I recently came across a column for Polyphonic written by a musician, teacher, and arts administrator. Since I couldn’t just focus on one article — so many were interesting — I thought I would summarize a few with some thoughts and link to them to see if anything struck you, as well.
What’s the Beef with “Arts Entrepreneurship?”
Danyew notes that, like we’ve discussed in class, music schools are starting to include entrepreneurship in their courses/departments. But he also says that “not every musician needs to be an entrepreneur. Not every musician wants to be an entrepreneur. And not every musician should be an entrepreneur.”
I think this is something really interesting to note, but I also think of how things are moving and, would it be possible to sustain this? Will those who look at musicianship (IE actually playing and performing, not just playing in their own time as a hobby) in a non-entrepreneurial way be eventually pushed out by those who are?
He points out an article called “No seriously, there’s no such thing as arts entrepreneurship”, who claims that everything we currently call arts entrepreneurship is just using the tools we have; we’re already doing it and there is no reason to expand on it. Danyew disagrees, saying this is too narrow, and that arts entrepreneurship isn’t like that anymore. Instead of waiting, artists are creating their own opportunities.
I think this is essential for all artists, and whether an artist wants to follow that path, learning about it in academia will create opportunities. If a musician doesn’t want to be a superstar, I don’t think that entrepreneurship courses takes away from their passion for their art (which is what Danyew says).
Interesting Audience Trends that Musicians Need to Know
This article talks about Culture Track, a study of people’s habits and their participation in cultural events. He discusses the latest statistics and a summary (that he takes from elsewhere), but there are a few things I found really interesting.
First, there is more interest in museums and performances of classical music, jazz, and theatre (not surprisingly with Glee), but decreases in dance, opera, plays. That doesn’t really surprise me in so much that it didn’t stay neutral, rather than decrease.
Second, audiences are thinking of culture more broadly, and I think that is in thanks to events that aren’t so “obvious” as culture branding themselves that way or linking with cultural organizations.
Third, there was a rather large amount (43%) of Millennials that won’t attend on their own, which really surprised me! Often I would rather go myself to these types of events and mingle with the folks there, but perhaps if you are venturing to something “cultural” and you aren’t involved in that sector, you would feel nervous or out of place.
Next, one of the greatest barriers to entry are perceptions of high cost (the second being unappealing subject matter), which really hits home to me, who is on a strict budget. I have to really balance what I can afford with supporting the artists with, if there are free or cheaper events, whether I can fit them in.
Another than is related to what we’ve discussed recently, social media is taking a forefront, and Millennials are the main force of this.
There are other interesting findings as well–you’ll likely want to read it–but I think this is all positive. It shows where the arts are shifting and what we need to do about it.
Crowdfunding music: Everything old is new again as artists scramble for your contributions
(read it here)
Danyew links to this article written by John Terauds, which talks about how Mozart was a combination of composer, performer, manager and publicist (at one point asking where he can escape… ha!), and points out Indiegogo and Kickstarter. He dubs this “the best of times and the worst of times for the artist”.
He compares two different recent Canadian new music Indiegogo campaigns: one that is dead, one that thrived. In his words, the first features “Dame Evelyn Glennie, a successful, established metropolitan orchestra, the Winnipeg Symphony, its well-loved conductor, a highly respected composer, Vincent Ho, and a featured work that has drawn rave reviews (including my own), The Shaman. ” And the second, “a highly respected Canadian composer, Jocelyn Morlock, and a collection of musicians in different cities and venues presenting definitive performances of her favourite works.”
Though he isn’t sure why one is doing better than the other, he has some ideas (that he doesn’t share), though notes that things have turned and artists now have to “hustle and bustle” for themselves. He asks if this is a good thing or a bad thing.
I think, although it requires a lot of work, is not necessarily good or bad… it just is how things are moving, and we have to do it if we (a) want success and (b) want to keep growing and moving forward.
When did you become a creator rather than a waiter in your own art?
Do you see similar cultural shifts and trends in your own community?
Why do you think the first campaign failed, and the second was successful? Do you think that having to hustle ourselves is good or bad?
He’s certainly a prolific Blogger – must have learned from Gerard at some point!
I think Danyew’s point in the first article may be right – in so far as he’s saying that, just as not every musician is going to be a world class soloist, or even manage to make a living at music, not every musician who takes an arts-as-business course is actually going to be a successful entrepreneur.
However, there seem to be two types of musicians on BMus courses – those who hope for a performing career and those who want to teach (school or studio).
I’ve never been convinced that the majority of those who say they want to teach actually do – I think it may be more of a realization that it’s their only option if they want to remain in music and be able to afford to live.
And, of course, not everyone who says they want to teach is actually going to be a good (or even competent) teacher – teachers are born, not taught.
Having said all that, I do think there’s a blindness amongst music students – willful or not – about the realities (a) of their own abilities, or (b) of the work possibilities for a musician.
Fine if they don’t want to be entrepreneurs, but let’s hope that the business courses they take (and they should be compulsory not elective) open their eyes to some truths they need to learn before they graduate.
If they sit around just waiting for things to happen in their careers, they need to understand that they’ll be sitting around for a long time – or perhaps a very long time indeed.
Oh, I agree with this comment so much:
“I’ve never been convinced that the majority of those who say they want to teach actually do – I think it may be more of a realization that it’s their only option if they want to remain in music and be able to afford to live.”
From my experience in undergrad, it was a default category. Many MTherapy hopefuls who didn’t get in ended up going into Education. You could see the passion for those who would thrive as teachers, and see others just going through the motions. I truly hope they aren’t teachers, or they found the passion.
These courses could include SO much more insight than random electives that students take to fill the void because of whatever reason. So many students in my year took religion courses because it was an “easy” course and the books were cheap and it was a convenient time AND they were all doing it together.
I’m not sure that ended up being fruitful for any of them.
Unfortunately, I think too much latitude is given to students to make their own decisions about courses.
Call me old-school if you like, but at 18/19 what do the majority of these young people actually know? Of course there are exceptions, but most of them think they know it all and are therefore given licence to make decisions about which they really know nothing – other than “can I get a good mark with this teacher, without doing any work?”
Look at the MACM – here are people with significant life and professional experience, and the course content is still mainly decided by those people who know far more about it than we do. I’m glad it’s that way, or I think we’d be struggling to find a pathway.
If that’s us, what hope have most undergraduate students of making the right decisions about their lives at their age? Certainly more compulsory curriculum and less optional should be the model, except for those who are identified by faculty as being above average (or “gifted” to use the current buzzword).
But that goes totally against the trend that sees educators as “facilitators”, while the students figure out their own pathways – it’s exactly the same philosophy that refuses to identify winners and losers, so everyone gets a trophy or certificate… I still don’t believe that is the right way to prepare young people for the realities of the world around them.
I realise, of course, that I’m completely out of step with the rest of the world – but I don’t actually care much about fitting in!
It would be interesting to hear Stephen’s take on educational philosophy…
I tend to be a little “old school” here too (siding more with requirements rather than options). I think business/entrepreneurship courses for Music students are essential for a number of reasons.
Hopefully they help orient students towards the society they will have to make a living in–managing money, marketing, getting grants, approaching the private sector. Maybe some will end up as actual entrepreneurs. I think it’s really critical to see that there are other options available if the gig at the Met doesn’t pan out, and you don’t like to teach.
I agree, especially now when entrepreneurship is becoming increasingly the direction many people are heading.
So really we’re in the hands of the deans of faculties to have vision and be on board, with understanding, when it comes to curriculum development in a department…
Lucky we’re at WLU with a Dean who understands – and clearly “gets it” more than most/many (including the vision of Community Music that we’re trying to develop).
I suspect the circle will eventually come back around to the old school ways of doing things, but with a much more enlightened vision than before.
If as artists we are supposed to be creative and adaptable shouldn’t talk of change be welcome? It seems like people are talking about how things like technology are and aren’t changing the way we make and receive art. All this talk is good and I am glad we are talking about it.
Should music schools offer business courses, sure. Should we be aware of what and how are audience wants to receive our art, of course. Should we worry about how to make old things new and interesting, why not?
What is important for artists is to be good at and proud of their art! Be aware of what is happening in today’s world but don’t assume it will be there tomorrow. Get out of the building and listen to what people want tomorrow, show them what you have and maybe they will support you.
I am not sure that any one thing can be the key to successful careers in the arts but gathering and using as much information as you can will help. If that is at school, doing a survey, playing a gig, running a funding campaign or whatever. Just do what you believe in and be aware of its affect on those around you.
I got on a tangent there but it made sense in my head!
“… gathering and using as much information as you can will help.” I’m with you on this. I love discussion and collaboration (even if just for ideas). That’s something I try (albeit debatable on its success) to seek in this program, as well as my community.
Absolutely, Brent. And I think what you say makes perfect sense – particularly in relation to knowing the market of tomorrow.