My point is that a career in music is typically not like a career outside  
of music.
 
The reason for this has to due mainly with the following reasons:
 
* The number of openings versus the number of applicants
* The subjectivity of auditions (job interviews)
* The politics of auditions (job interviews) 
* The difficulty in axing someone who has a current job but who isn't good  
enough
 
All four of these are typically very different in most non music  jobs:
 
* There are thousands of careers which actually don't have enough qualified 
 applicants and it's easier to land a job
* Job interviews are usually much more objective because they are based not 
 on musical preference but whether someone can get the job done
* Job interviews are much fairer because there is more of a threat of  
lawsuits due to the subjectivity of job interviews
* If someone doesn't fill their part of the job, they can be fired almost  
immediately - without having to wait for the next season or the next few  
auditions to find a new applicant.
 
It's very difficult explaining this to people who have had nothing but  
music jobs. But to those of us who make their living in the private sector with 
 a mainstream career it's very obvious to us. 
 
Let's say you spent 10,000 hours on your horn and you were a master of it.  
My no means could you at all expect to show up to the first audition and 
expect  to win it. Auditions are so subjective that it boils down to musical 
preference  and tone preference versus true mastery of the instrument. There 
are plenty of  examples where professional musicians in top orchestras 
didn't make it past the  first round in other auditions. 
 
But let's say you spent 10,000 hours on another career path - one that has  
plenty of job openings in just about any major city in the world. You 
pretty  much have your choice at any city and any job you want because there 
are 
so many  places that hire and most of the time they are looking to fill 
multiple  openings. 
 
When I graduated from college, I was able to get a couple of auditions, but 
 that didn't guarantee me a job, a job that I even wanted, or even a salary 
that  was livable. I had no guarantee that even if I nailed every requested 
piece and  didn't miss anything that I'd make it past the first round 
anywhere. 
 
However, I had thousands of hours experience in being a software developer  
- and I was able to send my resume out all over the country. I got dozens 
of  phone interviews, about a dozen personal interviews, and a half dozen  
actual offers. I could have easily gotten more offers as well if I just kept  
sending out my resume. I didn't even fully tap all of the places I wanted to 
 live. They were looking for me. My phone wouldn't stop ringing.
 
I had my choice between 6 jobs - and all of them were great. 
 
Who has the choice between 6 major orchestras at once?
 
I will tell you one thing, I certainly haven't passed the 10,000 hour mark  
in being a programmer - yet I already have a stable career and existing job 
 opportunities if my current job fails. And even if I didn't, I could 
probably  find another job fairly quickly in the same career - and probably in 
the same  city. I'm not bragging either - this could happen with anyone with a 
good  marketable vocation and a little persistence.
 
There's a wide world out there beyond a career in music, and you can still  
be a very competent player if your job lies somewhere else. I just wish 
more  music students realized early in their practicing that they don't put all 
their  eggs in one basket. They should work on a separate vocation or two 
in the  background in case they don't land principal in Chicago.
 
Then maybe those of us who do have a career in music would realize that  
although 'life is life' - the music world doesn't have to be more unfair, more 
 unjust, and more arrogant than most every other job out there. No matter 
what  you're playing, you're still the hired help. You'll never be looked on 
as an  equal by the upper echelons of society who are paying your salary.  
In most  other careers people are aware of this and it makes them humble. But 
a lot of  career musicians (and some professors included) I've met are 
oblivious to  it.
 
I think all of us are usually surprised when we meet a humble  musician.
 
Flame on.
 
-William
 
 
In a message dated 3/18/2010 4:46:29 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
[email protected] writes:

It all  depends how you see mastery:

is it real mastery ? 
or is it mastery  in the view of the player or his/her friends & family ?
is it mastery  in the view of audition juries ?

it depends also
if you are ready  for a certain position & the position is right then 
vacant ?
are there  better candidates ?

is there discrimination against you from conductors  side due to a personal
incident during study time perhaps ?

did you  have difficulties with one of the section members in the past ?
does your  tonal colour match the section ?

do you fit into their social preview ?  (age pyramide, a very important 
factor)

too many factors  counting.

playing wise, well, it is lie the olympics. Favorites  sometimes win, 
sometimes dont get a medal at all.

Life is  life.

#################################################################

Am  18.03.2010 um 09:34 schrieb [email protected]:

> Plus mastery of an  instrument doesn't yield a fruitful career.
> 
> Although the rate  of mastery of a task versus success in a career is 
much  
> higher  outside of the field of music.
> 
> -William
> 
>  
> In a message dated 3/18/2010 4:30:02 A.M. Eastern Daylight  Time,  
> [email protected] writes:
> 
> It is  not  important, how many hours one studies one thing. 
> But it is very   important how effectively practice time is used. 
> One first has to  learn  & understand how music is about, including the 
>  theory. 
> Next one has to  learn & understand 
> how  practice time is to be divided for the certain  purposes: 
>  
> developing the hearing sense
> developing technical skill   including secureness,
> developing tone quality,
>  developing  endurance,
> developing musical taste through musical  literature, means  
> developing musical knowledge
>  developing the ability to read, understand  & play music at the spot,  
> even never seen the part before & never  heard the piece  before.
> 
> If the time is divided properly and if practice   is done with most 
possible 
> concentration upon the matter,
> one  should be  able to study the horn or trumpet or any other brass 
>  instrument to arrive  at
> a high professional level, just with  three hours studying daily for five 
 
> to six years.
> 300  days a year (vacations & days without the horn, ill  leave etc.  
> counted) by
> three hours daily makes 900 to 1000 hours  (gigs  count also positively), 
> that by 5 years makes 4.500  hours, 
> by seven years  6.300 hours. Count the extra hours of  preparation by 
just 
> reading the musical  literature, 
>  preparing parts, writing out parts by hand or PC, hours spent  in the  
> library, fixing the horn, well, 
> there you have the  10.000  hours.
> 
> Be happy you have not to study as much as  string players or wood  wind 
> players, who have to spend
>  uncountable hours preparing their reeds,  not to speak about  pianists.
> 
> If one does not consider the points I   mentioned above, one has the 
never 
> ending problem, needing
> to  "hammer in"  every single part, just mechanical trying & trying &  
trying 
> again.  What a waste of life time.
> If you study,  using your brain, your advancement  will be much faster 
and 
> you  will have remaining tie to 
> rest, for sports,  for socializing,  etc.
> 
> Do not forget studying art history in general,  try  to study Italian & 
> rudimentary German to understand
> the  masterworks  better. If you have a very good teacher, NEVER question 
 
> his advice. But if you  
> might find a better solution or  a better trick, making a passage easier, 
 
> demonstrate it to  your
> teacher, who will like your effort. But, again,  never  question your 
> teacher  !!
> 
>  
############################################################################
>  ###########
> Am  18.03.2010 um 06:03 schrieb Kit Wolf:
>  
>> I've heard this too, though  I feel slightly uncertain about  the idea 
of 
> it
>> being a hard and fast   rule.
>> 
>> I guess there are two points here: one is how  much  practice an 
'average'
>> person has done. Almost by  definition, a master  is somebody who is
>> exceptional and to  my mind the 10,000 hour rule  simply reflects the 
fact
>> that  most amateur musicians never put in this  many hours - or at  
least,
>> not within a short period of time.
>> 
>>  The other is how long it takes to reach a steady state of   
accomplishment,
>> where a level of diminishing returns is  reached.  Surely this must vary 
> for
>> different  endeavours? It takes less time to  play noughts and crosses 
to 
>  an
>> excellent standard than chess, for  example. I also once  read that 
airtime
>> stopped being a good marker of  pilot  ability after the 250 - 1000 hour
>> mark.
>> 
>> I  don't  find it hard to believe it takes 10,000 hours to play the  horn
>> well,  though. Perhaps more..?
>> 
>>  Kit
>> 
>>> That's  interesting. Too bad I'm pretty  sure I practiced the horn for
>>> 10,000 hours (took it 40 years  ago) but I'm not close to achieving
>>> "true mastery"  :-(
>>> 
>>> Daniel
>>> 
>>>  
>>> On 17Mar 2010, at 14:54 , Steven Mumford  wrote:
>>> 
>>>> One of the most significant  factors is what scientists call  the
>>>> "10,000-hour  rule."
>>>> When we look at any  kind of cognitively  complex field -- for example,
>>>> playing  chess, writing  fiction or being a neurosurgeon -- we find 
that
>>>> you are  unlikely to master it unless you have practiced for   10,000
>>>> hours. That’s 20 hours a week for 10 years. The  brain  takes that
>>>> long to
>>>>  assimilate all it needs to  know to achieve true mastery.
>>>  
>>>  _______________________________________________
>>> post:   [email protected]
>>> unsubscribe or set options at
>>>  
>  
https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/c.j.l.wolf%40newcastle.ac.uk
>>>  
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Sometimes my Email  program gives the  wrong return address. If you have 
>  any
>> trouble replying to me, use  '[email protected]'  and not 
> 'n802...'
>> 
>> Sorry for any   confusion
>> 
>>  _______________________________________________
>> post:   [email protected]
>> unsubscribe or set options at  
>  https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/hpizka%40me.com
>  
> _______________________________________________
> post:   [email protected]
> unsubscribe or set options at  
>  
https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/valkhorn%40aol.com
>  _______________________________________________
> post:  [email protected]
> unsubscribe or set options at  
https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/hpizka%40me.com

_______________________________________________
post:  [email protected]
unsubscribe or set options at  
https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/valkhorn%40aol.com
_______________________________________________
post: [email protected]
unsubscribe or set options at 
https://pegasus.memphis.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/options/horn/archive%40jab.org

Reply via email to