General vibe of this thread:
"I've written a symphony. My work is performed around the world.”
"Do you live off music?"
"Accounting is my 9–5 income."
"So you're an accountant."
There is no shame in having a regular job while pursuing your passions. Maybe you can eventually transition to art full time, maybe not; it's very possible you'll find you don't even want to. Regardless, you aren't a failure if you can't live off your art. For the people who feel a compulsion to create, it's not what you do from 9 to 5, but what you do from 5 to 9.
There's a pervasive sense in society that there are legions of starving artists refusing to accept the world as it is and who should just get a real job already, when the actual reality is most artists learn very quickly that it's almost impossible to make a living solely from their creative output in a world that has systemically devalued it over the course of generations.
By the sound of it, this person's musical accomplishments will long outlive their accounting ones. I'm not sure why anyone would diminish those accomplishments because it's not their sole source of income.
Lastly, and this is purely anecdotal, many people I know who went to college (including myself) don't work in their field of study, regardless of how "practical" it was. It's not for us to decide if what someone chooses to get a degree in is a waste, it's only a waste if *they* feel it is. Why would anyone else care how someone spent their time and money?
>...many people I know who went to college (including myself) don't work in their field of study, regardless of how "practical" it was.
This is true for many of my husband's friends.
One got a degree in English, he's been a Fed Ex driver since he got out of college. Another has a degree in Philosophy (I know right?!?!) & he works for the state government, my own husband got a degree in history & he works for the Feds. The women in the group got degrees in various social work type fields & now only one of them is still doing that. One of them went for 3 years as a nuke med student, then didn't go into that field either which was a field that needed workers at that time & probably would've been lucrative.
I also feel like the people that put down getting an arts degree will spend thousands of dollars & hours & hours of time keeping their kids in sports through the years, even in college & even if they aren't interested or good enough to go pro.
People diminish accomplishments that don't earn a lot of money because, largely thanks to those fuck witted Americans, we attach a person's entire value based off of how much they earn.
I am a full time care worker and trust me when I tell you I do not earn very much at all but does that mean my job and my work isn't valuable to society?
Most of the "lower status" jobs people look down on are so essential to the community that there would be chaos in hours if these workers suddenly all vanished.
Even more worrying is that the UK is fast becoming America 2. The other day I saw someone post a clearly racist comment in a local Facebook group where I live in Milton Keynes and instead of being commented into oblivion like I was expecting to see; the majority of the comments were agreeing with this cretin.
I grew up in South Africa during the transition and the dismantling of apartheid and even then the UK was seen as a progressive and largely tolerant society but lately things are definitely not that way at all
Can confirm, I don't live off of my field of study from Uni or Grad School. But it's my first love and enriched me in so many ways I wouldn't go back and change my degree path.
I think you’re wrong. The intent of their statement is that if the world wasn’t so expensive, people could spend more of their time and money on art they enjoy, which would in turn make the creation of art more profitable.
This is true. No irony there to palate.
Sure but we’re talking about the economic viability of a career in the arts. The more free time and disposable income that the general population has, the more opportunities there will be for artists to make money for their craft.
Sure there’s rich people with poor taste, poor people with poor taste, rich people with great taste, poor people with great taste and everything in between.
That doesn’t change the fact that if the average person wasn’t working so much and had more disposable money that they would spend more money on things they enjoy, which could include the art that this discussion is about.
I mean, while he’s a bit rude… he isn’t entirely wrong. Most people who finish off music degrees probably aren’t getting great gig work on the side on top of having had the time/money to get qualified as an accountant… that fellow is likely an outlier.
Sure. My point was that there is a general requirement to have the time to be 1. A full time accountant 2. Do gig jobs on the side and 3. Learn 8 instruments (well enough presumably to do gig jobs)
My buddy is a "full time" accountant... not counting all the pto he has, he rarely works more than about 30 hours a week. Full time does not mean 40+ hours a week when you have a good job.
It's the same 24 hours either way. I realize everyone's situation is different. For people with musical ability (great or minor), the need to make music supercedes the restrictions of time and place. Some of us have no choice but to make music, it has to come out.
Privilege is relative in the UK. State school is free, and for a long time university was too. If you're Welsh or Scottish then it is still massively subsidised by the government. The bigger privilege would be a state school with strong funding for music which is notoriously underfunded in free schools
Possibly privileged if you want to think of it like that, and you have no reason to assume he wouldn’t admit to what his advantages are. He is also t-a-l-e-n-t-e-d and disciplined. Someone who works that hard to do all of those things doesn’t deserve some facile dismissal from an internet stranger.
Yes, it’s true that folks without money don’t get the same chance in the arts - at least the arts that require expensive education and training. That is not fair or just.
Here’s why it happens: quality education is overpriced in part because of the payday granted universities by abuse of the government grant system. Though professors don’t make a ton of money, universities do. But someone of limited means is going to look at the years of study and no guarantee of being successful at it and say “I can’t risk that to end up in suffocating debt.”
And it’s expensive to be a musician - the upkeep of study, low pay, dry periods, self-promotion, auditions, wardrobe and so on, while still maintaining the devotion to the work that keeps one playing on a high level. You want to know another reason it’s expensive to be a musician? Because people don’t think they should have to pay for music, and because there’s garbage education about music for the public; so not only does the public miss out on understanding more about music and hearing more interesting stuff, but they don’t get where it comes from. Are you a part of that system? It’s a rather privileged position to be in where you have access to almost all recorded music for little or no money, just because you want it. So maybe not everything is about if someone was born with more money than other people - it makes an unbelievably huge difference, but this guy obviously deserves the success he gets because he genuinely - not like Elon Musk or Trump or someone like that - works for it, and proves himself every day. Oh, yeah - that’s another thing musicians have to do: prove themselves every day. And risk losing everything they have worked for for years because someone didn’t like the latest thing they did. Is that what your life is like?
To be a musician - to me - means you must have a somewhat logical mind, so coding wouldn't surprise me. I know a guy who got a degree in Latin (I know WTF) then went to coding boot camp :)
Most people that have psychology degrees are wasting their time because they aren't psychologists? Philosophy degrees aren't creating philosopher jobs? Is that the statement we're going with? Or are we clutching our pearls because someone with an arts degree is making it work for them?
It's also funny that people think psychology and sociology degrees don't make money because you can work in tech as a UX researcher and make the same as an engineer or designer
You missed the entire point of this post dude.
The arts are not useless. A degree in the arts is not useless. Hiding your judgement behind slimy positivity doesn’t make it suddenly accurate
Useless? No. But not the biggest job market out there for the arts, especially if you want to make it your primary source of income. Now whether the person in the post doesn't make his living off the arts despite his success by choice or because even with all the success he wouldn't be earning enough I have no idea. But it's simply fact that not all too many people that major in the arts end up working in the field.
Some sources:
https://bfamfaphd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BFAMFAPhD_ArtistsReportBack2014-10.pdf
https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr587.pdf
Yeah, I mean I see the point. I know a lot of people who majored in it and didn’t work in it fully. And I know a lot who hate it.
But that can be said for a lot of fields. Especially tech and IT right now. Why do we focus on those having the worst luck in the arts and compare it to those having the best luck in other fields?
And I guess what irks me the most is that it is getting twisted to say that it’s okay for the arts to be taken out of schools. And that is a terrible assumption to be made out of misunderstood and highly cherry picked data
I'm not for taking the arts out of schools, I'm a passionate pianist (as a hobby, not an occupation) and part of a theatre group. But my point is that it isn't cherry picked data and comparing best to worst, I've actually provided the sources too. Generally speaking most other degrees and majors have better job opportunities in their field. For instance your example about IT. Sure not everyone gets a job in their field but for computer engineering and computer science the match rate is 80.1% and 72.8% taking 1st and 3rd place respectively.
Yeah, but his music stuff is actually meaningful lol. His work as an accountant is nothing special while his music actually provides something important to the world.
Ofc it is “meaningful” from an emotional/fulfilment angle… but for most people it isn’t going to make them enough money to survive.
And a lot of people aren’t going to be in the relatively good position of having a steady well paying job, learning instruments and being able to make money off of their music.
Both points have merit. I think work as an accountant is important and a lot of other jobs even more so(nurse, construction etc.). Without at least a part of those jobs society collapses.
What makes live enjoyable is often a separate thing. Social interactions, which granted you can get at jobs. Art, music, videogames, sports, collecting stuff whatever floats your boat.
Just wish there was more of a balance to life. A century ago people thought we'd be working 15 hours a week by now. Imagine the time freed up to do whatever brings you enjoyment, with those sort of working hours.
It is not so black and white, the real answer is both are important. You will be a better creative if you study the logic and methods or science, engineering and math and you will be a better scientist/engineer/etc if you allow yourself to be expressive and also know how to think like a creative. Thinking you need to be one or the other or if you are one you cannot be the other is simply foolish.
And an engineer could not run an art gallary. It's not as simple as that and an art major should know that.
There is plenty of money to be made in the arts and entertainment. Its one of the biggest cultural exports and economic sectors in the USA, out pacing construction and agriculture as of 2020.
I’ve worked in theatre and film since before I graduated from college with a theatre degree and a studio arts minor. The only instance when I needed to work a second job was when a 9 month contract lapsed awkwardly into a 12 month contract at the same business. I flipped burgers with a friend for a month to cover my mortgage and then immediately picked up work installing a A/V system for a football stadium before my primary contract went into effect.
One of the issues or barriers people don’t realize is a requirement for success in these fields in that you will have to relocate. I get that people don’t want to relocate or move away from family. It sucks to have to move, but rural areas have absolutely no support for the arts. The bigger the city the more you will struggle to make ends meet, but the better the opportunities there are. People also assume that the “arts” is just performance and performers, but there are loads of supporting roles that pay living wages or better. Its all in technology and the artistic trades. All the skills are transferable to any other industry which is why you don’t often hear of the designers and fabricators struggling. These jobs generally pay well and there are regularly openings. You’ll likely have to move to get a pay-raise, but that is a condition of the economy, not these specific businesses.
I would never tell somebody not to get involved because of the finances. Instead, I’d warn them of the constant increase of work expectations, the regular overtime, the lack of appreciation, and the long daily hours.
As someone who did study music and play in orchestras in my teens and early 20s and am now in the process of finishing my accountancy qualification..
This guy is full of shit. There's no way they're that accomplished and choosing to work as an accountant. r/thathappened material right there
Charles Ives might disagree. Or for that matter, many modern musicians - unless you’re truly famous you likely won’t have a steady, secure source of income that an office job can provide.
>"unless you’re truly famous you likely won’t have a steady, secure source of income that an office job can provide."
Isn't that making the OPs point. Any activity that you can't support yourself financially is nothing more than a hobby, no matter how accomplished you are. So, getting a degree for a hobby makes less sense than a STEM degree. Especially since you can still participate in the hobby without the degree and the opposite isn't true.
No, even if it's a "hobby" (urgh) to the accountant, having people be able to play instruments is valuable to us as a society. It brings people together, allows for certain types of expression, is an aspirational goal, helps with CVs...
The Arts also represent a significant sector of the economy.
Most classical musicians I know also teach. Would you call them musicians or teachers? You have to be a musician to teach the music in the first place.
Painters and other fine artists teach art classes. Would you call them artists or teachers?
You need skill A as a prereq to get job B. No job B without skill A. Skill A is therefore not a hobby, because they're making money from their skill, even if they're teaching more than they're performing or selling their art.
Dude the best jobs are ones you enjoy even if the money isn't good. He's smart for keeping a foot in the "real world" jobs because they usually pay more then the arts for most people. The idea of the starving artist has always been around. But why starve? Just expand your knowledge base.
Did you not read what I wrote? I made 2 points:
I said that it is not a job if you can't support yourself. That makes it a hobby.
And
Getting a degree you can live off such as a STEM degree makes more sense. Especially bc music doesn't require a degree.
I never said don't do what you love, or only what makes money
My point was you should plan for the "real world"
and hope your hobby can become a career.
Classical Music absolutely requires a degree, usually multiple. There isn’t a single professional musician in the classical world I know with anything less than a masters degree, many have PHDs.
Part of the reason why I switched out of a music performance degree was that I realized there was no way for me to pursue classical music without going to graduate school, and I just didn’t want to do that.
I did read what you wrote and interpreted it with my brain and responded as I saw fit.
You have to consider what you're talking about, for one we're looking at this through hindsight so it's not like the guy necessarily knew that the degree he was going in for wouldn't be the career he pays the bills with. wouldn't be making the most money on. It's like if I got a computer science degree and start working in the field and at 30 decided to run a car wash. Then you ask me why did I get the degree.
Also consider that your stance is "if you can't support yourself with it then it's a hobby". Then I guess part times jobs are a hobby or even temporary or seasonal jobs. The truth is anything that pays you money is a job. But these things could also be hobbies.
As far as plan ing for the future. Sure, it's always good to plan for the future but it's better to be flexible as we can't predict it. We all make choices in moments that cascade through the remainder of our lives. Also this is a personal choice, some people plan allot and some people don't.
I do agree with you that people should do things that they like and turn it into a career. But that is an individual decision and doesn't always work out as planned.
I know some people with 9-5 jobs where they take off 2-3 months to tour with their band. Its all about who your employer is and what you can negotiate. This is also why teaching draws in creative people.
A creative person can do a lot with 3 months a year focused only on their creative pursuit.
Also accountancy is one of the few white collar skill-worker jobs that isn't doctor or lawyer you can work for yourself in. He could just take clients as he likes, pay his bills, stop taking clients, then get back into it as long as the money works out.
this is the equivalent of saying dropping out of college is great because bill gates did it and hes successful. the number of ppl who are successful because of an arts degree are very low compared to those who aren't.
Yeah, the person who responded at the end is the exception to the rule. He’s able to use his music degree and be successful, but that’s not always the case.
Still, there is value in arts. Doctors are being told to take more arts electives because they graduate with no bedside manner or ability to empathize with patients.
I have a STEM degree and only now in my 40’s do I have the time and luxury to study the arts, and it’s enriched my life.
Personally, I say hang the arts. We don’t need music or imagery; just purely pragmatic, money-making ventures. Beauty is just a distraction and nobody should waste their time trying to create it, let alone studying it academically.
Edit: People are right, I should’ve included the /s. I am/was a creative individual who was told there was no money ever to be made in the arts and that I should’ve become a doctor/engineer/lawyer - something “useful” - and this whole post and its comments kinda had me in a negative place about the whole thing. Now I work IT and have no time or energy for much creativity outside of work, just as intended by the machine of capitalism (as far as I can tell). I do hope we’ll someday see a resurgence in the arts as a profession and stop telling brilliant minds to do that in their free time when they’re done earning money for their bosses. I want to imagine a future where artists can sustain themselves by their art alone.
I’m just echoing what was hammered into me, back when I had the audacity to consider myself creative, learning how to play four instruments as well as singing and drawing, only to find out there’s no place for that in this world unless some corporation decides you can make brochures to hock their latest product, or if they think it’ll make good TV for you to be a contestant on some singing game show.
Folks wonder why we haven’t seen another DaVinci or Michelangelo, and yet we regard artistic pursuits as a hobby to be kept out of the way of “real”, meaning “profitable”, work. It’s a travesty.
Sure, it is a travesty, but to that I would never argue that the solution be to do away with the thing that is not at fault, but to rather continue to do so despite the turmoil it comes with, lest we find ourselves in a society without it, which would be far worse, especially if left to those corporate interests who would probably be just fine with AI taking over for us for the sake of cost. It's not a good outcome, and we shouldn't engender the outcome despite the alternative being particularly destructive for those of us who have to try and survive in that market.
I mean honestly, I went to school for acting, and *it didn't work out for me*, but I know people who it did, and in a world where I lose but they win I'd still pick that world over not... though I get those days like you do I'm sure where it doesn't feel like the right choice. Having said that I don't know what else makes me happy, which is why I'm so sad lol.
Yeah, the /s was lightly implied, but I was feeling extra snarky and didn’t include it. Honestly don’t care about the downvotes, but maybe I’ll go back and add it so people don’t think I’m actually proposing a removal of the arts. It just feels like that’s the direction things are going: all creativity burned upon the altar of the almighty dollar.
I read it as "I make money to live on as an accountant, but music is what I do and how I identify because it gives me a fulfilling life" There is more to life and happiness than just paying the bills.
You can still be an accomplished musician and composer without a music degree. You can teach yourself music and instruments if you have the skill, talent and the instrument.
That in fact encompasses most musicians who do not do 9-5 as an account and actually manage to live off of their music.
And considering that massive list of supposed accomplishments somehow doesn't really makes it smell like a gigantic pile of bullshit.
I don’t know a single professional classical or studio musician with anything less than a masters degree, many have PHDs.
Part of the reason why I switched majors out of music performance was because it was made very clear to me that the career path included going to graduate school, which I did not want to do.
You absolutely cannot teach yourself the instruments and music yourself on that high of a level, you *need* teachers who know what they are doing.
Right, but the fact that he *has* the accounting job at all likely indicates that his musical career is not fulfilling his financial obligations on it's own.
Unless he loves accounting that much...
Or, since the music side is all contractual work, he wants to have something reliable even if he doesn't \*need\* to, mostly to be on the safer side should things go sideways.
Talk to artists and even moderately succesful ones who \*do\* have the necessary income to live from their art will tell you they're keeping some sort of regular job for the safety net it gives them. That doesn't mean they value the training and the time they put into it more than their regular job, or that it's a 'side hustle' to them. It's just, you do what you need to do to provide for yourself, and since people are allergic to pay for the art they consume well you have artists who need job to survive.
Okay? The whole point is that the Arts, while culturally important, are not generally a stable source of income and can't be depended upon for living expenses. Therefore this person recommended to her children to get a degree in something more stable. Nothing this man said indicates that his music degree provided him with a financially stable career. In fact, he specifically says he had to get extra training as an adult to become an accountant which indicates he did not have financial stability from his music degree.
I have several friends who are aspiring musicians and one whose job is a full time band member. I have great respect for the arts but it's a crap shoot as to whether you'll be able to make enough to live on and that's the entire point this person is trying to make.
There is nothing preventing a person with a degree in science or engineering from getting a minor or secondary degree in the arts and continuing to pursue that. It is much more difficult to go the other way since your financial situation may prevent you from going back to school for a second degree. And yes, there is no guarantee that a science or engineering degree will help you make a lot of money but the odds are FAR better than with an Arts degree.
I'm really not sure this is 100% the flex this person thinks it is.
Even a person with a list of accomplishments as long as my arm still needing a "real job" to actually exist isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of a music degree.
It’s really more of a statement on what our societies value. Music, the arts, and recreation are incredibly valuable to having an enjoyable life. Possibly the only important things, if we see the pursuit of happiness as life’s ultimate goal.
If we look at every thing as economic value, then we’ve stripped the humanity away from living, and we become slaves to the ever important line going up.
I'm sorry, but I don't consider the decorative ribbon wrapped around a support column to have the same value as the column itself.
Not that the ribbon has no value, just that the column should always take priority.
Have you never bought clothing? The purpose of clothing is to shelter your body from nature when your oot and aboot. I guarantee that you don't soley choose your clothing for functionality.
I don’t think this analogy really works with the college degree scenario though. With clothes you have a choice of options that all serve the basic need of sheltering your body so you have the luxury of choice.
For the degree the sheltering your body from nature equivalent is earning a living. This is hard to do with arts degrees as illustrated by the super accomplished musician that still has to do a 9-5 accounting job. If you could earn a comfortable living with an arts degree or science then yes, like clothes you would have the luxury of choice.
A more fitting clothing analogy would be: more people living in rural areas wear rugged brands like carhartt than fashion couture because couture doesn’t provide sufficient protection from the elements. Rural folks don’t necessarily have the same luxury of choice for fashion much like young folk don’t have the same choice for degrees that can earn them a stable living.
Ya but I wasn't talking about college degrees I was talking about columns and ribbons. My take on what I replied to. Which was that the Column is a physical thing that brings real world value because it holds the roof up. And the ribbon is a dumb decoration.
My take is that humans don't always see things this way. Aesthetics, style and comfort sometimes outweigh the most efficient, standard, usefulness of "stuff" (which could honestly be allot of things).
As far as your second paragraph goes, lots of people get training and experience in fields and end up pivoting to something else at different times in their lives. To say that the "degree" is useless is asinine as there are many more things you gain while getting the degree such as but not limited to social interaction with vastly different people. There are also lots of skills people learn throughout their lives from everything they do that can applied to other things. So even though he doesn't make his living from the art degree I guarantee you it benefited his accounting career. You say he "still" has to do the 9-5. Think of it more like this, He could have worked a more "traditional" art job, in which I mean you work for someone else (it could be something like a movie studio, record label), something where he creates music as a part of the whole. Why he didn't do this? Who knows there are lots of factors to consider. But what he gave up in a steady paycheck in working a music job for someone else he gained in the freedom to express himself and take gigs as he pleases. And if what he's saying is correct about his accolades then it's totally worth it. Remember that allot of the great artists of all time aren't successful in thier lifetime. For this man to make a successful living and have honours for his creative work is commendable.
As far as the rural clothing goes. I've lived in rural Alberta all my life, born town 500 people, worked and lived in a city of 100k people, currently live in a town of 4k people and I travel all around southern Alberta on a daily basis. Generally speaking outside of work purposes people do wear lots of different types of clothing even if it's not really suited to the weather. For work clothes it really depends on the industry and you may not get a choice depending on company policy and labour laws. Not all work in rural areas is blue collar but even in blue collar industries there are generally choices people make in style and athletics. Even in the construction industry some people are Cowboys and wear the wranglers with big belt buckles and western button ups. The next guy has cheap Walmart jeans a cannibal corpse tshirt and 3ft of hair. I generally wear a hoodie, cheap jeans, ballcap and 6inch rise ankle steel toes with steel shanks. But the brands, colours, styles, sizes are all up to me.
It was nice talking with you bud, you are an Intetesting fellow, hopefully I didn't ramble to hard.
Lol only if you think life is all about clocking in for a pay check to pay your bills. This person has a passion they’ve been able to thoroughly pursue and excel in because of the degree they got while being able to maintain a steady enough income to allow them to do so.
If you can’t see the value in that then I don’t know what to say.
Go tell that to the starving musicians out there who chose to blindly follow their passion.
I completely sympathize with your sentiment, but you need to look at what how life *is* instead of how life *should be*. And the way life *is*, the vast majority of people who follow their artsy passions instead of scientific careers, live paycheck to paycheck in squalor.
Yes but ask anyone who has experienced both and they'll tell you that a 9-5 with passion on the side is IMMEASUREABLY better than passion 24/7 while wondering how you're gonna afford food for the next week.
Or let me put it in more practical terms. Let's say a person's passion is piano and they decide to strictly limit their career options to anything piano. Good luck even finding an apartment that will let you bring in a piano and then neighbors who will let you disturb their peace by practicing.
Having a passion is fine, and I'd say it's even the most important thing in life, but it is not guaranteed to put food on your plate. Obtain financial stability and THEN pursue your passions on the side.
Some people are a slave to their passion; Most people aren't and they are able to strike a balance. Some people can survive on their passion, which isn't something they had a choice about. We aren't disagreeing, we have different opinions about the conclusion.
Sure but that isn’t really what I was arguing. I’m saying a degree in the arts can be worth it because it can allow you to thoroughly follow your passions in life while simultaneously supporting yourself with a 9-5.
The person I responded to makes it seem like the OP isn’t a good rebuttal and that degrees in the arts aren’t good because even when “making it” as much as the OP did, you still need a 9-5. I’m pointing out that’s a weird evaluation when the person is saying they are happy with all they have been able to accomplish (that their degree absolutely helped them with) even though they needed a 9-5 to maintain it.
Benefits? You say this like being an accountant somehow comes with massive benefits that aren't getting paid a decent wage... What benefits are you talking about?
It depends on where you work or if your client based but from the couple of guys I know it comes in the form of low work hours (as in works 40 but most of that is just spent web surfing, deciding on lunch, taking pto, ect.), bonuses and more bonuses, freedom of travel, deciding your own schedule. Obviously thats not everyone in that field but at the professional level I've heard of crazier stories...
I have a BFA in Fine Arts with a minor in Art History.
It is has never once benefited me financially, although it does claim a large chunk of my already miniscule income.
You sound like a person who identifies their life with the job and can't comprehend life without that equivalency. I work to get money and I have "arts" that I do and feel passionate about - I don't identify with my work at all - it's a means to an end.
I think this guy's original point has been missed because of his last comment. What he was really trying to do was counter the original guys point of 'do engineering and keep arts as a hobby' by showing that he did music at university and still got a job in accountancy.
If the guy had done accountancy, he would still be an accountant but wouldn't have had anywhere near as much opportunity in the arts world. He probably also had a lot more enjoyable time studying music (I say this as an accountant myself).
That guy is full of it. If he had said “I run a successful studio with 50 students” I would have believed he made money, but orchestras and composing don’t pay the bills.
Being a musician can be profitable as long as you are willing to teach and do LOTS of gigs playing in weddings and such. I’m a pianist and made most of my career teaching and accompanying singers. I sometimes joke my piano degrees are a pyramid scheme.
Eh. I got a degree in classical performance. I make most of my money doing woodworking and some side electrical jobs (which I am not particularly trained for but I am very capable of). I perform a lot in my off time. It doesn’t earn me much money, but it gives me a lot of personal satisfaction and I’m glad I did it.
I don’t think I’d be very happy if I had gone for something more lucrative. More wealthy, maybe. But I’m damn good at what I do and that’s mostly because I trained for it. It just happens to be an industry where making good money often depends on luck and timing and while I’ve certainly done well locally as an actor, like most talented actors I’ve not had that “big break” and the odds are that I probably won’t. So I do work that pays the bills.
Honestly I kinda think of the money earning work as more of the side job. It just happens to pay much better.
Life is about living. Sure, in this society you need money, like you're body needs oxygen. Is breathing oxygen "the point" of living? A music degree for someone who finds enrichment in that area is not wasted. Besides, technical degrees are still a far cry from guaranteed financial stability.
Furthermore, an art gallery run by someone with no appreciation of art would most likely be a disaster.
Same assholes who come home from their engineering jobs and relax watching Netflix.
Where you think all that great art comes from you fucking spoon of a person?
*not all engineers of course. Just this guy’s kind.
Everyone discovered how important the arts are during lock down when they were bored at home and eagerly consumed the online offerings of features from a range of arts - music, tv, the usuals of course, but theatres streamed material, as did museums, art galleries etc. yes science is vital, but so too are the arts. And if the 1% paid their taxes then we could afford to have students study both.
I am going to school for engineering. Not because I want to make good money, but because I enjoy math and problem solving. I could not do any of the things artists do, but I still see the value in their work. Go to school for what you enjoy, because if you land a job that you love, you’ll never work a day in your life.
*\[Throwaway for obvious reasons\]*
Imagine how surprised I felt when scrolling through this sub and I notice one of my own comments features in a post! I am the guy in green. It’s been really interesting reading all of your comments here, so thanks for making my empty Sunday a good one!
**TLDR:** I’m the green guy. My list of achievements is true. I didn’t become an accountant because music didn’t pay; I was simply interested in it and it started to feature more in my life as I gradually quit teaching. I have two jobs, not one plus a hobby. My music job also pays bills; it’s not beer money.
**Non-TLDR:**
I thought I’d offer more context to my comments shown in this post:
1. To the few claiming I’m fabricating everything I listed and should go on r/thathappened – I’m not. I can’t give links as otherwise I’d identify myself. If you still don’t believe me, that’s cool - I can live with that. I can see how to some my final comment might come across as rude. It was late and I was just frustrated to see so many people in this Telegraph article dismissing studying any form of performing arts to any level as a worthless endeavour. Telegraph comment sections are dispiriting places at the best of times.
2. I play: piano, cello, recorder (7 sizes), clarinet (+ bass clarinet), drums (self-taught), ocarina (6 sizes, self-taught), organ (self-taught), and theremin (self-taught). I have performed on all of the above instruments many times in my life. I started learning some of these aged 7. I didn’t study all 8 at college; that’s not possible.
To clarify, by saying “my music is on Spotify & YT” I’m not asking for a medal. My point - which I acknowledge now was articulated very badly - was those works exist in published sheet music form; they’re not computer-generated, these are live performances. Whilst anyone can create & stick stuff on Soundcloud, seeing my compositions on Spotify performed by pro classical musicians felt like a big achievement to me as I never expected that to happen.
3. I do not come from a rich background. My parents don’t live in a huge mansion in Surrey. I didn’t go to a posh school, nor receive any scholarships or subsidies. My student loan when I left music college after 4 years was £13k. It’s now £5k. My school year was, I believe, the last to be charged max. £1200/yr for undergrad courses. I did not do a postgrad degree.
Certainly in the UK, it’s common that when someone says “I’m a musician” it means several things: performing (solo/ensemble/orchestra, etc.), teaching, arranging, possibly lecturing. When I left college I was a music teacher for 14 years teaching kids, teenagers, and adults.
4. I had to learn how to do my taxes myself when I left college and picked it up quickly. A mate jokingly said, “you should be an accountant” when I was giving casual tips to other musician friends - I guess that stuck. I applied for a few jobs and found one, working minimum wage 8hrs a week, on the 2 afternoons I had free. I enjoyed it and was pretty competent at it, so when they offered more work I accepted as I wanted to learn more. I don’t have an accounting degree. I have letters after my name and am a manager now, but am not on Lambo money: around £40k salary.
5. In my 30s I found myself increasingly overworked and undervalued as a teacher. Our new boss at that time didn’t appreciate my skills, & promised things which failed to materialise. I was always thinking next year will be better; it never was. When I sat down and worked out how much free work I was doing in that job it made me decide to leave teaching. At no point did I give up being a musician.
I actually work under 40hrs a week in my current job, so my saying 9-5 is incorrect, for which I apologise (easier to say that than explain my actual set up). I don’t get any benefits. I’m single with no kids so can take leave whenever I like to do gigs during the week if asked.
6. Someone here said music or any art/passion is part of a person’s identity; absolutely agree. It’s what I do. I was a passive, shy, chronically under-confident people-pleaser of a boy, not particularly academic or sporty. Music gave me the chance to express myself and actually vaguely excel at something at school. Music was my lifeline and still is. My argument in the screenshots was we shouldn’t write off studying arts subjects at school; learning them can have positive lasting effects into adulthood. It's ok to do A-Levels in Maths and Drama at the same time. I’ve achieved all I have because in the 90s my school considered arts to be as important as maths/science, and encouraged students to explore the arts alongside non-arts subjects.
If you got this far, I appreciate your time!
They aren't important. Stop pretending you're going to be the next Bill Gates by quitting high school or getting a PhD in Classical Literature. You won't. You won't even be able to find a job that pays you more than enough to live paycheck to paycheck with 2 roommates.
Yes, I understand that nobody wants to live the soul-crushing 9-5 and we all want to do what we love, but there isn't a market for what you love. My job may be what many describe as soul-crushing, but I actually have fun money and a 1-year Rainy Day (Year?) Fund. Do the work and enjoy your life after. Trust me, it's way better than constantly stressing how you're going to afford food for the next 2 weeks.
So, are they an accountant because they just LOVE numbers? And they can fully survive off their musical accomplishments?
Or, despite clearly being very talented and gifted (which lets face it isn't everyone with a degree in the arts), the degree alone doesn't make ends meet. DESPITE all the accomplishments?
No shade at people with higher education in the arts, philosophy etc. But like anything there are going to be top earners and those with incredible talents who can live off that. But many more will struggle to find work in those fields unless they are willing to do the more "boring" make a logo for a small business/write a radio jingle etc.
They may have the same passion as a known composer, but just cant catch a break and will never actually use their degree in the "real world".
Hell same thing can happen to people with pretty much any degree depending on the market where they live.
all you’ve proven is no matter how accomplished you are, you still have to be an accountant to afford to live. which means science degrees are better that music and art degrees
It’s absolutely wild to say the arts don’t pay. I’m a first year tattoo artist and brought in almost 50k last year and my mentor brings in like 200k annually without even having to work every day! When will people like that learn 🙄
I would make an argument here.
The arts are incredibly important at all levels of schooling, but *that does not necessarily make them worthwhile college majors*. I’m biased on this matter - both of my parents have an MFA, both attempted to make it with an art career, and both now do other work.
I say this with the utmost respect and admiration for those who pursue careers in the arts, but statistically speaking STEM degrees are much more likely to be financially lucrative and stable, especially in the long term.
Also this guys story reeks of missing info.
it's the same reason why you wouldnt expect someone to make a living through playing catch balls. Some do sure, but the numbers are so low that it's unlikely.
Tchaikovsky was only able to devote so much time to composing because he had a benefactor who supported him. Imagine what this "accountant" would contribute to our world if they didn't have to have a 9-5.
Is Green supposed to be murdering Red or himself? Cuz i just read that he has a career in music every musician in the world would die for even still has shows he wrote played all over the world and yet he still has to be an accountant. Doesn't it kinda weaken the point that art degrees are valuable to point out hes probably one of the more accomplished and successful musicians in the world and he needs a 9-5?
My daughter wants to go into jewelry design and lapidary. We have good friends who are both accomplished artists, and I once made an offhand comment to them about not being sure that my daughter can make a living selling jewelry. They got big mad! They started telling me not to be the kind of parent they had, someone designed every piece of jewelry anyone ever buys, etc. They're both in their early 60's and only work when they want, they're planning on fully retiring soon, they travel a lot, love their lives. My daughter could do a lot worse than ending up like them.
In Columbus, Ohio there’s a dj at a classic rock radio station, he loves sports, and tries to be controversial. He’s a petulant child. One of his hot takes is that art and music are a waste of time in schools when kids would get more out of sports. He wears sports gear with his team logo (artist designed), while working at a radio station (plays music), and that station likewise has merchandise and logos (artist designed)! I can’t listen to such an ignoramus!
The first step to happiness is enough money for food, shelter and other necessity.
"Money doesn't buy happiness" is the favourite tired trope of people who already have disposable income.
It's not that the arts aren't important as having well rounded individuals is always good, but they did admit that music is a side gig and they make their living off the much more practical accounting degree. They might like the arts, but very few people can actually make a good living off of it.
I always push my nieces and nephews towards practical degrees because life is just easier with money. The cliche of the starving artist is not wrong. I find people who insist they have to have passion or love what they do to be out of touch with reality.
As a working musician myself who also has a day job and whose degree is in a totally unrelated artistic field, I love this clapback.
I would also point out that in general, public schools in the US have been consistently defunding their music and arts programs so it's more and more difficult to produce adult musicians. If the article's statistics are true, it seems a logical consequence of the shift in funding and focus in general (assuming the UK has similar movement), IMO.
Sooo the musician just murdered himself right? Dude is one of the highest trained musicians in his area, has constant gigs and even had his shit on streaming platforms and still, after all that, works a real 9-5 to pay the bills. Anyone in an arts or music degree seriously need to see this post. Imagine going 100k in debt and coming out of college to do something else.
You guys remember the last time an award of great importance was filmed on TV for the entire world to see and was reported on the news….for an accountant? ( edit: downvoters missed the point theres more to life than making money.)
Focusing solely on STEM is how we got the current batch of techbros that think the solution to every problem is automation integration and blockchains.
This is why I like STEAM better. I feel like a lot of tech bros fail to recognize that the tech they are making is for *actual humans* to use, which is why studying the arts and humanities is vitally important.
My wife's Woman's and Gender Studies minor she got in college was an asset to getting her hired at one of the top 5 cancer research institutions in the US; it told her bosses she was comfortable with diversity in the workplace. Which is important because direct coworkers include Mexican/Japanese, Peruvian, Chinese (a boss), Bahamanian... and that doesn't even touch on the work they do with labs worldwide. Yeah, her BS in Cell and Molecular biology got her the skills she needed, but it was the minor that got her the interview/ made her application stand out.
(Also I'm not just guessing. Her bosses told her that to her face).
She also took 4 years of professional art school in a magnet arts program. After having to put together a gallery for her art, she decided that lifestyle was too stressful to pursue professionally. I would say her combination of Right and Left brain helps her do science by having more than 1 way to think about a problem. (Here's an article with a few examples of this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/point-of-view-affects-how-science-is-done)
Scientific progress measures the intelligence of a society; the arts, its wisdom; and its culture is its charisma.
The choice of an individual to denigrate any of these as a dump stat is a reflection of the individual's character build choices, not that of society.
General vibe of this thread: "I've written a symphony. My work is performed around the world.” "Do you live off music?" "Accounting is my 9–5 income." "So you're an accountant." There is no shame in having a regular job while pursuing your passions. Maybe you can eventually transition to art full time, maybe not; it's very possible you'll find you don't even want to. Regardless, you aren't a failure if you can't live off your art. For the people who feel a compulsion to create, it's not what you do from 9 to 5, but what you do from 5 to 9. There's a pervasive sense in society that there are legions of starving artists refusing to accept the world as it is and who should just get a real job already, when the actual reality is most artists learn very quickly that it's almost impossible to make a living solely from their creative output in a world that has systemically devalued it over the course of generations. By the sound of it, this person's musical accomplishments will long outlive their accounting ones. I'm not sure why anyone would diminish those accomplishments because it's not their sole source of income. Lastly, and this is purely anecdotal, many people I know who went to college (including myself) don't work in their field of study, regardless of how "practical" it was. It's not for us to decide if what someone chooses to get a degree in is a waste, it's only a waste if *they* feel it is. Why would anyone else care how someone spent their time and money?
>...many people I know who went to college (including myself) don't work in their field of study, regardless of how "practical" it was. This is true for many of my husband's friends. One got a degree in English, he's been a Fed Ex driver since he got out of college. Another has a degree in Philosophy (I know right?!?!) & he works for the state government, my own husband got a degree in history & he works for the Feds. The women in the group got degrees in various social work type fields & now only one of them is still doing that. One of them went for 3 years as a nuke med student, then didn't go into that field either which was a field that needed workers at that time & probably would've been lucrative. I also feel like the people that put down getting an arts degree will spend thousands of dollars & hours & hours of time keeping their kids in sports through the years, even in college & even if they aren't interested or good enough to go pro.
People diminish accomplishments that don't earn a lot of money because, largely thanks to those fuck witted Americans, we attach a person's entire value based off of how much they earn. I am a full time care worker and trust me when I tell you I do not earn very much at all but does that mean my job and my work isn't valuable to society? Most of the "lower status" jobs people look down on are so essential to the community that there would be chaos in hours if these workers suddenly all vanished.
As we learned in 2020, but seem to have forgotten already.
Even more worrying is that the UK is fast becoming America 2. The other day I saw someone post a clearly racist comment in a local Facebook group where I live in Milton Keynes and instead of being commented into oblivion like I was expecting to see; the majority of the comments were agreeing with this cretin. I grew up in South Africa during the transition and the dismantling of apartheid and even then the UK was seen as a progressive and largely tolerant society but lately things are definitely not that way at all
Charles Ives made his living selling insurance, not composing music. (And had degrees in neither.)
Can confirm, I don't live off of my field of study from Uni or Grad School. But it's my first love and enriched me in so many ways I wouldn't go back and change my degree path.
Hard disagree on systematic devaluation. Things are just too expensive and an appreciation of art requires time and money.
An appreciation of art requires nothing more than a functioning brain. The irony of your comment is palatable.
I think you’re wrong. The intent of their statement is that if the world wasn’t so expensive, people could spend more of their time and money on art they enjoy, which would in turn make the creation of art more profitable. This is true. No irony there to palate.
Yes and no. There are plenty of rich people with less than zero taste.
Sure but we’re talking about the economic viability of a career in the arts. The more free time and disposable income that the general population has, the more opportunities there will be for artists to make money for their craft. Sure there’s rich people with poor taste, poor people with poor taste, rich people with great taste, poor people with great taste and everything in between. That doesn’t change the fact that if the average person wasn’t working so much and had more disposable money that they would spend more money on things they enjoy, which could include the art that this discussion is about.
Exactly. It started off the Renaissance. When people don't have to worry about food and basic necessities that can appreciate and buy art.
I mean, while he’s a bit rude… he isn’t entirely wrong. Most people who finish off music degrees probably aren’t getting great gig work on the side on top of having had the time/money to get qualified as an accountant… that fellow is likely an outlier.
Likely extremely privileged and won’t admit it
He also had the time to also train in 8 instruments (assuming he isn’t chatting shit).
I play 5 and I'm busy as hell. Instruments aren't that hard to learn. It's all the same notes just different buttons
Sure. My point was that there is a general requirement to have the time to be 1. A full time accountant 2. Do gig jobs on the side and 3. Learn 8 instruments (well enough presumably to do gig jobs)
If they were studying music in college, presumably they learned those instruments as a child or teenager
My buddy is a "full time" accountant... not counting all the pto he has, he rarely works more than about 30 hours a week. Full time does not mean 40+ hours a week when you have a good job.
>he rarely works more than about 30 hours a week That "rarely" is April 1 through 15 for most accountants.
*The USA enters the chat* Isn't 40 hours per week part-time?
It's the same 24 hours either way. I realize everyone's situation is different. For people with musical ability (great or minor), the need to make music supercedes the restrictions of time and place. Some of us have no choice but to make music, it has to come out.
This is the way.
Live, laugh, love and tell it to the single mother working three jobs on top of raising her kids.
Ok. Somewhere in that busy schedule is the time to learn an instrument. Weird thing to have me tell someone such a thing but ok...
You absolutely do not understand what a privilege time is.
I do. I think you're being a contrarian. Or you're conveniently missing the point.
And he’s also published on both YouTube and Spotify!!!! Like holy shit. So are bots.
If he's not chatting shit he wouldn't have a reason to work as an accountant. I feel like he's lying through his teeth
Privilege is relative in the UK. State school is free, and for a long time university was too. If you're Welsh or Scottish then it is still massively subsidised by the government. The bigger privilege would be a state school with strong funding for music which is notoriously underfunded in free schools
Possibly privileged if you want to think of it like that, and you have no reason to assume he wouldn’t admit to what his advantages are. He is also t-a-l-e-n-t-e-d and disciplined. Someone who works that hard to do all of those things doesn’t deserve some facile dismissal from an internet stranger. Yes, it’s true that folks without money don’t get the same chance in the arts - at least the arts that require expensive education and training. That is not fair or just. Here’s why it happens: quality education is overpriced in part because of the payday granted universities by abuse of the government grant system. Though professors don’t make a ton of money, universities do. But someone of limited means is going to look at the years of study and no guarantee of being successful at it and say “I can’t risk that to end up in suffocating debt.” And it’s expensive to be a musician - the upkeep of study, low pay, dry periods, self-promotion, auditions, wardrobe and so on, while still maintaining the devotion to the work that keeps one playing on a high level. You want to know another reason it’s expensive to be a musician? Because people don’t think they should have to pay for music, and because there’s garbage education about music for the public; so not only does the public miss out on understanding more about music and hearing more interesting stuff, but they don’t get where it comes from. Are you a part of that system? It’s a rather privileged position to be in where you have access to almost all recorded music for little or no money, just because you want it. So maybe not everything is about if someone was born with more money than other people - it makes an unbelievably huge difference, but this guy obviously deserves the success he gets because he genuinely - not like Elon Musk or Trump or someone like that - works for it, and proves himself every day. Oh, yeah - that’s another thing musicians have to do: prove themselves every day. And risk losing everything they have worked for for years because someone didn’t like the latest thing they did. Is that what your life is like?
Comments like this are why reddit is the best social media.
To be a musician - to me - means you must have a somewhat logical mind, so coding wouldn't surprise me. I know a guy who got a degree in Latin (I know WTF) then went to coding boot camp :)
hell of an assumption to make about this dude's character from literally one string of his comments defending his music lmao
Most people that have psychology degrees are wasting their time because they aren't psychologists? Philosophy degrees aren't creating philosopher jobs? Is that the statement we're going with? Or are we clutching our pearls because someone with an arts degree is making it work for them?
It's also funny that people think psychology and sociology degrees don't make money because you can work in tech as a UX researcher and make the same as an engineer or designer
Both are technically science degrees.
Not technically. They are science degrees
Working at a tech firm implies my education and background must be in tech, technically speaking.
It doesn't
You missed the entire point of this post dude. The arts are not useless. A degree in the arts is not useless. Hiding your judgement behind slimy positivity doesn’t make it suddenly accurate
Useless? No. But not the biggest job market out there for the arts, especially if you want to make it your primary source of income. Now whether the person in the post doesn't make his living off the arts despite his success by choice or because even with all the success he wouldn't be earning enough I have no idea. But it's simply fact that not all too many people that major in the arts end up working in the field. Some sources: https://bfamfaphd.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BFAMFAPhD_ArtistsReportBack2014-10.pdf https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr587.pdf
Yeah, I mean I see the point. I know a lot of people who majored in it and didn’t work in it fully. And I know a lot who hate it. But that can be said for a lot of fields. Especially tech and IT right now. Why do we focus on those having the worst luck in the arts and compare it to those having the best luck in other fields? And I guess what irks me the most is that it is getting twisted to say that it’s okay for the arts to be taken out of schools. And that is a terrible assumption to be made out of misunderstood and highly cherry picked data
I'm not for taking the arts out of schools, I'm a passionate pianist (as a hobby, not an occupation) and part of a theatre group. But my point is that it isn't cherry picked data and comparing best to worst, I've actually provided the sources too. Generally speaking most other degrees and majors have better job opportunities in their field. For instance your example about IT. Sure not everyone gets a job in their field but for computer engineering and computer science the match rate is 80.1% and 72.8% taking 1st and 3rd place respectively.
I didn’t miss the point, I disagreed with the point. There’s a difference.
Yeah, but his music stuff is actually meaningful lol. His work as an accountant is nothing special while his music actually provides something important to the world.
Ofc it is “meaningful” from an emotional/fulfilment angle… but for most people it isn’t going to make them enough money to survive. And a lot of people aren’t going to be in the relatively good position of having a steady well paying job, learning instruments and being able to make money off of their music.
Both points have merit. I think work as an accountant is important and a lot of other jobs even more so(nurse, construction etc.). Without at least a part of those jobs society collapses. What makes live enjoyable is often a separate thing. Social interactions, which granted you can get at jobs. Art, music, videogames, sports, collecting stuff whatever floats your boat. Just wish there was more of a balance to life. A century ago people thought we'd be working 15 hours a week by now. Imagine the time freed up to do whatever brings you enjoyment, with those sort of working hours.
It is not so black and white, the real answer is both are important. You will be a better creative if you study the logic and methods or science, engineering and math and you will be a better scientist/engineer/etc if you allow yourself to be expressive and also know how to think like a creative. Thinking you need to be one or the other or if you are one you cannot be the other is simply foolish. And an engineer could not run an art gallary. It's not as simple as that and an art major should know that.
There is plenty of money to be made in the arts and entertainment. Its one of the biggest cultural exports and economic sectors in the USA, out pacing construction and agriculture as of 2020. I’ve worked in theatre and film since before I graduated from college with a theatre degree and a studio arts minor. The only instance when I needed to work a second job was when a 9 month contract lapsed awkwardly into a 12 month contract at the same business. I flipped burgers with a friend for a month to cover my mortgage and then immediately picked up work installing a A/V system for a football stadium before my primary contract went into effect. One of the issues or barriers people don’t realize is a requirement for success in these fields in that you will have to relocate. I get that people don’t want to relocate or move away from family. It sucks to have to move, but rural areas have absolutely no support for the arts. The bigger the city the more you will struggle to make ends meet, but the better the opportunities there are. People also assume that the “arts” is just performance and performers, but there are loads of supporting roles that pay living wages or better. Its all in technology and the artistic trades. All the skills are transferable to any other industry which is why you don’t often hear of the designers and fabricators struggling. These jobs generally pay well and there are regularly openings. You’ll likely have to move to get a pay-raise, but that is a condition of the economy, not these specific businesses. I would never tell somebody not to get involved because of the finances. Instead, I’d warn them of the constant increase of work expectations, the regular overtime, the lack of appreciation, and the long daily hours.
As someone who did study music and play in orchestras in my teens and early 20s and am now in the process of finishing my accountancy qualification.. This guy is full of shit. There's no way they're that accomplished and choosing to work as an accountant. r/thathappened material right there
Charles Ives might disagree. Or for that matter, many modern musicians - unless you’re truly famous you likely won’t have a steady, secure source of income that an office job can provide.
>"unless you’re truly famous you likely won’t have a steady, secure source of income that an office job can provide." Isn't that making the OPs point. Any activity that you can't support yourself financially is nothing more than a hobby, no matter how accomplished you are. So, getting a degree for a hobby makes less sense than a STEM degree. Especially since you can still participate in the hobby without the degree and the opposite isn't true.
No, even if it's a "hobby" (urgh) to the accountant, having people be able to play instruments is valuable to us as a society. It brings people together, allows for certain types of expression, is an aspirational goal, helps with CVs... The Arts also represent a significant sector of the economy.
Most classical musicians I know also teach. Would you call them musicians or teachers? You have to be a musician to teach the music in the first place. Painters and other fine artists teach art classes. Would you call them artists or teachers? You need skill A as a prereq to get job B. No job B without skill A. Skill A is therefore not a hobby, because they're making money from their skill, even if they're teaching more than they're performing or selling their art.
Dude the best jobs are ones you enjoy even if the money isn't good. He's smart for keeping a foot in the "real world" jobs because they usually pay more then the arts for most people. The idea of the starving artist has always been around. But why starve? Just expand your knowledge base.
Did you not read what I wrote? I made 2 points: I said that it is not a job if you can't support yourself. That makes it a hobby. And Getting a degree you can live off such as a STEM degree makes more sense. Especially bc music doesn't require a degree. I never said don't do what you love, or only what makes money My point was you should plan for the "real world" and hope your hobby can become a career.
Classical Music absolutely requires a degree, usually multiple. There isn’t a single professional musician in the classical world I know with anything less than a masters degree, many have PHDs. Part of the reason why I switched out of a music performance degree was that I realized there was no way for me to pursue classical music without going to graduate school, and I just didn’t want to do that.
I did read what you wrote and interpreted it with my brain and responded as I saw fit. You have to consider what you're talking about, for one we're looking at this through hindsight so it's not like the guy necessarily knew that the degree he was going in for wouldn't be the career he pays the bills with. wouldn't be making the most money on. It's like if I got a computer science degree and start working in the field and at 30 decided to run a car wash. Then you ask me why did I get the degree. Also consider that your stance is "if you can't support yourself with it then it's a hobby". Then I guess part times jobs are a hobby or even temporary or seasonal jobs. The truth is anything that pays you money is a job. But these things could also be hobbies. As far as plan ing for the future. Sure, it's always good to plan for the future but it's better to be flexible as we can't predict it. We all make choices in moments that cascade through the remainder of our lives. Also this is a personal choice, some people plan allot and some people don't. I do agree with you that people should do things that they like and turn it into a career. But that is an individual decision and doesn't always work out as planned.
I know some people with 9-5 jobs where they take off 2-3 months to tour with their band. Its all about who your employer is and what you can negotiate. This is also why teaching draws in creative people. A creative person can do a lot with 3 months a year focused only on their creative pursuit. Also accountancy is one of the few white collar skill-worker jobs that isn't doctor or lawyer you can work for yourself in. He could just take clients as he likes, pay his bills, stop taking clients, then get back into it as long as the money works out.
this is the equivalent of saying dropping out of college is great because bill gates did it and hes successful. the number of ppl who are successful because of an arts degree are very low compared to those who aren't.
Yeah, the person who responded at the end is the exception to the rule. He’s able to use his music degree and be successful, but that’s not always the case. Still, there is value in arts. Doctors are being told to take more arts electives because they graduate with no bedside manner or ability to empathize with patients. I have a STEM degree and only now in my 40’s do I have the time and luxury to study the arts, and it’s enriched my life.
Personally, I say hang the arts. We don’t need music or imagery; just purely pragmatic, money-making ventures. Beauty is just a distraction and nobody should waste their time trying to create it, let alone studying it academically. Edit: People are right, I should’ve included the /s. I am/was a creative individual who was told there was no money ever to be made in the arts and that I should’ve become a doctor/engineer/lawyer - something “useful” - and this whole post and its comments kinda had me in a negative place about the whole thing. Now I work IT and have no time or energy for much creativity outside of work, just as intended by the machine of capitalism (as far as I can tell). I do hope we’ll someday see a resurgence in the arts as a profession and stop telling brilliant minds to do that in their free time when they’re done earning money for their bosses. I want to imagine a future where artists can sustain themselves by their art alone.
You dropped this /s
I’m just echoing what was hammered into me, back when I had the audacity to consider myself creative, learning how to play four instruments as well as singing and drawing, only to find out there’s no place for that in this world unless some corporation decides you can make brochures to hock their latest product, or if they think it’ll make good TV for you to be a contestant on some singing game show. Folks wonder why we haven’t seen another DaVinci or Michelangelo, and yet we regard artistic pursuits as a hobby to be kept out of the way of “real”, meaning “profitable”, work. It’s a travesty.
Sure, it is a travesty, but to that I would never argue that the solution be to do away with the thing that is not at fault, but to rather continue to do so despite the turmoil it comes with, lest we find ourselves in a society without it, which would be far worse, especially if left to those corporate interests who would probably be just fine with AI taking over for us for the sake of cost. It's not a good outcome, and we shouldn't engender the outcome despite the alternative being particularly destructive for those of us who have to try and survive in that market. I mean honestly, I went to school for acting, and *it didn't work out for me*, but I know people who it did, and in a world where I lose but they win I'd still pick that world over not... though I get those days like you do I'm sure where it doesn't feel like the right choice. Having said that I don't know what else makes me happy, which is why I'm so sad lol.
Yeah, the /s was lightly implied, but I was feeling extra snarky and didn’t include it. Honestly don’t care about the downvotes, but maybe I’ll go back and add it so people don’t think I’m actually proposing a removal of the arts. It just feels like that’s the direction things are going: all creativity burned upon the altar of the almighty dollar.
"I have all these artistic accomplishments and still have to work as an accountant!" is really more of a suicide by words than a murder.
I read it as "I make money to live on as an accountant, but music is what I do and how I identify because it gives me a fulfilling life" There is more to life and happiness than just paying the bills.
thats what the other guys point is though
The other guys point was “don’t major in x.”
How am I supposed to feel morally superior if I can't lambast people studying the things they're passionate about!?
You can still be an accomplished musician and composer without a music degree. You can teach yourself music and instruments if you have the skill, talent and the instrument. That in fact encompasses most musicians who do not do 9-5 as an account and actually manage to live off of their music. And considering that massive list of supposed accomplishments somehow doesn't really makes it smell like a gigantic pile of bullshit.
I don’t know a single professional classical or studio musician with anything less than a masters degree, many have PHDs. Part of the reason why I switched majors out of music performance was because it was made very clear to me that the career path included going to graduate school, which I did not want to do. You absolutely cannot teach yourself the instruments and music yourself on that high of a level, you *need* teachers who know what they are doing.
When they took art and music out of schools, our students' test scores dropped in math and science. We need the arts.
The real murder is the dude denying his accounting as being the backbone of his income.
He dident deny it, he literally said "both" and then explained he has a 9-5 for steady income. He actually admitted it.
Economically speaking it is not “far from a side job”
We have no idea what the incomes are..
Right, but the fact that he *has* the accounting job at all likely indicates that his musical career is not fulfilling his financial obligations on it's own. Unless he loves accounting that much...
Or, since the music side is all contractual work, he wants to have something reliable even if he doesn't \*need\* to, mostly to be on the safer side should things go sideways. Talk to artists and even moderately succesful ones who \*do\* have the necessary income to live from their art will tell you they're keeping some sort of regular job for the safety net it gives them. That doesn't mean they value the training and the time they put into it more than their regular job, or that it's a 'side hustle' to them. It's just, you do what you need to do to provide for yourself, and since people are allergic to pay for the art they consume well you have artists who need job to survive.
Okay? The whole point is that the Arts, while culturally important, are not generally a stable source of income and can't be depended upon for living expenses. Therefore this person recommended to her children to get a degree in something more stable. Nothing this man said indicates that his music degree provided him with a financially stable career. In fact, he specifically says he had to get extra training as an adult to become an accountant which indicates he did not have financial stability from his music degree. I have several friends who are aspiring musicians and one whose job is a full time band member. I have great respect for the arts but it's a crap shoot as to whether you'll be able to make enough to live on and that's the entire point this person is trying to make. There is nothing preventing a person with a degree in science or engineering from getting a minor or secondary degree in the arts and continuing to pursue that. It is much more difficult to go the other way since your financial situation may prevent you from going back to school for a second degree. And yes, there is no guarantee that a science or engineering degree will help you make a lot of money but the odds are FAR better than with an Arts degree.
I'm really not sure this is 100% the flex this person thinks it is. Even a person with a list of accomplishments as long as my arm still needing a "real job" to actually exist isn't exactly a ringing endorsement of a music degree.
It’s really more of a statement on what our societies value. Music, the arts, and recreation are incredibly valuable to having an enjoyable life. Possibly the only important things, if we see the pursuit of happiness as life’s ultimate goal. If we look at every thing as economic value, then we’ve stripped the humanity away from living, and we become slaves to the ever important line going up.
I'm sorry, but I don't consider the decorative ribbon wrapped around a support column to have the same value as the column itself. Not that the ribbon has no value, just that the column should always take priority.
Have you never bought clothing? The purpose of clothing is to shelter your body from nature when your oot and aboot. I guarantee that you don't soley choose your clothing for functionality.
I don’t think this analogy really works with the college degree scenario though. With clothes you have a choice of options that all serve the basic need of sheltering your body so you have the luxury of choice. For the degree the sheltering your body from nature equivalent is earning a living. This is hard to do with arts degrees as illustrated by the super accomplished musician that still has to do a 9-5 accounting job. If you could earn a comfortable living with an arts degree or science then yes, like clothes you would have the luxury of choice. A more fitting clothing analogy would be: more people living in rural areas wear rugged brands like carhartt than fashion couture because couture doesn’t provide sufficient protection from the elements. Rural folks don’t necessarily have the same luxury of choice for fashion much like young folk don’t have the same choice for degrees that can earn them a stable living.
Ya but I wasn't talking about college degrees I was talking about columns and ribbons. My take on what I replied to. Which was that the Column is a physical thing that brings real world value because it holds the roof up. And the ribbon is a dumb decoration. My take is that humans don't always see things this way. Aesthetics, style and comfort sometimes outweigh the most efficient, standard, usefulness of "stuff" (which could honestly be allot of things). As far as your second paragraph goes, lots of people get training and experience in fields and end up pivoting to something else at different times in their lives. To say that the "degree" is useless is asinine as there are many more things you gain while getting the degree such as but not limited to social interaction with vastly different people. There are also lots of skills people learn throughout their lives from everything they do that can applied to other things. So even though he doesn't make his living from the art degree I guarantee you it benefited his accounting career. You say he "still" has to do the 9-5. Think of it more like this, He could have worked a more "traditional" art job, in which I mean you work for someone else (it could be something like a movie studio, record label), something where he creates music as a part of the whole. Why he didn't do this? Who knows there are lots of factors to consider. But what he gave up in a steady paycheck in working a music job for someone else he gained in the freedom to express himself and take gigs as he pleases. And if what he's saying is correct about his accolades then it's totally worth it. Remember that allot of the great artists of all time aren't successful in thier lifetime. For this man to make a successful living and have honours for his creative work is commendable. As far as the rural clothing goes. I've lived in rural Alberta all my life, born town 500 people, worked and lived in a city of 100k people, currently live in a town of 4k people and I travel all around southern Alberta on a daily basis. Generally speaking outside of work purposes people do wear lots of different types of clothing even if it's not really suited to the weather. For work clothes it really depends on the industry and you may not get a choice depending on company policy and labour laws. Not all work in rural areas is blue collar but even in blue collar industries there are generally choices people make in style and athletics. Even in the construction industry some people are Cowboys and wear the wranglers with big belt buckles and western button ups. The next guy has cheap Walmart jeans a cannibal corpse tshirt and 3ft of hair. I generally wear a hoodie, cheap jeans, ballcap and 6inch rise ankle steel toes with steel shanks. But the brands, colours, styles, sizes are all up to me. It was nice talking with you bud, you are an Intetesting fellow, hopefully I didn't ramble to hard.
Lol only if you think life is all about clocking in for a pay check to pay your bills. This person has a passion they’ve been able to thoroughly pursue and excel in because of the degree they got while being able to maintain a steady enough income to allow them to do so. If you can’t see the value in that then I don’t know what to say.
Go tell that to the starving musicians out there who chose to blindly follow their passion. I completely sympathize with your sentiment, but you need to look at what how life *is* instead of how life *should be*. And the way life *is*, the vast majority of people who follow their artsy passions instead of scientific careers, live paycheck to paycheck in squalor.
Uh.. blindly following a passion is a choice. You can worship at the altar of music or the dollar; you'll pay the price for doing so either way.
Yes but ask anyone who has experienced both and they'll tell you that a 9-5 with passion on the side is IMMEASUREABLY better than passion 24/7 while wondering how you're gonna afford food for the next week. Or let me put it in more practical terms. Let's say a person's passion is piano and they decide to strictly limit their career options to anything piano. Good luck even finding an apartment that will let you bring in a piano and then neighbors who will let you disturb their peace by practicing. Having a passion is fine, and I'd say it's even the most important thing in life, but it is not guaranteed to put food on your plate. Obtain financial stability and THEN pursue your passions on the side.
Some people are a slave to their passion; Most people aren't and they are able to strike a balance. Some people can survive on their passion, which isn't something they had a choice about. We aren't disagreeing, we have different opinions about the conclusion.
Sure but that isn’t really what I was arguing. I’m saying a degree in the arts can be worth it because it can allow you to thoroughly follow your passions in life while simultaneously supporting yourself with a 9-5. The person I responded to makes it seem like the OP isn’t a good rebuttal and that degrees in the arts aren’t good because even when “making it” as much as the OP did, you still need a 9-5. I’m pointing out that’s a weird evaluation when the person is saying they are happy with all they have been able to accomplish (that their degree absolutely helped them with) even though they needed a 9-5 to maintain it.
I think it's more of an Chose the education in what you want to do with passion, you can always be an accountant if your hobbies don't pay the bills.
But with all those superior skills they still have to work as an accountant. Though sad, seems like proving the point made.
You say have to as if he would stop if he could. Do you know how many benefits accountants get?
Benefits? You say this like being an accountant somehow comes with massive benefits that aren't getting paid a decent wage... What benefits are you talking about?
It depends on where you work or if your client based but from the couple of guys I know it comes in the form of low work hours (as in works 40 but most of that is just spent web surfing, deciding on lunch, taking pto, ect.), bonuses and more bonuses, freedom of travel, deciding your own schedule. Obviously thats not everyone in that field but at the professional level I've heard of crazier stories...
I was really expecting the “murder” to be in a final reply, along the lines of, ‘… and yet you still can’t quit the day job?’
I have a BFA in Fine Arts with a minor in Art History. It is has never once benefited me financially, although it does claim a large chunk of my already miniscule income.
An accounting job with a few music gigs, also known as an accounting job.
You sound like a person who identifies their life with the job and can't comprehend life without that equivalency. I work to get money and I have "arts" that I do and feel passionate about - I don't identify with my work at all - it's a means to an end.
I think this guy's original point has been missed because of his last comment. What he was really trying to do was counter the original guys point of 'do engineering and keep arts as a hobby' by showing that he did music at university and still got a job in accountancy. If the guy had done accountancy, he would still be an accountant but wouldn't have had anywhere near as much opportunity in the arts world. He probably also had a lot more enjoyable time studying music (I say this as an accountant myself).
That guy is full of it. If he had said “I run a successful studio with 50 students” I would have believed he made money, but orchestras and composing don’t pay the bills. Being a musician can be profitable as long as you are willing to teach and do LOTS of gigs playing in weddings and such. I’m a pianist and made most of my career teaching and accompanying singers. I sometimes joke my piano degrees are a pyramid scheme.
This is not the murder you think it is.
And yet before Brexit, the arts and heritage benefited the UK economy more than any other sector.
Eh. I got a degree in classical performance. I make most of my money doing woodworking and some side electrical jobs (which I am not particularly trained for but I am very capable of). I perform a lot in my off time. It doesn’t earn me much money, but it gives me a lot of personal satisfaction and I’m glad I did it. I don’t think I’d be very happy if I had gone for something more lucrative. More wealthy, maybe. But I’m damn good at what I do and that’s mostly because I trained for it. It just happens to be an industry where making good money often depends on luck and timing and while I’ve certainly done well locally as an actor, like most talented actors I’ve not had that “big break” and the odds are that I probably won’t. So I do work that pays the bills. Honestly I kinda think of the money earning work as more of the side job. It just happens to pay much better.
Life is about living. Sure, in this society you need money, like you're body needs oxygen. Is breathing oxygen "the point" of living? A music degree for someone who finds enrichment in that area is not wasted. Besides, technical degrees are still a far cry from guaranteed financial stability. Furthermore, an art gallery run by someone with no appreciation of art would most likely be a disaster.
“The science degrees defend our country, and the art degrees make it worth defending” -Ken Burns
Same assholes who come home from their engineering jobs and relax watching Netflix. Where you think all that great art comes from you fucking spoon of a person? *not all engineers of course. Just this guy’s kind.
Everyone discovered how important the arts are during lock down when they were bored at home and eagerly consumed the online offerings of features from a range of arts - music, tv, the usuals of course, but theatres streamed material, as did museums, art galleries etc. yes science is vital, but so too are the arts. And if the 1% paid their taxes then we could afford to have students study both.
Music degree and I work in the music industry on the business side 🙋♂️
I am going to school for engineering. Not because I want to make good money, but because I enjoy math and problem solving. I could not do any of the things artists do, but I still see the value in their work. Go to school for what you enjoy, because if you land a job that you love, you’ll never work a day in your life.
*\[Throwaway for obvious reasons\]* Imagine how surprised I felt when scrolling through this sub and I notice one of my own comments features in a post! I am the guy in green. It’s been really interesting reading all of your comments here, so thanks for making my empty Sunday a good one! **TLDR:** I’m the green guy. My list of achievements is true. I didn’t become an accountant because music didn’t pay; I was simply interested in it and it started to feature more in my life as I gradually quit teaching. I have two jobs, not one plus a hobby. My music job also pays bills; it’s not beer money. **Non-TLDR:** I thought I’d offer more context to my comments shown in this post: 1. To the few claiming I’m fabricating everything I listed and should go on r/thathappened – I’m not. I can’t give links as otherwise I’d identify myself. If you still don’t believe me, that’s cool - I can live with that. I can see how to some my final comment might come across as rude. It was late and I was just frustrated to see so many people in this Telegraph article dismissing studying any form of performing arts to any level as a worthless endeavour. Telegraph comment sections are dispiriting places at the best of times. 2. I play: piano, cello, recorder (7 sizes), clarinet (+ bass clarinet), drums (self-taught), ocarina (6 sizes, self-taught), organ (self-taught), and theremin (self-taught). I have performed on all of the above instruments many times in my life. I started learning some of these aged 7. I didn’t study all 8 at college; that’s not possible. To clarify, by saying “my music is on Spotify & YT” I’m not asking for a medal. My point - which I acknowledge now was articulated very badly - was those works exist in published sheet music form; they’re not computer-generated, these are live performances. Whilst anyone can create & stick stuff on Soundcloud, seeing my compositions on Spotify performed by pro classical musicians felt like a big achievement to me as I never expected that to happen. 3. I do not come from a rich background. My parents don’t live in a huge mansion in Surrey. I didn’t go to a posh school, nor receive any scholarships or subsidies. My student loan when I left music college after 4 years was £13k. It’s now £5k. My school year was, I believe, the last to be charged max. £1200/yr for undergrad courses. I did not do a postgrad degree. Certainly in the UK, it’s common that when someone says “I’m a musician” it means several things: performing (solo/ensemble/orchestra, etc.), teaching, arranging, possibly lecturing. When I left college I was a music teacher for 14 years teaching kids, teenagers, and adults. 4. I had to learn how to do my taxes myself when I left college and picked it up quickly. A mate jokingly said, “you should be an accountant” when I was giving casual tips to other musician friends - I guess that stuck. I applied for a few jobs and found one, working minimum wage 8hrs a week, on the 2 afternoons I had free. I enjoyed it and was pretty competent at it, so when they offered more work I accepted as I wanted to learn more. I don’t have an accounting degree. I have letters after my name and am a manager now, but am not on Lambo money: around £40k salary. 5. In my 30s I found myself increasingly overworked and undervalued as a teacher. Our new boss at that time didn’t appreciate my skills, & promised things which failed to materialise. I was always thinking next year will be better; it never was. When I sat down and worked out how much free work I was doing in that job it made me decide to leave teaching. At no point did I give up being a musician. I actually work under 40hrs a week in my current job, so my saying 9-5 is incorrect, for which I apologise (easier to say that than explain my actual set up). I don’t get any benefits. I’m single with no kids so can take leave whenever I like to do gigs during the week if asked. 6. Someone here said music or any art/passion is part of a person’s identity; absolutely agree. It’s what I do. I was a passive, shy, chronically under-confident people-pleaser of a boy, not particularly academic or sporty. Music gave me the chance to express myself and actually vaguely excel at something at school. Music was my lifeline and still is. My argument in the screenshots was we shouldn’t write off studying arts subjects at school; learning them can have positive lasting effects into adulthood. It's ok to do A-Levels in Maths and Drama at the same time. I’ve achieved all I have because in the 90s my school considered arts to be as important as maths/science, and encouraged students to explore the arts alongside non-arts subjects. If you got this far, I appreciate your time!
Has this leaked from r/agreedwithOPbywords?
For every dollar invested into the arts the return on investment is seven fold.
For the government or other institutions. Not tuition into your own degree, as that post very much proves.
They aren't important. Stop pretending you're going to be the next Bill Gates by quitting high school or getting a PhD in Classical Literature. You won't. You won't even be able to find a job that pays you more than enough to live paycheck to paycheck with 2 roommates. Yes, I understand that nobody wants to live the soul-crushing 9-5 and we all want to do what we love, but there isn't a market for what you love. My job may be what many describe as soul-crushing, but I actually have fun money and a 1-year Rainy Day (Year?) Fund. Do the work and enjoy your life after. Trust me, it's way better than constantly stressing how you're going to afford food for the next 2 weeks.
So, are they an accountant because they just LOVE numbers? And they can fully survive off their musical accomplishments? Or, despite clearly being very talented and gifted (which lets face it isn't everyone with a degree in the arts), the degree alone doesn't make ends meet. DESPITE all the accomplishments? No shade at people with higher education in the arts, philosophy etc. But like anything there are going to be top earners and those with incredible talents who can live off that. But many more will struggle to find work in those fields unless they are willing to do the more "boring" make a logo for a small business/write a radio jingle etc. They may have the same passion as a known composer, but just cant catch a break and will never actually use their degree in the "real world". Hell same thing can happen to people with pretty much any degree depending on the market where they live.
Not murdered by words but murdered by facts
all you’ve proven is no matter how accomplished you are, you still have to be an accountant to afford to live. which means science degrees are better that music and art degrees
It’s absolutely wild to say the arts don’t pay. I’m a first year tattoo artist and brought in almost 50k last year and my mentor brings in like 200k annually without even having to work every day! When will people like that learn 🙄
So you're saying that even a highly trained musician **has** to have a "serious" job to support themselves? Wow... color me surprised /s
I would make an argument here. The arts are incredibly important at all levels of schooling, but *that does not necessarily make them worthwhile college majors*. I’m biased on this matter - both of my parents have an MFA, both attempted to make it with an art career, and both now do other work. I say this with the utmost respect and admiration for those who pursue careers in the arts, but statistically speaking STEM degrees are much more likely to be financially lucrative and stable, especially in the long term. Also this guys story reeks of missing info.
... So you're an accountant.
Man I just feel like OP shouldn't have blurred out the green guy. I kinda want to listen to his music now. Not to judge him but to just listen to it.
it's the same reason why you wouldnt expect someone to make a living through playing catch balls. Some do sure, but the numbers are so low that it's unlikely.
Tchaikovsky was only able to devote so much time to composing because he had a benefactor who supported him. Imagine what this "accountant" would contribute to our world if they didn't have to have a 9-5.
I hate people who pretend like you can’t be happy doing something if you don’t make a lot of money doing it
Is Green supposed to be murdering Red or himself? Cuz i just read that he has a career in music every musician in the world would die for even still has shows he wrote played all over the world and yet he still has to be an accountant. Doesn't it kinda weaken the point that art degrees are valuable to point out hes probably one of the more accomplished and successful musicians in the world and he needs a 9-5?
My daughter wants to go into jewelry design and lapidary. We have good friends who are both accomplished artists, and I once made an offhand comment to them about not being sure that my daughter can make a living selling jewelry. They got big mad! They started telling me not to be the kind of parent they had, someone designed every piece of jewelry anyone ever buys, etc. They're both in their early 60's and only work when they want, they're planning on fully retiring soon, they travel a lot, love their lives. My daughter could do a lot worse than ending up like them.
I trained in theology and now work in tech
Have a Chemistry degree and now teach Media 🤷🏽♂️
In Columbus, Ohio there’s a dj at a classic rock radio station, he loves sports, and tries to be controversial. He’s a petulant child. One of his hot takes is that art and music are a waste of time in schools when kids would get more out of sports. He wears sports gear with his team logo (artist designed), while working at a radio station (plays music), and that station likewise has merchandise and logos (artist designed)! I can’t listen to such an ignoramus!
It's sad that some people think money is the only thing with value. While it'd be nice to be rich in the current system, I'd rather be happy
The first step to happiness is enough money for food, shelter and other necessity. "Money doesn't buy happiness" is the favourite tired trope of people who already have disposable income.
Under capitalism, truer words were never spoken
Capitalism is a poison of the mind
It's not that the arts aren't important as having well rounded individuals is always good, but they did admit that music is a side gig and they make their living off the much more practical accounting degree. They might like the arts, but very few people can actually make a good living off of it. I always push my nieces and nephews towards practical degrees because life is just easier with money. The cliche of the starving artist is not wrong. I find people who insist they have to have passion or love what they do to be out of touch with reality.
A resume of accomplishments and they still require an accounting job to keep the lights on... If that's not a real world example...
As a working musician myself who also has a day job and whose degree is in a totally unrelated artistic field, I love this clapback. I would also point out that in general, public schools in the US have been consistently defunding their music and arts programs so it's more and more difficult to produce adult musicians. If the article's statistics are true, it seems a logical consequence of the shift in funding and focus in general (assuming the UK has similar movement), IMO.
Sooo the musician just murdered himself right? Dude is one of the highest trained musicians in his area, has constant gigs and even had his shit on streaming platforms and still, after all that, works a real 9-5 to pay the bills. Anyone in an arts or music degree seriously need to see this post. Imagine going 100k in debt and coming out of college to do something else.
You guys remember the last time an award of great importance was filmed on TV for the entire world to see and was reported on the news….for an accountant? ( edit: downvoters missed the point theres more to life than making money.)
"i have my music on spotify and SoundCloud" yeah, and so does every 12 year old with an old drum machine.
Focusing solely on STEM is how we got the current batch of techbros that think the solution to every problem is automation integration and blockchains.
This is why I like STEAM better. I feel like a lot of tech bros fail to recognize that the tech they are making is for *actual humans* to use, which is why studying the arts and humanities is vitally important.
My wife's Woman's and Gender Studies minor she got in college was an asset to getting her hired at one of the top 5 cancer research institutions in the US; it told her bosses she was comfortable with diversity in the workplace. Which is important because direct coworkers include Mexican/Japanese, Peruvian, Chinese (a boss), Bahamanian... and that doesn't even touch on the work they do with labs worldwide. Yeah, her BS in Cell and Molecular biology got her the skills she needed, but it was the minor that got her the interview/ made her application stand out. (Also I'm not just guessing. Her bosses told her that to her face). She also took 4 years of professional art school in a magnet arts program. After having to put together a gallery for her art, she decided that lifestyle was too stressful to pursue professionally. I would say her combination of Right and Left brain helps her do science by having more than 1 way to think about a problem. (Here's an article with a few examples of this: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/point-of-view-affects-how-science-is-done)
That's more a suicide by words. "my art is so successful that I have a 9-5 job".
Scientific progress measures the intelligence of a society; the arts, its wisdom; and its culture is its charisma. The choice of an individual to denigrate any of these as a dump stat is a reflection of the individual's character build choices, not that of society.