What are we fighting for?

Following the release of a stakeholder report on Tertiary Music Education in Australia earlier this week, Dean of the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, Prof Kim Walker, reflects on the current state of professional music education in the country.

Amid all the wonderful triumphs and successes achieved in recent years by students, faculty and alumni of the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, individually and together, nationally and internationally, there remains one major problem to be addressed.  We would ignore it at our peril. 

Tertiary music education in Australia is seriously underfunded compared with our international peers. There is an urgent need for both philanthropists (individual and corporate) and government to recognise the potential of our emerging musicians and composers to achieve global excellence, and to invest accordingly.  

At the Sydney Conservatorium of Music (SCM), we recognise our duty to lead and make constructive contributions to the ongoing debate about the importance of music in our culture and society and how it should be funded. Accordingly, we have made a strong submission to the Higher Education Base Funding Review Panel.

I am also heartened by the release of a Final Report by the Tertiary Music Education Task Force – a high-powered group brought together by Sydney public policy network Global Access Partners (GAP).   

Twenty years after the Dawkins Review, which recommended the amalgamation of music conservatoria and other arts education institutions with universities, it is perhaps time to assess the results of that major shift in policy. Accordingly, in April 2011 GAP invited the leaders of Australia’s conservatoria and orchestras to meet with politicians, public servants, funding bodies, media and business representatives and international experts in the field to assess the current state of Australia’s Tertiary Music Education and to make recommendations for the future.  The Task Force was chaired by Mr Ralph Evans, Chair of the SCM Board of Advice. Their final report was publicly released this week on the GAP website.

One of the effects of implementing Dawkins reforms has been to transfer much of the burden of paying for music education from government to universities, which have responded in various ways.  Some have drawn substantial subsidies from other areas to support music, others have decided to treat music faculties in the same way as other disciplines, demanding cuts, if necessary, to achieve self-sufficiency.  This raises a whole series of questions about the place of music in society and the extent to which it should be subsidised by the public purse. 

What is the point of music?

Numerous studies have established the social and economic value of a thriving musical culture.  Music creates social bonds which break down barriers between nations, cultures and socio-economic backgrounds. People identify with the music they enjoy and draw spiritual and emotional strength and comfort from it.  The production, performance and sale of music all make a huge contribution to our national economy. 

Music as a career is a complex and demanding study, requiring a lifetime of dedication, insight and self-belief. It is not for the faint-hearted. The greatest composers, conductors and soloists are rewarded by being regarded as among our finest creative geniuses.  Music is one of the hallmarks of civilisation – but the daily road to success can be long and demanding. 

How can we help?

How can we, as a society, encourage our younger generation to develop their musical gifts? 

A feeling for music often declares itself at a very early age.  It may be natural, but it needs nurturing. Many countries regard music as we in Australia tend to think of sport – as a universal birthright, where any signs of talent or skill must be fostered and nourished.  They do not expect every young musician to become an Olympian, but they believe each should have the chance to make the most of his or her gifts. 

It would not be difficult to make a strong case for sharp improvements in Australia’s primary and secondary musical education, but my concern here is with the tertiary sector.  By the time students reach the point where they may be considering music as a career, they deserve at least as much training and opportunity as they received at their secondary schools.  Sadly, at present, few Australian universities can afford the essential level of engagement with music.

Who pays and where does the money go? 

Students have every right to question whether they receive value for the money they pay, even if part of the payment is made on their behalf by government agencies.  In universities fees are often “taxed” and taken to cover overheads and central services, when both music students and their teachers might prefer them to be spent on musical tuition.  This is part of the price of being part of a university, just as income tax and other taxes are part of the price of belonging to a larger society. 

Another problem is that outside the USA, the creative work of performers is not recognised as academic research, either by regular university research schemes or by government.  Furthermore, music performance and research that takes place within universities is generally classified as education, rather than art, and as such is automatically ineligible for funding by the Australia Council for the Arts. 

To a degree, the Excellence in Research for Australia (ERA) Initiative now accepts that some segments of creative activity can be considered as applied research, but it does not offer funding comparable to that provided for the sciences.  And yet we are expected to produce outstanding musicians to follow in the footsteps of national heroes like Richard Tognetti and Peter Sculthorpe!

How many music teachers does it take to produce a genius? 

The answer to this question is probably one!  Individual tuition and attention are vital in training musicians. Subtle skills, artistry and performance knowledge can only be imparted on a one-to-one basis.  This is a worldwide concern and not limited to elite performers. Anyone who has learned to play an instrument to a reasonable standard knows that the personal involvement of a dedicated teacher is a basic requirement of success.  As a colleague said recently, “Reading the score to conduct Beethoven’s Ninth does not come with mother’s milk.”  The point is that years of education and experience are required to learn standards repertoire, let alone new works.

When Australian universities incorporated arts programs, little attention seems to have been paid to the need for one-to-one teaching in music. Instead, it is banded with other disciplines where 50-300 students can easily be taught at the same time. The unavoidable result, twenty years later across Australia, is that the music curriculum has been reduced and students now have much less contact time with their teachers.  The financial gap is unbridgeable without a drastic revision of the national funding model. 

What facilities are needed? 

Our concert and recital halls are the equivalent of science students’ laboratories –  these are the places where our performers experiment and develop the skills and knowledge they will need later on.  Only about 50% of law students go on to a legal career, the proportion of music students who enter the music profession is much higher, probably because of the severe culling process on admission. 

That is not to say there are many full-time jobs for musicians. Indeed, most of our graduates and faculty members will have several concurrent roles throughout their careers.  In music, as in other professions, it takes years of experience, of audience and peer review, to determine whether an individual has the necessary strength and ability to survive. 

The function of a tertiary conservatorium is to instil the habits of hard work and to develop the artistry scholarship and curiosity that our students will need, to flourish in the wider world.  It is not an easy option, either for the student or the teacher,  and the present restrictive and inadequate system of funding makes our ambitions very much harder to achieve. 

What are we fighting for? 

A level playing-field for our students.  A chance to realise their dreams.  Having worked so hard to get here, they deserve a fair go.

__________________________________________________________

Prof Kim Walker is one of the world's most celebrated bassoonists, a prolific recording artist, and a respected teacher and administrator. Trained in the United States and then Switzerland, Professor Walker has toured as a soloist with many of Europe's leading orchestras since 1982, working with such conductors as Ashkenazy, Solti, Bernstein, Rattle and Dorati. With 23 solo CDs to her name, Walker’s interest in both classical and modern composers has also made her a regular guest at many of the world's most prestigious festivals. She was the founding artistic director of the Archigny chamber music festival in France, and before moving to Sydney was both the Professor of Music and Director of Arts and Outreach at Indiana University, Bloomington. Prof Walker gives frequent masterclasses and has seen her students celebrated in orchestras around the world.