Musical competition is a layered idea, and a convoluted one as well. Why do we perceive music as a competitive industry? I feel it all comes down to capitalism. A capitalism that started making the art of music a form of commodity during the late Baroque period, and much more so in the Classical period. The idea of music as a commodity has been prevalent throughout modern history. It has been a way to deliver music to the masses through recordings, and printed music. It has allowed composers, performers, and educators to all make a living in the profession of music.

I do not have an issue with capitalism within music at the professional level. I have no issue with competition fed by capitalism at the professional level, though it needs to be regulated better. This would include talent shows, auditions for bands and orchestras, or submissions of compositions to publishers or royalty payments for the broadcast of intellectual property. Some of that competition (steered by capitalist goals,) is healthy for our society. Some of it is not. Where is that line between healthy and unhealthy? This is what I would like to explore. My opinion is subjective as is the nature of capitalism and competition in music. Let us explore this professionally and in the amateur ranks.

Competition is necessary for certain facets of the music industry. Auditions for professional ensembles is one of those healthy competitive musical activities. How else are you going to find the right musician to fill your second oboe position in your orchestra? What drummer will you select to fill the open position in your rock band? (Foo Fighters and Rush come to mind.) The nature of these type of competitive auditions is to search for a complimentary musician that will be the best fit for the ensemble. Josh Freese filled Hawkins drum chair in the Foo Fighters for two years, followed by Ilan Rubin at present. Annika Nilles is filling the drum chair for Rush. Rush approached the process of filling the drum chair more carefully than the Foo Fighters did. Rush invited Nilles to play with them over a week of rehearsals and determined if a chemistry would develop with Nilles. The chemistry formed organically over the week was suitable enough in nature to fill Neil Peart’s vacancy. The Foo Fighters found a good drummer to fill the vacancy to continue performing, but the chemistry didn’t match. Rubin now gets his shot. How will the new drummers in both bands be perceived by fans? To be determined… This is what makes music interesting.

Competition in the conservatory atmosphere of a college or university is healthy as it is a proving/training ground for the student performer. There is a motivating factor within this atmosphere with the idea of a good job down the line for all of the work. This atmosphere also weeds out the students with little work ethic or desire to collaborate. This type of format is excellent for developing performers, but in my opinion it does not develop good educators. The conservatory competitive atmosphere discourages future music educators as they are pressured to perform more than they are encouraged to develop their skills of teaching, learning secondary instruments, or at least diversifying their skill set beyond their solo instrument. I have witnessed this first hand as a student and as an education professional. Some of the best teachers that I have met and experienced were not the most amazing players on their primary instrument. They were good players, (regional professionals on their instrument) but they were not Chicago Symphony Orchestra level performers. We need this middle level of performer/educator to train the students of tomorrow, for the healthy competition/capitalist ideals of music to continue. These men and women inspire the next great artists and teachers. Without them the field of music will just stagnate.

Another example of unhealthy competition is in the junior high and high school ranks of music. The competitive nature of marching band, festival rankings, show choirs, and other subjective contests do not promote a healthy study of music. These competitions developed out of a desire for school administrations to justify non-revenue activities with some sort of performance criteria (trophy, cash award…) Music is a non revenue activity, as it is a community/cultural activity. Ticket revenue is rarely charged for entry into a music event at the young scholastic levels. Athletics do charge revenue, and some of that money offsets the expense of the athletic activity. Music does not offer such a thing unless you host a competitive event. You may bring a bit of money to offset the expense of competition, but the schools that don’t host will never make any money to offset the expense of the program. All they have earned is a trophy, medal, or a score for their work.

Let us explore this further. It is easy for music programs to invest more money into the competitive aspects of marching band, jazz band, or show choir. Booster organizations raise money for these events, or students pay dues to participate. Where does one draw the line between healthy and unhealthy? As an educator I have had competitive marching bands and the culture of marching band is quite addictive (See Bands of America/Music for All or Drum Corps International.) Early in my career I found out that I spent more money on marching band than any other aspect of my music program. Concert band, jazz band, festivals, solo – ensemble contests, honor bands, and field trips all suffered for marching band. How many shows do you really need to do? How much time do you need to devote for rehearsal? If marching band starts the last week of July and ends the second week of November and you spend more than 25% of your annual budget on this one activity than I feel you are approaching an unhealthy competitive atmosphere for your band program. Is it healthy physically or emotionally for the student? or yourself?

Many schools have made their competitive music ensembles completely volunteer as a result of the imbalance. Does that make it healthy? I’m not sure. A healthy balance would be a competition or two to receive some subjective evaluations for performance based standards, and a 10-11 week window for the marching season with no more 25% of the budget spent on this portion of the activity. With the financial balance, one can provide a healthier view of music participation (community building) rather than the capitalist competitive philosophy. This was my solution to imbalance as an educator. It can be a hard sell, as competition and the experience of competition create a greedy culture of more, more, more. It all depends on the micro-culture of your school and community that determines what they think is healthy. All of this is subjective… …and all of it is driven by the capitalists belief that more is better…

The final unhealthy item regarding the competition of music or at the very least the capitalist practices in music is the rise of streaming services in place of the traditional sales of recordings. Streaming royalties are around 1/3 or 4/5 of a penny per play. Radio and Television royalties are a bit more, but are based on a different schedule and subscription fees. Television royalties are bit more yet. There are reports that a member of Devo received $1M in royalties per year for a song that was used on an MTV reality show. What is unhealthy about this system is the overwhelming amount of money that goes into the infrastructure of the businesses and what little gets into the hands of the artist. Imagine how much more money Devo would have earned if the infrastructure didn’t eat 75% (guess-timate) of the royalty? If you publish, produce, record, and distribute your own material you obviously will earn more money. If you only publish (write and perform) your own material and employ agents and record companies to distribute your material you receive substantially less. Taylor Swift has solved the equation to maximizing her royalty potential. Yet, there are thousands of artists who don’t have her capital or legal team to solve the equation on their side. This current system is destroying the market for innovative new popular musics in favor of easily produced junk that is controlled largely by media giants. Capitalist interests by billionaires are being served more than the artistic interests of the public with this current system. This is my example of unhealthy competition driven by capitalism. This system needs better regulation for the benefit of the artist, worker, or creator.

Those that think artists compete against each other don’t really live in reality. Artists have no control over how their music is perceived or desired. Artists do not have any control over what venues they can play or what they will be paid. They are at the mercy of the venue and the agent that lines those things up. Everything is negotiated. If anything, an artist is only competing against themself. The better and more innovative they can be musically the more marketable they can become. Unfortunately changes in preference can kill a career just as fast as it appeared to start. In classical /jazz genres, musicians must maintain their high level of skill or they can be dismissed from their positions. If they are a soloist in the classical world, the orchestras and venues just stop hiring them. This is a tough world to live in. Lots of rehearsals and practice with little snippets of excellence at a performance.

This is the nature of competition (capitalism) in music. It is healthy and unhealthy concurrently. As an educator I can control what happens in my classroom. I am unable to control what happens outside of that environment, yet many of us are unaware of the nature of this business. I’m just thankful there are artists and musicians that have been able to withstand the stress of the business side of the industry over the decades. This is why I dissent with some forms of competition in music and not in others. Sadly, there isn’t a perfect system for regulated music as a commodity or educational art form. …so it goes…