[Dixielandjazz] Music Courses - was - Music Teachers

[Steve barbone]

"pat ladd" <pj.ladd at btinternet.com> answered Tom Wiggins with:

Tom said (polite snip)
classes about how to go market your talent and services and earn a living>>
 
> Pat Answered Hi Tom,
> sorry , but I shall have to disagree with you there. I dont
> think that is what education is about. I remember a teacher at my school
> saying `You are not here to learn how to make a living. You are here to
> learn how to live`
> 
> School should give you the basic tools to open  doors. Pushing on them and
> exploring what is in the next room is YOUR responsibilty.Teaching you to
> play an instrument to a certain level is the schools responsibilty.
> Introducing you to various sorts of music, again the schools job. Should you
> wish to learn composition, arranging, marketing if you will, become a world
> expert on Hadyn, or Armstrong, that is a specialists job, not that of a
> general musical education.
> 
> I would certainly agree with you that the system is breaking down.
> I would deplore, as I am sure you would, an educational system which fails
> to provide pupils with basic numeracy and literacy and has not introduced
> them to the idea that there is a big world out there to explore. Our system
> in the UK at the moment is failing even in that. Employers are having to set
> up basic maths lessons for graduates before they can be put to work. The
> sort of stuff that everyone in my generation knew at the age of fourteen.
> Luckily we do not have the added complication that a pupil is given passing
> marks because they can run/jump/play games etc.It doesn`t work that way
> here.
> 
> Musical content (Just).
> 
> Its a Wonderful World....

My 2 cents:

Perhaps the educational world needs to change to reflect what is occurring
in the marketplace?

In the USA, if one takes a course in music as an elective here and there,
then it is art for art's sake. That's fine and broadens the mind.

But if one studies music as a major field at Juilliard, or Berklee, or Rowan
or Curtis, etc., it now becomes a different matter. Several reasons why.

1) Used to be as a musician, all you needed was a good agent because gigs
were plentiful. This is no longer a given. There are nowhere near enough
gigs to go round. Too many excellent musicians are starving proving that
today, it is not enough to be an excellent musician.

2) Artistic musicians, for want of a better word meaning those who go to
Juilliard, Berklee, Rowan, or Curtis, are notoriously sheltered from the
outside world. They are naive. For the most part, they have no idea just how
tough things are in the world until they graduate, can't find musical work,
and end up driving cabs for a living.

It therefore seems to guys like Tom and me that music schools have a duty to
educate those they matriculate about such simple things as hustling for
gigs, marketing yourself, promoting, etc. Failing that, they need to cut
down on the number of students they graduate because they are taking money
from these kids and not offering anything in return, save instrumental
proficiency, which, by itself, is becoming less and less marketable. How
will they pay back their college loans?

What is the difference between that and the usual grifter scam?

Interestingly enough, Juilliard has started to include some marketing and
some "music politics" courses perhaps realizing that they are, in reality, a
trade school.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone