To not understand why parents encourage music

[angryeumigrant]

when classical musicians earn so little.

The real money in music is in music production, composing, DJing, club nights, breakthrough bands, etc. Even that is not what it was in say the 1980s. There is next to no money in classical music performance.

I'll all for children learning to play an instrument for pleasure, read music, music theory, etc. However, I do wonder why parents would not actively discourage their children from spending too much time playing an instrument during GCSE / A-Levels. I think it's one of those things that is considered a "good thing" without it ever getting looked at objectively.

I would much rather my child was composing electronic music or sounding a computer game than reaching a top level playing the violin, because frankly the former is not only more creative but also more career-enhancing.

at the thought of break through bands, music production bods earning soooo much money. I think you're confusing the music industry with the X factor op! And this is from the wife of a musician, who used to work in the industry and the sister of a musician newly out of music school.

I played many instruments at school too and it was exactly your attitude which forced me down an academic path, rather than a musical one. Music is a wonderful skill and hobby and enriches your life immeasurably. I will never forget summers on tour with the youth orchestra I played in. I feel bitter that I wasn't encouraged more tbh. And I wasn't forced or pushed, I asked to play and begged my parents for instruments.

And yes to stress busting properties. It helped rein in my anxiety as a teen. I wish I'd continued beyond uni in some sort of orchestra.

However, I agree that a wider range of activities should be part of children's hobbies. And that children shouldn't be forced into activities by parents. Woodworking would be a great skill to have. As would software development. But you can do this with your children yourself can't you? My two go to Forest School and Dd1 (3) can saw a branch with an adult saw (obvs with help), help light a fire; will pick up any instrument to have a go (we leave simple instruments around to play), she has access to a crafts table at home with loads of different things to play with and I plan to continue to provide her with access to a broad rang of activities when she grows up. I will remember your wood work example, as Dh would be great at doing something like that with her.

And in the end it doesn't all come down to money. The wealthiest, self made multi millionaire that I know is as miserable as anything and oddly, a frustrated musician who was happiest when he was young, poor and playing keyboards in bands....

I encourage my oldest DS in his music as he enjoys it, and he practices in a band with friends and it's fun. That's all. That's enough.

Saying that, he has not put music on his "options" choices for GCSE, he chose computing and design and tech instead, as that is the area he hopes to work in.

So IMO you can do music as a hobby, outside school, but no need to do GCSE in it unless you want to go professional.

I agree that it is part of the "hoops" many MC parents make their kids jump through: Must pass 11+ or go private (tick) do DoE (tick), Music (tick), Drama (tick) for no other reason than that it is "the done thing". Not everyone, of course, but I know plenty of people who think like this , as the child will need to have a "rounded CV" before he becomes a doctor/lawyer/banker. Heaven forbid the child would actually want to play in a band or be an actor after school!

I do see an element of middle class bias in the cohort attending extracurricular music, but certainly the lessons offered through the school are taken up by all sorts of people.
My youngest has given up on lessons for a while but has joined the Town Band: not one middle class person among them.
My eldest studies violin for many years but has now eschewed lessons in favour of folk fiddling for pleasure: not middle class either!
Both have gained friends, skills and fun from learning an instrument. A non-competitive hobby is a good thing in and of itself.

folk fiddling is VERY MC

Very hipster very new-MC

Lovely though, any recommendations? I think DS might like to try a bit of folk fiddling, though right now he is moving from classical to...pop music

He downloads music of the internet, guess it's the same for folk?

*Is it our primary role as parents to steer children towards income maximisation?

Or is it more about helping them to become well-rounded human beings with a range of skills?*

^ This

There are lots of hobbies which are said to give such and such an advantage in future careers.

In fact the longitudinal studies show that none of them confers any advantage that can be distinguished from their family situation (eg naice mc families do ballet and cricket and grade eight flute).

The only hobby that gives any actual measurable advantage (and I'm sorry, OP, but computer skills don't either) is reading for pleasure. Doesn't matter what they're reading so long as they're doing it out of choice.

Music lessons £10+ a go; library card free.

MrsDeVere all the conservatoires have detailed access policies with specific attneiton paid to SpLD. DD1 certainly didn't find having an SpLD made her beyond the pale - she got offers from all the places to which she applied.

OP you sould incerdibly dull and bitter. Also your opinions are clearly bollocks.

Because my 8 yr old DS loves it and it makes him very, very happy! He begged us for lessons and plays his instruments entirely off his own back. I don't ever have to ask him to practice. The arts subjects are not just about painting pictures and performing a recorder piece in the school assembly, they are about making friends, developing team working skills, relaxation, concentration, imagination, etc...the list is endless and all of those skills are directly transferrable and beneficial to the core curriculum subjects. Why do parents encourage their kids to play football or swim or anything else for that matter? The top footballers might earn millions but there are far more people who simply enjoy a Saturday local league game the same as there are thousands of people around the UK who far from earning money, actually pay a membership fee to play in local orchestras. There is probably as much chance of someone being the next Gareth Bale as there is the next Nigel Kennedy and I have no expectation of my DS ever being a top class musician although if he chose to pursue that as a career I would do everything in my power to support that because I'd rather he was in a lower paid job he loved than a high paid one he didn't! To say that there is no money in classical music is however possibly a bit of a sweeping statement, I don't think Julian Lloyd Webber, 2Cellos, Nicola Benedetti and Joshua Bell are short of a bob or two! You've only got to look at the plethora of You Tube videos such as the one posted above about the benefits of learning an instrument, classical or otherwise as the genre of music is irrelevant, to realise that far from being something that is discouraged during GCSE's/A-Levels it ought to be treated with the same level of importance as English and Maths.

I would much rather my child was composing electronic music or sounding a computer game than reaching a top level playing the violin, because frankly the former is not only more creative but also more career-enhancing.

All of the audio engineers I've worked with in the games industry have done music at GCSE, A-Level and degree level, and several have formal classical certificates too (including grade 8s).

You have to have a real passion for music across all genres, and a real knowledge of music theory - games come in multiple genres and themings, and their soundtracks usually reflect that. One project they may be composing and creating a grungy industrial metal theme for a cyberpunk first person shooter, the next a jolly, cheerful soundtrack for a cartoony game, the next a sweeping mournful orchestral score for a fantasy RPG.

Plus, music is fun, not just a stepping stone to a career. It can lead to increased confidence, new social opportunities, etc.

For me there's something really valuable in having a skill that's entirely separate from commercial 'value', particularly as a lot of education moves towards the commercial rather than knowledge for its own sake.

DD appears to enjoy playing music. For me, this means that she'll always have a potential social activity (orchestras, bands or community choirs needing an accompanist), additional income (weddings/parties/bar mitzvahs), and something completely separate from her day to day life that she can do just for the sake of making a beautiful sound. I like the fact that even if she really struggles at school (she does) and isn't one of the stand-out athletes (she isn't) either, she has a skill that is all her own. She might not do anything with it other than learning a few tunes, but that has a real benefit in itself. Saying that music ought not to be encouraged because there's no money in it is a bit like saying kids shouldn't be given paints because there's no money for most artists - a bit pointless and a bit sad, really.

There is a bit of MC-ness in some of the parental attitudes around ('once Millie can stand up by herself we'll start her on the piano as it's absolutely the only instrument to learn'), but if the children are keen to learn, why on earth refuse?

FWIW, I know a fair number of music technicians and DJs, and all of them started by learning classical instruments. The most heavily tattooed/ pierced techno DJ I ever met could play some gorgeous violin solos - and he definitely wasn't/ isn't part of the Boden stereotype.

Re art and "It's not something you can learn" - absolute bollocks. I know, because a year ago I drew like the average 8 year old. I've been learning, and I don't draw like an 8 year old any more. Why is drawing seen as this weird exception to the idea of working hard, practising and progressing? Like everything, some people will pick it up more easily than others, and some are more motivated than others, but everybody can learn. Nobody expects people to just sit down and play the piano like a concert pianist because they have 'natural talent' - it takes hard work. The same with artists!

Parents encourage music for many reasons. Perhaps they are musicians themselves, perhaps because music is proven to help children academically, mostly I would suggest for enjoyment, and certainly most don't foresee a career for them in music. And there doesn't need to be an end career or goal in it. Just enjoyment of a beautiful art form, hopefully throughout life. I'm still playing my clarinet in my late 40's (just passed grade 8, dist.!) and cannot wait for my practise time as it's time just for me, time to relax, de-stress. I hope my musician DD will still be playing for pleasure when she's my age. She has said she might like to play professionally but I'm not going to discourage her due to the lack of money in it. It's up to her what she decides to do with her life.

On reflection, yes there is an element of MC snobbery about music lessons. That whole Pride & Prejudice 'what makes a woman accomplished' shtick. I've encountered it a lot. (And on here, too - the number of times I've read posts from private school parents saying that state school kids don't have the music opportunities their kids do...) A few colleagues at work have kids who do music clearly because that's what kids at private school do. Some of them have even tried to be a bit condescending about my state school kids' music capabilities/possibilities...until other colleagues have pointed out how nutty that is. But even those kids who are doing music as a trophy/bragging point for their parents are probably getting something out of it for themselves. And those attitudes towards the private state divide aren't limited to music anyway - see also sport (which I can't really comment about) and things like writing comps (which I can comment about since DD1 has won several).

I know several people who compose music for computer games and telly/film (the former is often a stepping stone to the latter). They all had formal classical music training although not all of them did music O or A level.I haven't ever detected any sign that my composer friends think they are more creative than the musicians who perform their work, incidentally. And most (not all) of them were really happy to move from doing it all themselves on their computers to using real performers.

The possibilities for musicians and composers are actually far greater as a result of technology than was the case when I was a kid. There's a lot of compeition though and rewards at the lower end of the scale aren't great, it's true. When I was a kid, I could have pursued music as a career but instead turned my back on it (well, as a career, not as a lifestyle thing, I do a lot of performing even now) in favour of something more secure (or so I thought. the concept of a job for life is of course long gone). I've regretted that for most of my life but still didn't encourage DD1 to pursue music college - I didn't discourage her, as such, but I wasn't terribly supportive of the idea until it was clear that whatever I said or did would make no difference.I didn't have mixed feelings because of the money aspect though, more because it can be a brutal life even when the rewards are good, and because since we know largely very successful musicians and people in related careers rather than people who have struggled and jacked it in, I worried she had a too rosey idea of the prospects. At the end of the day though, her life her choice.

Incidentally I am not MC - I was born WC and although I'm disqualified from that now by virtue of my salary and my profession, I'm definitely not MC still (it's not something you can become. Anyone who thinks you can is fooling themselves). I guess my kids are MC though. In certain ways (not actually because they all do music dance and drama to a hgh level). And in others they aren't (attitudes and politics mainly).

The OP is just a hotch potch of random thoughts, none of which make much sense.

"Oxbridge interviews? Yes, having been there I can believe that, although usually looking more for good voices for the college choir than for instrumentalists."

If you've been there you should be well aware of the large number of musicians and the massive amount of classical music going on. Either Oxbridge do value them, or whatever it is that Oxbridge does value has a large correlation with playing an instrument. Either way, it seems like playing an instrument is a good idea if you're interested in going there.

I think the only reasonable question is whether it is a MC 'thing' to push kids into classical music because they want to keep up with the joneses. I've seen that sometimes, but that's a problem with the parents not classical music. (And I've seen it with lots of other supposed MC pursuits too).

Oh and yes, of course hardly anyone carries on carries on playing music as an adult.

Learning to play a musical instrument is so much more than preparation for the jobs market. Teaches so many life skills including perseverance, commitment, sustained concentration. Children who learn an instrument usually succeed academically too. The skills needed to learn an instrument are transferable to so many areas.

I totally get what the OP is saying. It's not the music lessons they're objecting to, in fact they said "I'm all for children learning to play an instrument for pleasure, read music, music theory, etc." - me too, I think there's great value in that, especially learning to read music - that really helps with maths and languages.

But I also wish there was more emphasis on bringing music lessons into the 21st century, teaching music production, digital music, DJing, song writing, etc. - things that might be much more relevant to a lot of kids from backgrounds where classical music isn't necessarily encouraged or shown an interest.

I agree it can be a class thing. Every kid in our school who played violin/cello/flute were from families who could afford those instruments. To be honest, if you weren't from one of 'those' families and had to borrow the school instruments, you had one half looking down their noses and the other half pissing themselves laughing at you. Plus you had no real chance of progressing as nothing to practise on at home. Maybe things have moved on, but I got the feeling things were the same when DD was at school 20+ years later.

I love the idea of offering digital music classes, DJing, song writing, as an extra curricular activity alongside classical lessons. Feels way more inclusive and somehow a lot more fun and relevant. I think it's a great idea.

(I do think there's loads of emphasis already put on learning computer programming etc. within school hours and after school clubs though, it's taking a while for schools to wake up to new technology, but definitely getting there.)

In my experience it is the children who are doing a lot of music (and sports)
who get the best GCSE and A level results anyway. It gives their brains release from that academic work, at the same time they have excellent focus.

It certainly does not gain them any money though, unless, for example, playing a stringed instrument in a small group for a wedding at the weekends which can be very valuable pocket money.

I've been a classical musician for twenty years. To imply that there is no money in classical music is both inaccurate and offensive.

I can liken this to creative writing (my own background). I've studied writing and literature from GCSE through to MA, knowing full well that there is only decent money in it for the few, and little money in it for the masses. Enjoyed it but wish there'd been less 19th century classics and more interactive digital fiction (there was none of the latter on offer at any level). I'm not talking about e-books or publishing for Kindle here, I'm talking about the way kids and adults will be reading in the future. Writers struggle to find courses that teach it but it's SO relevant.

Writing, art, sport, music - you only tend to see the good money if you're one of the 1% that gets the publishing contract, the top club offer, or the label signing. (I'm not saying the other 99% make NO money, just that these are all really hard careers to make a living from unless you're at the top).

So I don't think the OP is saying NO ONE can make money out of classical music, just that it's a good idea in our modern world to also focus on aspects of music that are more relevant and could improve chances of earning a living through music.

The thing is relevance isn't the issue so much as the intrinsic value.

If you are looking for relevance there are abstract elements such as developing concentration and memory, protecting the mind against alzheimers (or if you do get it the part that stores music is the last to go) learning to be part of a group in an orchestra. See what La Systema does for poor Venezuelan children, expression and release.

I am a professional musician, and while it's true that it can be a hard life, it is also wonderful. For me, nothing can compare to the thrill of performance. Waiting backstage before the concert begins is always scary and stressful, but the feeling of performing a virtuoso piece of music is just amazing. When I am in the zone, it is like flying. It is also a wonderful feeling to play deep, profound pieces of music, and to share these emotions with an audience.
DH is also a professional musician (orchestral and chamber), and we are doing OK financially. We are managing to pay London prep school fees for our child. We also own a flat on the zone 1/2 boundary, with a fairly small mortgage.
Having said all that, we were both supported financially by our parents through our student years, and in the year or so after.
DH and I both love our lives as professional musicians. We would not push our child into a career as a professional musician; the impetus has to come from the child. You have to really want to be a musician, and to be completely driven. But it is a wonderful career (if it works out.)

My father was a gifted amateur violinist. I was taught to play the violin and didn't enjoy it much. I went to a school with good music teaching and sang in the choir.

I've sung in amateur choral societies and listening to classical concerts and recording is a huge pleasure. I'm glad I can appreciate something which is a part of a risch artistic tradition, and which is also an incredible source of comfort and inspiration to me, at all sorts of different times in my life.

why parents encourage music

Because it is a wholesome, social and educational hobby, that can bring joy to many many people, and the skills learnt can remain useful later on in life if desired.

It is not the only hobby that has these benefits, but that's some of the reasons in reply to your OP.

What I don't understand is your reference to a professional musicians pay. I don't make my ds play football rather than cricket because professional footballers get paid more than cricketers. He just prefers cricket over football!! He will never be a pro sports player but he still enjoys it.

"We are the music makers and we are the master of dreams"

Willy Wonker /Roald Dahl