Downsizing Of Service Bands

[royjohn]

Just found this dormant thread...I agree with bloke that it's an inherently political, as are most things. Without trying to turn this into mere partisan politics, the idea that the bands are going down the tubes because of Obama just doesn't wash. Instead I would suggest it's somebody's idea of cutting a "non-essential" service, just like getting rid of art and music in the schools.

I took a look at some figures. During the Bush years, 2000-2008, the defense budget went from 16-17% of the total budget (2000) to 21.9% in 2007 and 20.9% in 2008. From 304 billion (2000) to 696 billion (2008). Obama stayed at similar percentages through 2012 (681 billion, 19.1%) and in 2013 through 2015, he's back down to the 16 to 17.5% area, with a 2015 expenditure of 637 billion, which is more than all the Bush budgets except 2008 (696 billion). Those who've paid attention in the last few years know that Congress has wanted to trim the budget overall, as some feel that there shouldn't be any ongoing deficit spending. Obama himself, left to his devices, might be more liberal in spending. As to the arts, he is not known as a particularly anti-arts President.

I looked at the current cost of an F-16 fighter. They cost 16 million in the past, but the most recent ones sold to Iraq will have a price tag of 163 million each. These cost about $2500/hr to fly...a forty piece band at $75K annual salary each would cost $3M/yr. So one shot down jet each year would pay the cost of 50 or so bands...you can do the calculation yourself for the various tanks and helicopters we lose each year, etc. I think we need to do a better job as apologists for the great military bands and orchestras and choruses. Cost-wise, the question is, is one band worth 2% of a fighter jet in a cost benefit analysis? I would say yes.

We need to make ourselves heard. What would it cost to hire these guys if we "outsourced?"

[timothy42b]

Thinking out loud.

One factor is the decision to reduce the size of the armed forces. That decision is made by the military commanders based on future budgets and where they think they get the most bang for the buck. (pun?) The bands get affected because everybody gets affected.

But another might be the perceived relevance of the full wind ensemble. Its time may have largely come and gone. It survives largely as a place for guys like me, older white guys, to have a hobby. But the average person probably doesn't go willingly to a band concert very often. I regret that, as I like playing in them. But you won't ever hear a track played on anything but a PBS station.

I hear a LOT of military band music in the course of a year. (I work for a branch of the government) 99% of it is small groups - the 4 or 5 piece brass group, woodwind group, Dixie group, jazz combo, flute and keyboard, etc., etc. These are all subsets of the full band, which rarely plays publically because that's not what people ask for or want. The military bands have adapted to provide more of what modern audiences want, and in the process have contributed to the trend to marginalize large bands.

[circusboy]

I believe that a national defense is a good idea, and that good morale amongst the defenders is a good idea. I'm not enough of an expert on "defense" or "the promotion of good morale" to know precisely how much defense or promotion of good morale is precisely the appropriate amount. I do know that we are in a severe economic downturn, the private economy is shrinking, and that our collective debt is extraordinary...but (perhaps?) some will view that acknowledgement of reality as "political".

All right. This is weird. I find myself agreeing with Bloke on a quasi-political thread.

Truth is, I love a military band as well as the next guy. In all those I've seen, the musicianship cannot be beat. The instances mentioned here certainly address their positive impact.

I've done a little research, though, and found that these programs are costing taxpayers about a billion dollars a year. Yes, billion with a b.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... n-50-years

By way of contrast, the entire budget for the National Endowment for the Arts for 2015 is $146.2 million. Yes, million with an m.

Though I wouldn't necessarily cut the bands' budget to do so, I can imagine the veritable renaissance that a billion-dollar-a-year NEA budget could spark.

[Walter Webb]

Yes, Service Bands are on the ropes, along with symphony orchestras, but most of all, public school music programs. They are disappearing faster than any of the above. School music, nowadays, has turned into whole classes creating riffy electronic samples on GarageBand. I went to a bar the other night, and the live music was one guy on a guitar backed up by an entire funk band on his iPad...

[royjohn]

circusboy,

In the article to which you link, the current cost of the bands is estimated at 320 million by a Pentagon spokesperson. There really isn't 2.5% inflation now, so their estimate of 50 billion could be way off. The estimated cost of the e-35 program over 53 years is now 1 trillion and that is ONE weapon. The current defense budget is about 650 billion, so the current percentage of the defense budget is 0.2% or so. So let's get it in perspective.

As far as putting this into the NEA funding instead, you are robbing Peter to pay Paul and it isn't going to happen anyway, as the NEA has many Republican detractors. The bands are at least a part of the military, which both parties tend to support.

One might discuss whether military benefits and pensions are out of scale, esp. for non-combatants, but ending the military bands altogether or cutting their numbers significantly does not seem to be the answer to me. Instead, I think we should be discussing an ongoing campaign to write our congressmen and encourage them to support the bands. After all, getting rid of many of these hurts tuba players, tuba manufacturers, tuba educators, etc. Many other pressure groups, why not us?

[circusboy]

royjohn, just to clarify, I didn't suggest cutting the bands' budget to up the NEA budget. There are plenty of other places I'd cut before that, but I shan't enumerate for fear of crossing the political line. And even if the $billion figure is wrong and the $320 million is right, we're still paying more than twice the amount of the entire NEA each year for military bands. That strikes me as wrongheaded. Again, don't cut the bands, but up the NEA.

(I haven't anywhere near the expertise to weigh in on the cost and/or worthiness of the e-35 program nor the appropriateness of current military pensions and benefits--though my gut tells me that military personnel, especially soldiers who risk their lives for us, deserve everything they can get and more.)

[royjohn]

circusboy,

Apologies for mis-reading your post, which I did. However, I still think upping the NEA budget much is a non-starter, although I agree with you that it would be wonderful and have great effects on this country's arts environment. Another advocacy issue, I guess.

[DPlander]

The funny part about all of this is the talk about how much it costs to fund a band. I spent 8 years inside the Navy Music Program and saw some of the money side of it. Each band was given roughly $15k (a year) to spend on things like music and reeds and mouthpieces (and other accessories). Most of the Music funding for instrument purchases were end of year type purchases and came mostly via other programs money. I remember a few years ago we (the Navy music program) received 1.2 million from another command because they were under budget for the year and they didn't want to loose that money for the following year. Military musicians only make what ever their rank is in the military. There are special service bands in the DC area (and a few others) that make $55k+ each per year, but the majority of us only make on average $30k a year (if that).

There have been a few articles in the past that have pulled back the curtain on the Military music programs, but most of them have been so factually inaccurate that they are almost comical to read.

The Truth is, if you want to keep our Military music then you need to spread the word on what we will be loosing when it goes away. Writing to political leaders helps, but also using social media to help inform your local neighborhoods of what we might loose could go ever further.

[Donn]

I'm not much for Soviet-esque "art"...particularly when people - who (no, not art-ignorant people, but art-educated people, who simply do not like to forced to buy make-work refuse-art) are not the least bit interested in it (again: particularly NOT Soviet-esque art).

At the risk of not having really followed that as I well as I think -- sifting out the boilerplate politics, it seems to me that the issue is, music has to have a real audience - listeners who understand it, care about it and can tell the good from the bad.

An institutional context, I suppose is essentially similar to other kinds of patronage arrangements, where the real audience is (hopefully) a patron who has the resources to serve in that role, and the will and institutional latitude to pass effective judgement.

It still won't be a meaningful contribution to culture until some larger element of society endorses the patron's judgement, but this kind of system has produced some great stuff over the centuries. I think it's fair to say it isn't working in this case. If people aren't listening to military band music, we're missing at least that last part of the equation. They did once upon a time - Sousa's band enjoyed unprecedented global popularity, maybe not working strictly out of the military march book but I suppose it was a big part of their repertoire. That contribution has been made, though, and I think some people think band music is a cultural dead end at this point. That can't be proven wrong without engaging a real audience. For the hobbyist, it doesn't really matter, but it's key to the appeal for patronage funding.

[Donn]

Just trying to salvage some meaning from the conversational dead end of "Soviet etc.", which I reckon to be of little interest in a musical context.

nearly ALL military band concerts (whether in D.C. or on tour) are played to packed houses by enthusiastic consumers.

So, well frankly I know little about military bands on the whole, you're talking about the primary service bands, for example the United States Marine Corp Band? Not like the "regular bands" referred to on the first page, who are probably not called upon to play at such concerts. For the sake of the specific concerns about cultural and artistic heritage and innovation, is it enough to maintain a handful of elite bands?

[timothy42b]

base bands demonstrate INCREDIBLE diversity...i.e. ARTISTIC diversity - being able to create a
- ceremonial/concert band
- jazz "big" band
- jazz combo
- dixieland combo
- oldies combo
- top-40 combo
- R&B band
- gospel band
- C&W band
- hip-hop combo

...from a selection of often only c. 30-or-so musician-ARTISTS.

bloke " morale"

The local base band plays all those ensembles, but only rarely (once or twice a year) the full ceremonial concert band. The time of the concert band may have come and gone. The band has diversified to do more of those spin-off ensembles precisely because the demand for a concert band has diminished. I still enjoy playing in them but I'm not sure it's really viable any more.

[timothy42b]

I never went to music school but I played in concert bands in college.

It seems to be a part of the pedagogical process. Is it essential? If the concert band effectively disappears, will music schools still maintain them? Or are there other ways to teach just as good?

I had a lot of enjoyable Saturday mornings in the marching band at Notre Dame - but then a lot of people decry marching band too.

[LawrenceJ]

I am in a Army Reserve Band (38 years) and the Army budget is so small for the band program we do not have a set amount given to us. We get what ever extra the RSC can find.

[LawrenceJ]

Not much will change when people think the music program is a waste of time in the US. Here in our area school systems we will have one band director teaching anywhere from 100 to 300 students. In comparison to five to ten football coaches teaching 50 to 100 students.

[PaulMaybery]

So how does a band communicate to its audiences and how do they perceive it. The community can ultimately affect the survival of a band or orchestra.

Rethinking the "concert band" is critical to its future. Programming, collaboration with celebrity performers, actually entertaining shows. For so many, a concert band or wind ensemble has been a product of collegiate academia from which not an awful lot is directed to the entertainment and public enjoyment/appreciation aspect of 'the band'. (Education, pedagogy, classic band literature etc) Historically, bands in the "Golden Age" (Sousa and company )grew from a 'vernacular' (and/or military) culture but not from the 'cultivated' culture as the orchestra and classic chamber music. Bands more or less were a populist vehicle, (transitional at best) while the orchestra was more for a certain privileged audience. Sousa was once in conversation with the great orchestra conductor Theodore Thomas at the Columbian World Exposition in Chicago. Thomas was curious to Sousa's success in achieving huge audiences, all when Thomas thought he was offering a higher calibre of music. Sousa's response was (and I paraphrase) You choose to educate your audience, I (Sousa) endeavor to entertain them and in so doing they become educated)

Bands eventually gave birth to jazz bands and orchestra's eventually adopted the pops mentality. Thanks to Gershwin, the jazz idiom entered the concert stage. Some of it has to do with the local mentality and cultural traditions. Public tastes have been changing and certain adaptations have been made. But....

Several years back, I had a piece of mine played by the Dallas Wind Symphony. I made the trip from Minnesota not knowing what to expect. Certainly the band was exceptional, but what totally blindsided me was the actual concert in Meyerson Concert Hall. It was a Tues nite in February. The hall was packed, and the audience rather well dressed and sophisticated. (furs and fashion) The wind symphony was on the stage in white tuxes and gave a certain allusion to the Boston Pops. What the H---!!! I said to myself, this is a band concert, not the Metropolitan Opera. Afterward I spoke with Kim Campell the manager and he told me" Paul, this is Texas and bands rule." This does not happen everywhere. But somehow Texas has figured out the importance of band music in the schools and how to bridge that into adult art/entertainment. There were so many layers to the equation, and it took decades to create the model. I'm not sure many other places in the US could pull this off. It has taken a life of its own and seems to be nourished in its home environment. Just saying... Innovation, celebrities, special charts, partnered concerts at venues where people are in attendance for a multiplicity of reasons. Proactively build a following, feed and nurture it as you would a child, watch it grow. It's not about what the band wants to play but rather what is good for the relationship of the band to its audience. (and I am not saying play down either) Play at the audience with respect and the joy of offering them something truly special. Orchestras are experiencing a similar problem with "butts in the seats" and "coins in the coffers" Speaking for my home town, the Minnesota Orchestra has over the past years reinvented themselves into what I feel is a fantastic and relevant music offering. There was a lot of pain in the transition, but fresh imagination I believe, coupled with a willingness to do what is necessary to evolve, helped keep them afloat and in relatively a safe fiscal situation.

From what I have read here so far, it seems as though military bands in this country and abroad are addressing this very issue. For some there are painful cuts which in some cases are more of political revenge than careful budget management. But I truly believe the key is to developing a broad based population of support and not depending on one source for fiscal support.

Just my humble opinion.

Mabes

[imperialbari]

Sousa had been concertmaster for Offenbach’s tours through the US. Offenbach’s music is very entertaining, when it is played with an inner fire.

Sousa’s music is also very entertaining when played with an inner fire.

I have heard a very good US military band play a Sousa march with no life at all. Percussion exactly in time, but no forward energy provided. Cymbals and bass drum certainly not overpowering the winds, but bass drum with no bite and cymbals without sizzle.

Many French marches involve bugles as a primitive, but certainly generic, military element. Many German marches involve Eb cavalry trumpets for the same effect.

Sousa in some marches explicitly asks the Bb cornets and trumpets to act as signal trumpets in F through long sections of said marches by playing all of the notes fingered 1+3. That creates some intonation challenges, which were much harder to manage before triggers or throw rings became standard outfit, but the overtone patterns are much more alive and, yes, much more martial.

But the fine band mentioned has all of its cornets and trumpets playing these signals with standard fingerings, open F’s, A’s fingered 2, midrange C’ fingered 1. Very in tune, very lifeless.

Are these players substandard? Certainly not! But they are disciplined too hard to blend into a band machine that will cause no scandals at state events.

I have heard a video of said band playing a transscription of Sacre du Printemps. All fire and intensity, but then the conductor was from the orchestral scene.

Many more samples from several countries could be mentioned, point being: Don’t take the life out of the military bands in an attempt to make them fit for the civil(ian) society.

Klaus

[PaulMaybery]

I happen to enjoy watching international band tattoos on You tube and am in utter astonished-amazement of both the quality of the music and the drill. Brenda and I keep saying we need to attend one live. To me, any country that would summarily eliminate these groups is one with serious cultural/political/social problems, coupled with a weak and unwise leadership that simply does not know what is "good." Political power is all to often coupled with ignorance. I suppose that comes with military music as it functions at the pleasure of the government. When I watch the Edinborough Tattoo, or others, I see military units that very well address a contemporary audience and still provide that certain substance and of course a patriotic/emotional dimension. When I see music units at these events I am somewhat embarrassed at how mediocre many of our civilian groups are by comparison. Granted, military discipline for most military musicians, I gather from my friends in those situations, is akin to athletic super stars who have a window of opportunity in their lives. It is difficult or nearly impossible to execute that type of precision drill and performance when we are in our 60s. I applaud those who continue to amaze us with military precision and "esprit du corps." You continue to make us proud, and for some of us, of what we once could do but no longer can. When I was a student in Europe 50 years ago, there was always a thread in the musical conversation of pseudo intellectuals that military bands were irrelevant in modern society and should be phased out. They have managed to hang on through all those sophomoric discussions and remain today, albeit so much more compelling than ever. There was once a saying in France, I will try to paraphrase to my best ability. 'musique militaire est à la cuisine militaire ce que musique est la gastronomie' I think not quite so today. The music is better, and so is the food. We have come so far. IMHO.

Mabes

[Three Valves]

The military could function just fine without bands, but where would the world be without art and culture? Honestly, is it even worth fighting if there is no art and culture to fight for?

Former military and "musician" myself.

This deserves a

(Even though I agree with the sentiment, there is no point in going OTT!!)