[shams93]

Teaching Jazz is the way to go for most people who want to make a living from Jazz. I know several successful musicians who started as Jazz musicians but make a good living in rock and pop music. Getting to be known as the best of the best on your instrument via your Jazz chops can open doors in other genres to be invited to work with very successful, established artists. To make a living directly from Jazz you really want to go into education. If you have some hustle and you live in a medium to large sized city, no matter where you are there are likely enough kids interested in learning to play Jazz that you could develop a viable income as a private Jazz instructor on your instrument. From there you're taking part in building the scene of the future.

[analog31]

Indeed, likewise for classical music too. I'm pretty involved in my local music scene. Everybody I know who makes a decent middle class income from music, teaches. For one thing, there's reasonable demand. For another, it's a way for a performer fill your schedule with work during the hours when they pretty much can't be performing.

[Ericson2314]

While, I'm incredibly grateful for the music education I've received [and still play at the age where many fellow amateurs increasingly don't [though time well tell whether I keep this up as I intend to]], the idea that the vast majority of artists primarily teach the next generation does carry the whiff of a Ponzi scheme.

[analog31]

I should have been a bit more specific: The teaching that I'm talking about is private lessons for younger kids, K-12 schools, and even a handful of adults who take lessons as a leisure activity.

I took music lessons as a kid, from around age 6 through high school. My parents had no expectation that I would become a professional musician. (In fact, my dad later expressed his relief when he knew that I wouldn't). And in reality I would never have made the cut. Jazz bass was easier for me to get into than classical cello, because there was at the time a shortage of bassists, and nothing like the insane auditions that classical players go through. I was happy to let music be a serious sideline while I pursued math and physics as my college majors.

Today, my kids are themselves taking classical lessons, playing in the youth orchestra, etc. It's interesting, when the orchestra has its final concert every year, the program gives a little bio for each kid who is a high school senior, and many of them mention their future plans. A huge percentage of the kids in the orchestra are planning on studying science, math, computers, etc. A few will actually study those subjects in college, paid for by music scholarships. One of my band mates went through college that way, and is now employed in the software industry.

So it's a good kind of Ponzi scheme. ;-)

[aczerepinski]

I have mixed feelings on this. Students definitely shouldn't be taking on debt to study a profession that doesn't exist, and lower tier colleges that never ever produce professionals probably shouldn't be offering the major.

But I do see a place for the top conservatories, especially if we can find more ways for the programs to be very selective, and free. The music is beautiful and continues to evolve, and as long as the pursuit doesn't hinder everyone financially, it's a good thing to have going on in society.

I personally am not comfortable teaching music majors, but under the right circumstances I would be happy to teach electives to non-majors and kids. If you pay your dues and learn to really hear jazz, I truly believe it's one of the most intellectually and emotionally engaging experiences anywhere. I'd like to share that with people who aren't trying to make it their profession.

[zhemao]

Most of their students won't choose music as a profession, though.

[mark_edward]

This depends on what you consider to be the purpose of music education. A good portion of musical training could be for personal enjoyment, expanding horizons, resume padding, etc. so it wouldn't be necessary or even desirable hat everyone get employment.

Think of martial arts. The best way to make a living in it is to teach, but the vast majority of students aren't there to make a living of it in the future.

[Ericson2314]

Sure I'm fine with learning art not to be a full time professional, that's me after all. And if you going in wanting to teach, that's great too. I don't have a fully formed thought here, but more a gut reaction against a world where education and educators is always celebrated without any......sympathy that maybe these people rather be doing something else.

[amagumori]

if you're a classical musician you're going to either play in an orchestra, which pays OK, depending on the notoriety of the orchestra you get into...or you're going to teach, which pays better for the most part.

keep in mind that if you're a classical musician of professional-level skill, that means you've devoted your entire life and a shit ton of money towards the pursuit of getting good at one of the hardest skills on earth. i've been programming for 3 years now, and i've written a 3d renderer, all sorts of websites, fluid simulations, a photon mapping renderer, etc, etc..i still don't feel like i'm that great at programming, but i feel pretty confident in my ability to write programs that work and aren't ugly. after 3 years.

after 10 years of playing the violin you're pretty much a novice.

[Ericson2314]

I wonder whether instruments actually takes more time to learn, vs programming/computers being addictive AF and instrument practice (especially mechanical technique) being oh-so mind-numbingly boring when oh luck I could just noodle on that on 30 minutes later oops.