google's engine it's like playing chess against an alien from another universe. It makes weird moves, and then you lose. Really not fun for anyone involved.

That's true of the chess engines running full-out. But you can set an engine at a level that you're "competitive" with. And at least that can be instructive and fun in a certain way as you work your way up in the levels. Somewhat more fun is playing against different levels of bots which more closely mimic human behavior. In fact, it can be more fun than playing against humans who also make very weird moves. Alas, I did not get to play against the "Beth Harmon" bot before it got removed from chess.com. Playing against the unfettered machine is not particularly rewarding since it's like playing against God: if unconstrained, the machine is omniscient in the universe of chess -- and indeed like playing an alien. Bots can be different because they can arise from training rather than a more purely algorithmic approach based on omniscience and exhaustive search and evaluation.

I think that really part of what I was trying to suggest wasn't so much that chess is strongly similar to music in certain ways, but that the (relatively recent, online) commercialization of chess provides a model that might be employed in instructional and performative music as well -- as an alternative to the "societal support" or the historical commercial models.

[JTeagarden]

As an aside, I make no value judgements on teaching vs. performing. I believe that both are worthwhile arts, and that neither is superior, and the old axiom of "those that can't do, teach" is frankly quite dumb and insulting to all.

There are also many who can do but cannot teach, especially those who are such natural talents that they have a hard time understanding how someone might struggle with something.

[harrisonreed]

As an aside, I make no value judgements on teaching vs. performing. I believe that both are worthwhile arts, and that neither is superior, and the old axiom of "those that can't do, teach" is frankly quite dumb and insulting to all.

There are also many who can do but cannot teach, especially those who are such natural talents that they have a hard time understanding how someone might struggle with something.

But damn some of them still get paid a lot to "teach" (make people cry at masterclasses, spout out obvious things that any teacher could identify, blame everything on buzzing or not buzzing, teaching the "think" method). Teaching is a separate, distinct ability.

I do get annoyed when teachers can't demonstrate what they are trying to teach. They could be great teachers but it's difficult to take someone seriously when they have serious underlying flaws or embouchure issues that they haven't been able to self assess and solve. That's something I'm working on, as a "me issue".

[tbdana]

There are also many who can do but cannot teach, especially those who are such natural talents that they have a hard time understanding how someone might struggle with something.

I keep hearing about these people who are just natural talents and never struggle to learn how to play, but I've never met one.

Every "natural talent" I've ever known falls into one of two categories: 1. They work their asses off and struggle just like the rest of us, but overcome it because of their work ethic, or 1. They get by in school on "natural talent" but when those who put in the struggle start getting better than them they crumble and give up or fall into mediocrity.

I've yet to meet any other kind of "natural talent" musician.

[TomInME]

Given the current political climate in the US, any performer who depends on those subsidies in any way should be terrified.

Any performer who ever performs at the largess of a patron of any sort must lead a life of apprehension, if not terror. It has always been so.

Absolutely, and more so now that the funding will be entirely private and subject to the whims of individual donors.

[harrisonreed]

There are also many who can do but cannot teach, especially those who are such natural talents that they have a hard time understanding how someone might struggle with something.

I keep hearing about these people who are just natural talents and never struggle to learn how to play, but I've never met one.

Every "natural talent" I've ever known falls into one of two categories: 1. They work their asses off and struggle just like the rest of us, but overcome it because of their work ethic, or 1. They get by in school on "natural talent" but when those who put in the struggle start getting better than them they crumble and give up or fall into mediocrity.

I've yet to meet any other kind of "natural talent" musician.

I believe that by natural talent, it might refer to people who *do* work their asses off to get as good as they can, but are already predisposed to the brass instrument in question, or to musical creativity in general.

We've discussed here before that in the past, trumpeters who found success were also predisposed physically to playing on the 3C Bach mouthpiece or whatever it was that came in the case. Teachers used to force everyone to play the same thing, or there just weren't options available to fit all embouchure types. There also was much less knowledge about embouchure function back then. So the people finding success were functionally compatible with the equipment available, and chalked it up to natural talent.

Meanwhile someone could have been working hard to get better but at best just didn't have the info or equipment available to improve (ie, playing basketball with size 9 shoes but they are 7 feet tall, size 15), and at worst were consciously held back by a teacher because you don't solve problems with equipment even if it's available.

[ghmerrill]

Any performer who ever performs at the largess of a patron of any sort must lead a life of apprehension, if not terror. It has always been so.

Absolutely, and more so now that the funding will be entirely private and subject to the whims of individual donors.

... opposed to the whims of purportedly disinterested committees of members who have no conflicts of interest and no axes to grind. Now the last time I saw one of those committees and which was totally fair and balanced, compared to a private funding sources was .... well, let me get back to you on that. Centralizing funding into a government committee doesn't remove the humans, biases, special interests, and ideologies from the decisions. It just paints a fascade on it. I've fought in those wars too.

[JTeagarden]

There are also many who can do but cannot teach, especially those who are such natural talents that they have a hard time understanding how someone might struggle with something.

I keep hearing about these people who are just natural talents and never struggle to learn how to play, but I've never met one.

Every "natural talent" I've ever known falls into one of two categories: 1. They work their asses off and struggle just like the rest of us, but overcome it because of their work ethic, or 1. They get by in school on "natural talent" but when those who put in the struggle start getting better than them they crumble and give up or fall into mediocrity.

I've yet to meet any other kind of "natural talent" musician.

i might have overstated it a tad: Pleyers who have had to struggle far less and for far shorter to make it to the top of their profession. Lots of hard work, for sure, but mostly a matter of refining what already works naturally very well.

[robcat2075]

I keep hearing about these people who are just natural talents and never struggle to learn how to play, but I've never met one.

Every "natural talent" I've ever known falls into one of two categories: 1. They work their asses off and struggle just like the rest of us, but overcome it because of their work ethic, or 1. They get by in school on "natural talent" but when those who put in the struggle start getting better than them they crumble and give up or fall into mediocrity.

I've yet to meet any other kind of "natural talent" musician.

You often describe yourself as not having played for 30 years... and not having gone to college to study this thing... consider that that may be how you have not yet met the full spectrum of personalities in this business.

JTeagarden wrote:
There are also many who can do but cannot teach, especially those who are such natural talents that they have a hard time understanding how someone might struggle with something.

I have met these people!

I have a ready non-musical example. My father was a boy genius. Advanced grades in school, went to college early. Went on to get a PhD in Chemistry, which is not a trivial thing. He had a talent for it.

Utterly incapable of explaining my high school chemistry or math homework to me.

He could quickly solve any problem i showed him. Could not tell me HOW he solved it!

And could not calmly answer any follow-up question I might pose to discern his process. He was sure it was all obvious.

My brother, the 2.01 GPA college chemistry major was better at explaining it than my dad was. Better than the teacher in my high school class. (Not great, but better is better)


I've had nine private lesson trombone teachers in my life. Some were very capable players. One of them went farther up the ladder than anyone on this forum ever has. I don't know if any of them were "natural talents" as children but these capable players were not always capable teachers. They didn't have solutions to fundamental deficiencies I presented beyond, "well... keep working on that!"

That is slack teaching.

[tbdana]

I keep hearing about these people who are just natural talents and never struggle to learn how to play, but I've never met one.

Every "natural talent" I've ever known falls into one of two categories: 1. They work their asses off and struggle just like the rest of us, but overcome it because of their work ethic, or 1. They get by in school on "natural talent" but when those who put in the struggle start getting better than them they crumble and give up or fall into mediocrity.

I've yet to meet any other kind of "natural talent" musician.

You often describe yourself as not having played for 30 years... and not having gone to college to study this thing... consider that that may be how you have not yet met the full spectrum of personalities in this business.

You can be very off-putting with your passive-aggressive comments. I tire of it, particularly when completely lacking in substance, as this one was. It was nothing more than utter speculation about my "spectrum" and passive-aggressive judgment.

"Consider that" you have no idea the scope of my life, experience, and career. And consider that I have actually shared very little of it here. I grew up in music, from 5 years old, not in some small town but in the largest music city in America, during a time of huge population and arts booms. My brother played trumpet and was one of those "natural talent" people (as I described them rather than the mythical kind), while I struggled. I grew up with hundreds of L.A. music kids, and watched them grow (or not) and saw all their trajectories. After growing up playing music, I had a 20-year professional career, living and playing in Los Angeles, San Francisco, New Orleans and New York, all major music hubs and population centers. I've played (and still play) with everyone from the most casual community players to the best musicians in the world. I've performed on almost 200 albums, over 100 TV show episodes, about 20 movies, and lord knows how many jingles, and have played thousands of live concerts for audiences from 12 to 12 million, all over the country and in other countries, in groups from duos to symphony orchestras, and did it all with an incredible variety of musicians. I've coached high schoolers, college students, and adults (only by request, as that was never really my thing). I've put on trombone days for kids through top pros, and we were probably among the first to do that kind of thing in that way. In playing with all that wide variety of people over five different decades in total, I've seen just about everything. And in playing with all those great pros in L.A., NYC, and elsewhere -- obviously wildly capable players -- I've never seen a single one of them who was this magical "natural talent" that never struggled. They all struggled, some desperately. And if there was anyplace on earth where you'd see a bunch of these magical "natural talents that never struggled," surely top pros in major music centers like L.A. and New York would have them. But they don't. Because it's a phony archetype. Just because you didn't see them struggle doesn't mean they didn't.

Tell you what, in determining who has met closer to the "full spectrum of personalities in this business," I'll put my musical experience up against your trombone choirs and wind bands any day, and I'll bet that even with my 30-year break I have seen a far more complete spectrum, both in breadth and depth of experience, than you have. So, unless you have something other than passive-aggressive speculation, take me off your list of people to passive-aggressively target.

[robcat2075]

tbdana, that's a fine career you've had. Good for you!

However, nothing in that long resume indicates you have experienced the problem that brought this up...the problem others of us have definitely experienced... talented players who can't teach.

You haven't encountered or needed them? Lucky you!

Everything in that resume is about you playing or teaching, NONE OF IT is about being a student. i will take your word for it... you've never learned anything from anyone. It's all you! That sounds like you are indeed a natural talent.

It doesn't position you well to lecture the rest us about who is teaching (and how) in the schools, colleges and universities. You may have performed with some of them at some gig, but that is not the same as being their student for several years.

I grew up in music, from 5 years old, not in some small town but in the largest music city in America, during a time of huge population and arts booms. My brother played trumpet and was one of those "natural talent" people...

That sounds great! That sounds like a WAY better start in music than growing up in White Bear Lake, Minnesota in a family of zero musicians. And yet we are somehow to regard you as disadvantaged? Hmmm.

At least I have a had-to-carry-my-trombone-home-four-miles-in-the-snow tale that you'll never have in L.A.

And in playing with all those great pros in L.A., NYC, and elsewhere -- obviously wildly capable players -- I've never seen a single one of them who was this magical "natural talent" that never struggled. They all struggled, some desperately.

The core problem I sense, based on your account, is that you are conflating struggled-with-life with struggled-to-acquire-musical-skill

I am unsurprised that they struggle with money... or their divorce... or their drug habit... or their manic-depression... or whatever... but you've already described them as "wildly capable". What to do when the horn is on their mouth is not their main problem. Sure, they work at their craft very intently and seriously but that is rather different from struggling with it. They know what they want musically, they "get" it.

Just because you didn't see them struggle doesn't mean they didn't.

Oh, the irony of writing that after having insisted that something doesn't exist because you've never seen it yourself.

You can be very off-putting with your passive-aggressive comments. I tire of it, particularly when completely lacking in substance, as this one was. It was nothing more than utter speculation about my "spectrum" and passive-aggressive judgment.

You thought I was passive-aggressive? I thought I was clear. You haven't seen the problem because you haven't been there.
You have frequently written at length about all the A-list players you've played with and the compliments they've given you and the many great gigs you've had... I didn't have to speculate much about your trombone past.

However, I recall another recent thread where someone made a pretty straightforward comment to the topic at hand and you immediately took it as a personal affront. Maybe... the problem isn't me.

Apologies for not responding sooner. When I press "Preview" here, everything disappears!

[blast]

tbdana, that's a fine career you've had. Good for you!

However, nothing in that long resume indicates you have experienced the problem that brought this up...the problem others of us have definitely experienced... talented players who can't teach.

You haven't encountered or needed them? Lucky you!

Everything in that resume is about you playing or teaching, NONE OF IT is about being a student. i will take your word for it... you've never learned anything from anyone. It's all you! That sounds like you are indeed a natural talent.

It doesn't position you well to lecture the rest us about who is teaching (and how) in the schools, colleges and universities. You may have performed with some of them at some gig, but that is not the same as being their student for several years.

I grew up in music, from 5 years old, not in some small town but in the largest music city in America, during a time of huge population and arts booms. My brother played trumpet and was one of those "natural talent" people...

That sounds great! That sounds like a WAY better start in music than growing up in White Bear Lake, Minnesota in a family of zero musicians. And yet we are somehow to regard you as disadvantaged? Hmmm.

At least I have a had-to-carry-my-trombone-home-four-miles-in-the-snow tale that you'll never have in L.A.

And in playing with all those great pros in L.A., NYC, and elsewhere -- obviously wildly capable players -- I've never seen a single one of them who was this magical "natural talent" that never struggled. They all struggled, some desperately.

The core problem I sense, based on your account, is that you are conflating struggled-with-life with struggled-to-acquire-musical-skill

I am unsurprised that they struggle with money... or their divorce... or their drug habit... or their manic-depression... or whatever... but you've already described them as "wildly capable". What to do when the horn is on their mouth is not their main problem. Sure, they work at their craft very intently and seriously but that is rather different from struggling with it. They know what they want musically, they "get" it.

Just because you didn't see them struggle doesn't mean they didn't.

Oh, the irony of writing that after having insisted that something doesn't exist because you've never seen it yourself.

You can be very off-putting with your passive-aggressive comments. I tire of it, particularly when completely lacking in substance, as this one was. It was nothing more than utter speculation about my "spectrum" and passive-aggressive judgment.

You thought I was passive-aggressive? I thought I was clear. You haven't seen the problem because you haven't been there.
You have frequently written at length about all the A-list players you've played with and the compliments they've given you and the many great gigs you've had... I didn't have to speculate much about your trombone past.

However, I recall another recent thread where someone made a pretty straightforward comment to the topic at hand and you immediately took it as a personal affront. Maybe... the problem isn't me.

Apologies for not responding sooner. When I press "Preview" here, everything disappears!

Firstly, you are off topic.
Secondly, she has blocked you, so she won't read this anyway.
Have a nice one.

[elmsandr]

There are also many who can do but cannot teach, especially those who are such natural talents that they have a hard time understanding how someone might struggle with something.

But damn some of them still get paid a lot to "teach" (make people cry at masterclasses, spout out obvious things that any teacher could identify, blame everything on buzzing or not buzzing, teaching the "think" method). Teaching is a separate, distinct ability.

I do get annoyed when teachers can't demonstrate what they are trying to teach. They could be great teachers but it's difficult to take someone seriously when they have serious underlying flaws or embouchure issues that they haven't been able to self assess and solve. That's something I'm working on, as a "me issue".

An aside as this has aged a bit; two of my favorite professors both suffered through playing lapses (Bell’s palsy or such) that left them unable to play…. However both were absolutely amazing in their ability to teach, even without being able to demonstrate, such was their effectiveness as teachers.

Just an interesting note that I have tucked in my brain; as I have also had lessons with some world class “players” and it reminded me of the ‘Grey Ghost’ of Frank DeFord that was a great player but useless to teach or comment on sports “He just didn’t meet the ball”.

Back to regularly scheduled programming,
Andy

[tbdana]

tbdana, that's a fine career you've had. Good for you!

However, nothing in that long resume indicates you have experienced the problem that brought this up...the problem others of us have definitely experienced... talented players who can't teach.

You haven't encountered or needed them? Lucky you!

Everything in that resume is about you playing or teaching, NONE OF IT is about being a student. i will take your word for it... you've never learned anything from anyone. It's all you! That sounds like you are indeed a natural talent.

It doesn't position you well to lecture the rest us about who is teaching (and how) in the schools, colleges and universities. You may have performed with some of them at some gig, but that is not the same as being their student for several years.

That sounds great! That sounds like a WAY better start in music than growing up in White Bear Lake, Minnesota in a family of zero musicians. And yet we are somehow to regard you as disadvantaged? Hmmm.

At least I have a had-to-carry-my-trombone-home-four-miles-in-the-snow tale that you'll never have in L.A.




The core problem I sense, based on your account, is that you are conflating struggled-with-life with struggled-to-acquire-musical-skill

I am unsurprised that they struggle with money... or their divorce... or their drug habit... or their manic-depression... or whatever... but you've already described them as "wildly capable". What to do when the horn is on their mouth is not their main problem. Sure, they work at their craft very intently and seriously but that is rather different from struggling with it. They know what they want musically, they "get" it.

Oh, the irony of writing that after having insisted that something doesn't exist because you've never seen it yourself.

You thought I was passive-aggressive? I thought I was clear. You haven't seen the problem because you haven't been there.
You have frequently written at length about all the A-list players you've played with and the compliments they've given you and the many great gigs you've had... I didn't have to speculate much about your trombone past.

However, I recall another recent thread where someone made a pretty straightforward comment to the topic at hand and you immediately took it as a personal affront. Maybe... the problem isn't me.

Apologies for not responding sooner. When I press "Preview" here, everything disappears!

Firstly, you are off topic.
Secondly, she has blocked you, so she won't read this anyway.
Have a nice one.

Unfortunately, when you quote him I see it. Now that I've read it, what a dick. I have no patience for this pretentious douchebag who purposefully misconstrues things in order to sound smugly superior. I'm certainly not going to engage him anymore. Life is too short.

[slidesix]

What do performance majors plan to do with their degrees?

I have only known a few. I can’t speak generally.

One got a perf degree, interned with the Chicago Symphony, and somehow ended up doing IT and Networking Engineering for them. There what point on he gave up on trying to be a pro musician and instead had a long career in IT and ended up in management, and later an IT executive. He seemed to do well enough. For him just having “any degree” helped him. I did get a sense he wished he could have been an orchestral musician at CSO though.

Another got a perf degree and did lots of Gigging and private teaching. He was able to buy a house. Maybe didn’t make as much as the first guy but I don’t really know.

Another got some combined degree in music and theater. He seems to be able to find enough work doing various things in both music and groups and theater and seems happy with it. Maybe the happiest of the 3 but sometimes that is really hard to rate or compare. It overall life seems to have turned out the way he expected do planned as a gigger. So maybe that is part of it?

As stated in the other thread, there aren't enough symphony chairs for the tsunami of students graduating with performance degrees. So, if you're going to pursue a career in music after receiving your degree, how can that be done?

I don’t really have an answer! I know when I looked at colleges and majors I asked myself the same question! So it is cool reading all the replies for those on here who have experience here directly or indirectly. Thanks.

[blast]

I think that in the UK, young players are looking to develop portfolio careers. They are often more self promoting and not afraid of creating work. Very different from my early professional days.

[sf105]

I think that in the UK, young players are looking to develop portfolio careers. They are often more self promoting and not afraid of creating work. Very different from my early professional days.

I've been impressed with what I see the London colleges doing in terms of broadening their students' experience: studio recordings, commercial music, business of music, etc. Better than in my day.

One downside, as a booker for amateur orchestras, is that a surprising number of students won't come out without getting paid. It's true that they have heavier bills to pay than in my day and I try to help where I can, but most orchestras are on tight budgets and if I'm paying I'll get someone more experienced. Not all fee-charging students are that good.

[mgladdish]

I think that in the UK, young players are looking to develop portfolio careers. They are often more self promoting and not afraid of creating work. Very different from my early professional days.

I've been impressed with what I see the London colleges doing in terms of broadening their students' experience: studio recordings, commercial music, business of music, etc. Better than in my day.

One downside, as a booker for amateur orchestras, is that a surprising number of students won't come out without getting paid. It's true that they have heavier bills to pay than in my day and I try to help where I can, but most orchestras are on tight budgets and if I'm paying I'll get someone more experienced. Not all fee-charging students are that good.

The flip side of that is worrying about devaluing the profession. I went in to IT very early after my jazz postgrad and so have always earned relatively well outside music. I'm super-paranoid about being seen to undercut my musical peers - it would actively harm the profession if I was willing to turn out for no/low money all the time. It's a difficult line to tread.

[sf105]

One downside, as a booker for amateur orchestras, is that a surprising number of students won't come out without getting paid. It's true that they have heavier bills to pay than in my day and I try to help where I can, but most orchestras are on tight budgets and if I'm paying I'll get someone more experienced. Not all fee-charging students are that good.

The flip side of that is worrying about devaluing the profession. I went in to IT very early after my jazz postgrad and so have always earned relatively well outside music. I'm super-paranoid about being seen to undercut my musical peers - it would actively harm the profession if I was willing to turn out for no/low money all the time. It's a difficult line to tread.

For "proper" gigs, of course. But there are a lot of college students who don't yet realise how far they have to go before they can justify a fee. There are some who are good from the start but, for most, something seems to happen around the 3rd year where things start to come together. At a minimum, I try to cover travel as it's so expensive now.

[LeTromboniste]

The flip side of that is worrying about devaluing the profession. I went in to IT very early after my jazz postgrad and so have always earned relatively well outside music. I'm super-paranoid about being seen to undercut my musical peers - it would actively harm the profession if I was willing to turn out for no/low money all the time. It's a difficult line to tread.

For "proper" gigs, of course. But there are a lot of college students who don't yet realise how far they have to go before they can justify a fee. There are some who are good from the start but, for most, something seems to happen around the 3rd year where things start to come together. At a minimum, I try to cover travel as it's so expensive now.

I'd say it's not so much a question of the player's level justifying a fee (and how high a fee), and more a question of the gig itself justifying the fee they can pay out. If an amateur orchestra can't afford to pay subs, then they can look for subs who will come play for free, typically other amateurs (and students who might or might not accept the gig). If a group can afford to pay subs, then their subs should get paid (and the same amount) whether they're pros, students or what not.

If the question is, are students refusing projects because they don't pay, when their development would actually benefit from doing some of these unpaid projects, then I've definitely been around some who fit that description. In my experience the students who then succeed professionally, aside from the ones with elite talent, are often those who went the extra mile and accrued the most experience, including unpaid, high-level amateur or student projects.

[tbdana]

One of the more disreputable things I did when I wasn't playing music was to perform as a magician.

Dana Magic Castle 020919.jpg

dana magician.jpg

(How embarrassing! )

But I learned something I think is relevant here.

Magicians, even more than musicians, get paid bottom of the barrel, and oh boy, do they ever complain about it.

I used to tell them that they were paid so poorly because magicians are marketed and hired as anonymous entities. People who are looking for "a magician" don't care all that much which magician they get so long as s/he is competent. So how do they decide? Usually based on how much they have to pay. So, naturally, that creates huge downward pressure on compensation. It's a race to rock bottom, because hiring people see magicians as fungible, like rice. No one cares which grains of rice they get, so when they're looking at bags of rice, they usually choose the cheapest one. So as long as they're advertising themselves as "a magician" it sounds like "a grain of rice." One's as good as another.

OTOH, if there is something unique or exciting about a particular magician, well, suddenly the pay structure opens up wide. You might pay "a magician" $50 to do some event you're holding. But if you want to get David Copperfield or Criss Angel or David Blaine, well, suddenly you'll eagerly fork out as much as you possibly can.

It's the same with trombonists. If you're just "a trombonist," you're gonna command bottom of the barrel. No one says, "I'll pay $5000 for a trombonist for this gig."

But if you're unique, if you're an individual, suddenly the wallets will open up.

Of course, you have to really have something to say in order to deserve that unique, commanding status. Arthur Pryor, Tommy Dorsey, Christian Lindberg, Bill Watrous, Marshall Gilkes, et al. aren't hired because they are "a trombonist" and paid crap, they are hired and paid well because they are a unique product separated from the bag of rice (bag o' bones?) the rest of trombonists live in.

You want high paying gigs? Be unique. Have something to say. Blaze your own trail.

Otherwise, you're just...

[sf105]

If the question is, are students refusing projects because they don't pay, when their development would actually benefit from doing some of these unpaid projects, then I've definitely been around some who fit that description. In my experience the students who then succeed professionally, aside from the ones with elite talent, are often those who went the extra mile and accrued the most experience, including unpaid, high-level amateur or student projects.

This was the point I had intended to make. Some of the groups I play with do amazing repertoire (Wozzeck, anyone?). We're not that good at it, but one can go a whole career without seeing that part again. I suspect that for some students, the standard is so high that they think they're ready.

Similarly, I failed to book a trumpet who would only play first. He was good, but not a*****e good. Unless he was going to waltz into a principal job, he needed to learn how to play in a section.

[BrianJohnston]

I know some killer players who had to get a 9-5 because of how competitive this field is. If you’re not one of those in the “only the strong survive” category, you should start t look for additional income.

[Wilktone]

For what it's worth, J.J. Johnson recorded some great albums in the early 1950s under his own name and with Miles Davis, while he was working full time as a blueprint inspector.

[Wilktone]

One of the more disreputable things I did when I wasn't playing music was to perform as a magician.

Dang, Dana. You played the Magic Castle? That's quite impressive.

[tbdana]

One of the more disreputable things I did when I wasn't playing music was to perform as a magician.

Dang, Dana. You played the Magic Castle? That's quite impressive.

Thank you. I performed there, was a member, and taught magic classes there. It was a way of getting my performance fix at a time when I wasn't playing trombone. But in terms of everything that feels good about art, if magic is a ten, playing trombone is a 2 billion.

[dukesboneman]

In my opinion, one of the biggest wastes of money and and a "do nothing" degree is an undergraduate Degree in Jazz Performance. Great, Now you`re the waiter that can play Donna Lee in all 12 Keys and no one cares.

[Wilktone]

I guess the artistic and cultural value is a waste of money, in your opinion too?

What about transferable skills that a music degree teaches?

Having a bachelors in music does open up teaching opportunities, even without a music education degree.

Not to mention personal fulfillment.

I don't care if you don't care about being able to play Donna Lee, but I use the skills I developed earning a jazz studies degree playing gigs all the time. Of course, that was a masters degree and it was back in 1994, so things were different then.

Didn't you teach band?


Dave

[WGWTR180]

Never are.

[JasonDonnelly]

What do performance majors plan to do with their degrees?

The same as any other college major. Continue to work towards "making it" in their desired career field for as long as they are willing, motivated, and financially able to do so. Taking auditions, trying to make connections with folks in the industry, practicing, and hunting for freelance opportunities. Some decide before they even graduate that the music-performance-career grind is not for them, and pivot to something else (teaching, arts administration, stuff completely removed from music, etc.). Others will give themselves a timeline - "I'll try it for 3 years, 5 years, until I'm 30," etc. And others will just continue to pursue the dream relentlessly, picking up whatever odd jobs are necessary to sustain themselves in the meantime.

It's hardly glamorous, and one could argue that music performance programs do not adequately prepare students for this reality, but I would also push back against the notion that music performance grads come out of school "expecting" to step into a full-time orchestral position or busy freelancing schedule. They're not idiots. I also think that we need to stop imagining the average music student as being in six-figure student loan debt...certainly many such individuals exist - especially coming from conservatories and other private schools - but the median student loan debt in the US sits around $20-25k, with the median music major debt being almost square in the middle at $22,649 (per the Federal Reserve's 2023 figures). Do other college degrees provide grads with a greater chance of climbing out of that loan debt quickly? Probably, but even that landscape is changing.(https://www.cnn.com/2025/08/28/tech/com ... ob-hunt-ai)

What proportion of professional trombonists (in all genres) who have established themselves in the last 30 years did not study music in college? What about orchestral musicians? And for the talented players that won their gigs during or shortly after undergrad...would they have been as successful if they were saddled with the workload of a music ed or STEM major? Of course, there is also a class/financial privilege factor to all of this, but that is for another thread.