The Savvy Musician, a book by Dr. David Cutler comes out in November. There is some publicity being generated about the book’s upcoming release and the potential impact it might have on those musicians seeking careers in non traditional venues. I haven’t read it (advanced copies are available) but an article about it raises some questions for me as to the motives of schools that think that entrepreneurship is the answer for musicians who are not finding work in “traditional” musical settings. The potential problem in music schools creating stand alone entrepreneurship programs, is that it treats it a little like alternative medicine…..i.e not taking it seriously
First a couple of quotes from the article by Andrew Druckenbrod on the alternatives for musicians in an over saturated marketplace:
But have things really gotten so bad that a student should follow that classic parental advice and go to medical or law school instead?
Not according to a new movement called music entrepreneurship that is gaining ground at schools around the country. Cutler is among several professors at the forefront of this change in attitude; his book, “The Savvy Musician” (Helius Press, $19.99, due out in November) is a guide to navigating these uncertain waters, targeted to those facing the “real world.”
and
For years, conventional wisdom has been that leadership in the classical music industry should work to increase demand so that more young musicians can get jobs. Better funding, it is said, should be found to expand orchestras and develop audiences, and music should be cultivated at all levels. But for advocates of entrepreneurship such as Cutler, it is the musician who must adapt to the shrinking and changing marketplace.
I actually agree with this sentiment, however I find it disturbing that an entrepreneurship curriculum seems to always be separated from the “traditional” curriculum. That in my mind treats it like an unwanted stepchild (i.e we got a grant to do this, so we had to). I would like to see it help transform a curriculum by bringing it into the mainstream rather than – OK those wanting to try and make it on main stages this way, those looking for night club opportunities and to balance a checkbook, you go to the “new” school in the basement. In other words, I want to hear an admission from traditional big box music schools that there is a new reality, and that is : We must help educate musicians by teaching new skill sets with a complete rethinking and reworking of the overall curriculum to match the reality of what will be faced in the “real world”.
There is also one element missing in the “reality” based entrepreneurial approach. As an advocate for a transformation in the mission of higher institutions of musical learning, I
wrote about it recently when taking the National Association of Schools of Music to task for having over 4 times as many accredited music schools as there are medical schools that are accredited! I believe the transformation needs to include advocacy for the art form, a search for its relevance and a connection to a community and people in general. My class the Audience Connection (which is all about this) I am happy to say is now a core subject in the Arts Admin course at Drury University (all linked on the left column). It has now been included as a part of the curriculum, not “apart” from the curriculum as an elective. Now David Cutler to his credit recognizes the social aspect in the last line of this quote from the article (bolded by me):
Many feel that music education in America — slow to change in the past half century — has failed students in this regard. “We have created more extremely talented musicians than ever before,” says Cutler. “But in curriculum, we have completely ignored many other essential issues such as how to make a living or how to make an difference in society.”
I am with him on this but again to emphasize, I don’t want to see curriculums divided up into “traditional”, “entrepreneurial” and “social” . It needs to be one curriculum so that those areas are treated as equally important to create the complete musician, otherwise music education will continue to be centered on what we can get out of it, rather than what we can give of it to society. There’s a classic example of this outlined in the article:
Cutler and others see the new environment brimming with possibilities, even as it has shut down or backlogged traditional routes. “It is hard, but there are opportunities that weren’t there before,” he says. “If [your quartet] tries to get a gig at Carnegie Hall, you might be up against 300 quartets, but if you go to a smaller community you can make it work.”
One sterling example is the Ying String Quartet, which began its career in the 1990s as the resident quartet of Jesup, Iowa, a farm town of 2,000 people. It performed in homes, schools, churches and banks, with a philosophy that “concert music can also be a meaningful part of everyday life.”
The Ying Quartet’s off-the-beaten path garnered national interest and forged its musicality as a group so that today the quartet is considered one of the top in the world, playing more typical venues such as Carnegie Hall.
I don’t believe for a second that their philosophy “concert music can also be a meaningful part of everyday life.” was all part of their grand plan to end up a Carnegie Hall. They were sincere in making peoples lives better, and this sincerity mixed in with blazing talent, audience reaction and the tangible difference they made is what brought them their success. I contend that right from when a music student walks into a school there should be programming that sends them right out again to put them into “real life” situations to perform, work and hopefully benefit the community around them. This way they learn that music serves a purpose and is not there just to serve their purpose!
An analogy: new cures, and advances in medical research are sought to improve life expectancy (i.e for the greater good for all of us) and not for the benefit of doctors to carve their own niche in the profession. The same approach in transforming the curriculum of the music school is needed to improve the life expectancy of the musician (i.e working life), the art form, and to make a difference in people’s lives. To touch people’s lives with music is our job. Music exists not only for us to reach our own potential, but to play a part in others reaching theirs. Now if schools would recognize that, that would be Savvy!
Advance copies of David Cutler’s book are available here.
1 thought on “How about Savvy Music Schools?”
Comments are closed.