Public Opinion on military bands

[TUBAD83]

These MACOM bands are promoted as being the best quality outside of the special bands. Many of the musicians I served with in these bands had Masters degrees from conservatories and were great players. There were also people that had been in the Army and worked hard to improve and came up the through the ranks. I have great respect for both camps. Here is where things get murky, the Army will always want to show improvement on paper for anything and often times they will weight scores based on what you need. When I did my audition out of the school after basic, I saw some of my raw scores and then said hang on, if I got that and that, it should add up to much more than the score. The adjudicator got very nervous shuffled the papers away from me and politely told me to leave. I found out later that I was scored lower because according to them, they do not give that score out to new soldiers.

So now you have soldiers attending ANCOC and they have to get this score. The people who are scoring them in many cases have served with them, know them personally and no one wants their buddy to fail the course, because chances are you carer is over at that point, no promotions for you unless you fix it. So they are inflating scores in my humble opinion, which is bringing down the quality of the MACOM bands.

Let me start by stating I served in 2 division bands (1st Cavalry and 6 Infantry [Light]) by choice and would do it again without hesitation--two of the very finest bands in the army.

For far too long, the army has had this very stratified system of division/post, macom, special, and premier bands and it is a cause of some MAJOR strife in the band field (especially when bandsmen from one of the "upper" bands get transferred to a "lowly" division band--imagine the problems that cause). Case in point, in my last assignment at 6ID, there were several people from Ft Monroe and Heidelberg (MACOM bands) who complained DAILY about not being able to just play and having to go out in the field and train being a (gasp!) SOLDIER.

IMO, the army school of music should do the following:
1) Raise the standard so that every person who graduates the SOM is qualified to perform in ANY US ARMY BAND...period. The only exceptions would be the DC bands.

2) Regular rotations for all bandsmen--no more having people sit in ONE band for 10+ years or having a career of being stationed at only the "nicer" posts. Everyone gets a taste of the REAL ARMY.

3) Every bandsman is to maintain their basic soldier skills REGARDLESS OF STATUS, RANK, OR STATION. There are those who just want to be "civilians in military dress"....they want all the benefits but none of the responsibilities and duties of a soldier. I find that offensive. You are a SOLDIER FIRST--everything else is secondary to that.

I truly believe that the following suggestions will improve quality, morale, retention, and perception of army bands over time.

JJ
SGT US Army 84-91

[Tubadork]

New York Times Article about Army Bands:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/04/arts/ ... 4army.html" target="_blank

Quote:
In the same spirit, the manual lays out the bands’ missions, which are not to be confused with those of musical ensembles that seek to entertain or enlighten.

and again:
“That 20-year-old really doesn’t want to listen to symphonic-type music,” Colonel Palmatier said.

On the other hand, he noted, an old-fashioned brass quintet still has its advantages. It can jump off a helicopter and set up in a field mess hall without the encumbrances of amplifiers, microphones and speakers.


And here is the future of army bands:
A heavy-metal quartet called the Four Horsemen of the Arockalypse, courtesy of the Third Infantry Division Band (note that it does not say that they are bandsmen)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ciC8A8F ... ure=search" target="_blank

Enjoy,
Bill

[Chuck Jackson]

and again:
“That 20-year-old really doesn’t want to listen to symphonic-type music,” Colonel Palmatier said.

*SHUDDER* Tom Palmatier: the reason I left the Army.


Chuck"Wow, just when you think you have forgotten"Jackson

[jonesbrass]

I love military bands. I love hearing them, I love being able to go to a conference each year where I can hear the best players in the world and have the whole thing paid for by the government. I even think that they provide value to the various services.

That said, anybody complaining about the budget deficit or taking a libertarian view of government's role who supports spending one penny on them is a hypocrite. It is philosophically inconsistent to support spending money on military bands while not supporting the government supporting healthcare for those who can't otherwise afford it. If we should cut back on government spending on unemployment benefits or prescription drugs, we should cut back on this spending.

At least one person here alluded to the government bailouts as an example of wasteful government spending that should be eliminated before cutting any funding for these bands. Most of the bailouts (started under the last administration, and with more spent on them under that administration) were actually necessary from a macro economic perspective. Yes, some were poorly managed or conceived, although the current administration fixed some of those problems, but without them current economic conditions would be much worse. Of course the current economic problems were primarily created by policies of an administration that were specifically designed to widen the gap between the haves and have nots. The stimulus plan was also another necessary evil without which even more jobs would have been lost and the economy would have collapsed in a worse way than it already has. The primary reasons for our current economic woes were tax cuts for the wealthy for which there was no economic policy reason and an administration that was hell bent on deregulating and privatizing everything, resulting in a total lack of controls. Anybody who believes in the policies of that administration must believe that military band budgets should be cut to be consistent in their beliefs.

I believe that the benefits of military bands are worth the money being spent, that government does have a legitimate role in our society, and in economic theories that I have studied as I completed my Ph.D. in business.

This is the post of the year.
Keansian economics, calling others hypocrites for believing what they believe, and failing to understand the various points of view included within the libertarian philosophy.
US Army V Corps Band 1993-1996
Resident-Libertarian-Austrian School of Economics-Hypocrite

[Tubadork]

and again:
“That 20-year-old really doesn’t want to listen to symphonic-type music,” Colonel Palmatier said.

*SHUDDER* Tom Palmatier: the reason I left the Army.


Chuck"Wow, just when you think you have forgotten"Jackson

The reason I left the Army was the other Sith Lord, his apprentice, Major French. French was run off while I was still in, but just knowing that people like that could control my life was enough for me.

I heard what Palmatier did in Germany and The guy from the Jazz Ambassadors that I talked about in my earlier post left because of Palmatier and BTW he was the driving force behind ALL of the issues that I see with the bands.

Hope it works out for the best, the band program was around before him and will continue on after him,
Bill

[TUBAD83]

and again:
“That 20-year-old really doesn’t want to listen to symphonic-type music,” Colonel Palmatier said.

*SHUDDER* Tom Palmatier: the reason I left the Army.


Chuck"Wow, just when you think you have forgotten"Jackson

I remember him when he was Captain Palmatier--even then he was a arrogant, self-centered, condescending *** who was openly contemptuous of bands in the field and 25+ years has only made him WORSE. He is another example of how you CAN get ahead without the benefit of actually having TALENT by kissing up and sucking up (trust me I would use much stronger language if I could) long enough to get what you want.

Lets hope the band field survives and this moron retires SOON.

JJ

[Bandsman79]

I can only speak on this subject from a British point of view (as that is where I live and work as a military musician). Furthermore, I only really know about the way the Army does things...

Just to dispel some misapprehensions on how we (in the Army) operate:

There are 22 bands in the British Army and a handful in the other 2 services (RAF and RM). There are 8 "State" bands in the Army - the 5 Foot Guards, 2 mounted and the Royal Artillery band. These are the bands that you will see doing Public Duties at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle.

Contrary to what has been posted, there is a Parachute Regiment band and there is a "Light troops" band (called the Rifles).

Some of us do march with BBbs, but it is rare.

We have about 800 musicians but this will no doubt change in the cuts that are bound to happen in the next few months.

We are all trained soldiers and a relatively large portion have deployed in an operational role at some point in our careers.

The point made about small bands under the Regimental system is absolutely true. Some bands would go out in a 4x4 block (sometimes with gaps!!). I've seen a photo of the Royal Regiment of Wales band with 12 people there.

The major cuts were in 1994 when the Corps of Army Music was formed.

The main training camp for RAF musicians is, I believe, still Uxbridge. The amalgamation of musical training has been talked about for at least the 13 years that I've been in, and makes a lot of sense. The subject of different marching signals is irrelevant as different bands within the Army use different mace drill and people cope. Different ceremonial drill is something that can and would be addressed during basic training.

Have I forgotten anything? If so, just ask!!

[imperialbari]

Sorry about getting some of the quite thorough British army regimental reforms wrong. And glad that there still is a Light infantry/Rifles band even if I never would want to march at that speed.

Here an older video from the Horse Guards parade ground placed between Buckingham Palace and Downing Street (roughly). That parade hardly would be possible today, as the band is made up of at least 3 regimental/battalion bands, where apparently only one is left now (the speak-over is annoying, but in between the music is left alone):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJY4ykPqF84

The extensive use of bugles has some similarities to French military bands.

Around 1980 the British military bands had 5000 musicians.

Klaus

[dwerden]

Here is the post I added to my own form earlier today in response. Thought I would share it here, too. One thing not in the post below is the bands' role in military spending. Why do we have national defense? To protect our lives and way of life, I assume. As mentioned earlier in this thread, band music IS part of our culture and way of life. Starting from our very founding, it continued through U.S. Marine Band director John Philip Sousa around the turn of the last century and Air Force band director in WWII, Glenn Miller.And it continues today with countless free concerts, recordings, and broadcasts, not to mention the various educational outreach efforts by the different bands.

I wonder what Pincus feels his role is as a columnist? I don't read that paper, so I don't know. Is he just one of the random commentators that you find everywhere (like Andy Rooney without the big eyebrows)?

I would guess Pincus is all for the government programs that help poor people in one way or another. Does he know how many public performance these bands give every year without charging admission? It's a wonderful opportunity for even a large family to hear excellent quality music without spending $20+ per ticket.

But one could argue back and forth about the value of these groups, as one could with any government program. How much do you suppose we spend each year so members of Congress can run an American flag up the official flagpole so they can send it to some voter or other? My understanding is that these flags are running up and down the flagpole as fast as possible all day long to meet the requests. Is it a bad thing to give flags to U.S. citizens? Is it either more or less good if a Congress member is sending it to help get votes?

President Obama, in a very recent backyard Q&A session, made light of budget earmarks (i.e. "pork"), saying they were only 1% of the budget. I seriously question that low figure, but let's accept it for a minute. What was the total of the two stimulus bills in recent years? Wasn't it about 1.5 trillion? So just in those two bills, by the President's figures, we had pork of about 15 billion - that's billion with a "B" - dollars. Just in two bills. How about looking at that before the military bands?

Or an even better way is to look at what the U.S. Constitution authorizes the federal government to spend money on. This would be the same Constitution that I swore an oath to support and defend as does every member of Congress, the President, etc. The military is an authorized area of expenditure. But how would our Founding Fathers have looked at spending on military bands? The Marine Band was officially formed and funded in 1790, around the same time the Constitution was ratified. Then let's look at President Jefferson, who was NOT a fan of letting the federal government go beyond their authorized scope. Jefferson was the man who first requested the Marine band to play for inaugurations, which started the tradition. Jefferson even had the Marine Band play for the church services that were at the time held in the U.S. Congress' chambers. It seems as though he believed that military music was a valid federal expenditure.

In comparing the federal money spent on military bands, and the following actual stimulus bill projects, where would Jefferson stand?

- $30 million for a spring training baseball complex for the Arizona Diamondbacks and Colorado Rockies.

- $11 million for Microsoft to build a bridge connecting its two headquarter campuses in Redmond, Wash., which are separated by a highway.

- $800,000 for the John Murtha Airport in Johnstown, Pa., serving about 20 passengers per day, to build a backup runway.

- $219,000 for Syracuse University to study the sex lives of freshmen women.

- $2.3 million for the U.S. Forest Service to rear large numbers of arthropods, including the Asian longhorned beetle, the nun moth and the woolly adelgid.

- $3.4 million for a 13-foot tunnel for turtles and other wildlife attempting to cross U.S. 27 in Lake Jackson, Fla.

- $2.5 million in stimulus checks sent to the deceased.

- $6 million for a snow-making facility in Duluth, Minn.

- $173,834 to weatherize eight pickup trucks in Madison County, Ill.

- $20,000 for a fish sperm freezer at the Gavins Point National Fish Hatchery in South Dakota.

- $380,000 to spay and neuter pets in Wichita, Kan.

- $300 apiece in federal stimulus money for thousands of signs at road construction sites across the country announcing that the projects are funded by stimulus money.

- $356,000 for Indiana University to study childhood comprehension of foreign accents compared with native speech.

(Thanks to the Washington Examiner for those figures)

[Biggs]

- $219,000 for Syracuse University to study the sex lives of freshmen women.

Hell, I woulda done it for half that.