> Our society does not support classical musicians in the same way that we support ‘popular’ musicians.
It really really does. Popular/rock/folk/classical musicians all earn much the same way now: a blend of teaching, occasional performance fees, functions performances like weddings and galas, music-related side-gigs (composition, arrangement and recording for commercial music), and non-music-related side gigs — teaching non-musical things, gardening, painting and decorating, bar work, office temp work, even full time jobs (doctors and lawyers, accountants). I know a couple of classical musicians whose actual money-making music is playing other instruments in funk/rock functions bands.
Even the "best" or most famous musicians, popular or classical, have side gigs. Approximately nobody makes their money only from performing or from recordings; that ended twenty-five or thirty years ago.
Elite soloists, maybe — but that is actually a pretty expensive life to live. I would be surprised if many of them risked a life where they had no other job.
The idea that a "conservatory" system exists that meaningfully supports classical musicians is nonsense almost anywhere in the world, I would think. Even the first-chair musicians and conductors have side gigs.
(ETA: I can't believe this is a workable model for mathematicians, either. Maybe for a couple of dozen the world over. But there is no performance, no regionality, little in the way of public dissemination, little in the way of reflected glory for benefactors. No, the "conservatory" will perhaps be the intelligence agencies, as it was before.)
> Even the first-chair musicians and conductors have side gigs.
A principal player (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair') in a major symphony orchestra in the United States makes $250k-400k a year. These are extremely competitive jobs and they are paid well. Certainly enough to live on if you wanted to.
These people often teach, but not really because they need a "side-gig." If you ask them, they will likely tell you they feel a certain duty to prepare the next generation, they like teaching, and their rehearsal/performance schedule affords them the time.
At a first approximation, no musician who does it for money makes a living out of it. Classical, pop, rock, whatever.
Nobody in music, basically, makes real money. Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living. Perhaps another twenty five of each other instrument. A few international soloists in other instruments. But musicians in those jobs are often burning as much money as they are making. (Even Anouskha Shankar has a portfolio career).
This is essentially nobody. Everyone else in classical music is earning just the same way as popular musicians — and society doesn't "support" popular musicians at all! The perception that rock musicians make money touring, for example, is just that: perception. The vast majority of tours either just break even or lose money. Working in music production and staging makes better money than musicians make.
Everyone else, essentially, has another job.
> (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair')
Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary
Most of the major orchestras have a union and they negotiate salaries in the $100-200k range for everyone. It’s a lot more people than you might think (70-150 people on payroll in each orchestra). There are also a lot of touring soloists in the world compared to what you expect. It’s a very stressful life, but it yields somewhere between $100k and $1M per year, and many of your living expenses are fully paid for on top of that.
There are at least 20 such orchestras in the US alone, not to mention all the orchestras in Europe and Asia. There’s also a very long tail with compensation down to $50k for players.
The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
> The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
$40/hour is not bad. Aside from the few thousand tenured orchestra/chorus musicians, none of them are going to be making 6 figures from one job, but a number of musician-musician households pull in over $100k between two incomes built around relatively unstable gig work without either one having a high-prestige job.
Also note that churches, which are a hub for working-class musicians, are exempt from BLS reporting.
$40/hour is $83,000 per year, that is more then livable in the US, and by definition of the median half make more. So I can't agree that it's not a living wage for most.
I understand your point. Music is one of those careers, like professional athlete, that make parents cringe when optimistic children announce an intention to pursue it. Your numbers are off (the base pay of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra last time I checked was around $200k) and there ~30 violinists in that orchestra alone. But it's not an order of magnitude.
But just because the numbers are small doesn't mean society does not support them. There just isn't a need for a lot of them. It would be like saying society does not support professional athletes. Clearly it does, but only at the highest level. And at that level, it supports the very well.
> Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary
I apologize. I come from this world, have close friends in major orchestras and experience on the world's opera stages. This culture is full of shibboleths: referring to works as "songs", clapping in the wrong place, hell, even pronouncing 'Don Giovanni' the same way you pronounce "Don Draper" lets people know you are not from around here.
Oddly enough I'm one of those parents. Yes, I cringed, but at the same time I would also have cringed at watching them go into something they hate just for the money. I've seen that too.
An observation I made is that the tournament career system is supported by the entire cadre of players and families, of the kids who won't win one of the prize jobs. One reason is we just don't know which 18 year olds will rise to the level needed to win a symphonic audition a decade later. I've always been ambivalent about this, but don't have a good idea for how to reform it.
I majored in math and physics. My parents didn't cringe, at least quite so much. I became, quite honestly, a mediocre physicist at a time when you had to be a research superstar to apply for a tenure track job at a third rate college. The consolation for me was that a mediocre physicist could still earn a decent living doing something in industry, and I'm now at a late stage of a satisfying career.
But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA.
Corporate sponsorship pays the bigger amounts: that is a side job with its own commitments. Prize money: by definition not available to most.
Directed pay is a tiny fraction of it (stipend level), even at the highest levels.
Athletes have other jobs.
Again: a bad model for mathematicians. None of them are going to be signing merch deals. Most aren’t winning prizes. I am afraid that mathematicians are just going to have to keep doing all the other jobs they already do.
> But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA.
At least some countries have programs where (candidate) Olympians get professional support and a stipend.
A country like Spain has a formal system of grants and awards for athletes designated as "elite" and supports them roughly at the same pay as it supports junior university professors.
In Germany every small town has a (state-funded) orchestra. I know someone who plays the violin in such an orchestra, he has a solid salary, big house etc.
He has a side gig, he has a quartet with some friends of his, but it's for fun, not for money.
>>> Elite soloists, maybe — but that is actually a pretty expensive life to live. I would be surprised if many of them risked a life where they had no other job.
Yes, they really did. Getting to that level requires training at an intensity that closes off the option of training for an alternative career.
i know some musicians, and it's how you describe it. They have multiple gigs all the time. Even 20-30 years ago. Most of the time one main job, one that pays the bills and is stable, like teaching, and more on the side. A conservatory is just a high-end agency for distributing classical live music.
Modern 'classical' music is a myth. In their day, classical composers were essentially pop performers. Women used to throw their undergarments at mozart...
Today classical music is filled with people who want to pretend to be superior to pop musicians because they keep their repertoire confined to academically acceptable areas.
And then the LARPers that want to make new music make complete and utter arhythmic and atonal trash that demands humans subdue our own aural feelings of beauty.
You'll find classical musicians who complain about this stuff are usually incompetent musicians who really stretch the definition of artist.
Sorry spent almost a decade of my young life in a somewhat competitive music school environment. Lots of the other kids were upset I played what I wanted to and people liked it.
Actual modern composers in the classical tradition (I.e. people alive today who compose music that is similar in feel to older composers) are well compensated because they're often hired to score films, video games, and other capitalist interests that the supposedly 'real' classical musicians would scoff their noses at.
> Today classical music is filled with people who want to pretend to be superior to pop musicians because they keep their repertoire confined to academically acceptable areas.
As somebody with classical training and a brother in the industry, it pains me to read this misinformed opinion of yours. Top-tier symphonies world round are doing crossover concerts with pop artists, play pop songs, modern and experimental music, and regularly feature works by living composers. In my high school orchestra, circa '98, we played stuff like music from Star Wars and West Side Story -- not just the ancients.
Down the foodchain, it gets even weirder. The favorite gig I played involved interpretive dance featuring waterboarding, gallons of fake blood, a live chicken race, and more.
Where you certainly will find a subset of afficionados of any genre who scoff at anything but their extremely narrow definition of "good music," if you take the time to rub elbows with mature classical musicians you'll find many to most of them quite open minded.
Your experience with young artists, finding them to be idealistic and purist, does not extend to the whole field. I know people who only listen to a single narrow genre or decade of pop music. How are they different?
Edit to add:
> And then the LARPers that want to make new music make complete and utter arhythmic and atonal trash that demands humans subdue our own aural feelings of beauty.
Oh, no. No, no no. I've been to a circuit-bent punk show. I recently went to an ambient music festival. I've heard glitch pop. Angine de Poitrine is blowing up because they use a semitonal guitar (though as a bit of a noise snob, I find their use of semitones milquetoast and rather uninspired).
Here you are, narrowly defining music, and excluding what you dislike. But it's not just "classical" living composers doing this.
One thing I've observed is that a subset of that weird and interesting music is only possible due to the availability of musicians who have gone through the classical training. Having access to players who are capable of doing anything you ask, is what allows composers to be even more adventuresome, for two reasons. One is the sheer ability to play the stuff, and the other is the efficiency of doing it with a minimum of rehearsal.
The same has been true to some extent in the past for popular music. Up through maybe the 70s and even 80s, a lot of the instrumental parts for the "hits" were recorded by trained jazz musicians.
I've heard this argument many times, there's a grain of truth and I strongly agree RE 'arhythmic and atonal trash', but it strikes me as disingenuous.
Classical music was somewhat elitist even at the time, coexisting with popular/folk music traditions. The Romantic period definitely saw music and art break away for traditional forms and conservative mores, but it wasn't a free for all.
The people who enjoy classical music today are largely the same people who enjoyed it at the time. Educated and 'enlightened' upper/middle classes, who sought music celebrating their aspirations. Freedom from political oppression and aristocratic control. A world where people could succeed based on talent, hard work, intelligence, and propriety. Where the middle class would have the power to reshape government and social institutions to advance their interests rather than those of the nobility. A personal experience of the religious rather than state ordained. The music pivots to natural, romantic, mystical themes as these people lost faith that industrialization will deliver for them.
Compare modern popular music which deals with universal themes - love, loss, sex, money, partying. You can enjoy pop music and still feel that these themes are not important to you.
People don't fake enjoying classical music to convince you that they're smart and cultured. They just gravitate to music which represents their idea of smart and cultured. The same is true for a lot of art.
The idea that classical composers (before about Liszt) were the "pop music" of their day is uninformed. Consider 1) the size of the venues that Mozart or Haydn's secular music was performed in, and 2) the fact that the bulk of the population was peasantry who wouldn't be admitted to such venues in a time of strict class distinctions.
Outside church settings, classical music of the Baroque, Classical and early Romantic eras was for the elites, and the masses had their own musics. This only changed gradually over the 19th century.
It's also weird to still be hung up on atonality in the contemporary classical world, when the pop-music world has for decades now had acts like Merzbow that are often farther out into noise.
> Today classical music is filled with people who want to pretend to be superior to pop musicians because they keep their repertoire confined to academically acceptable areas.
What an incredibly cynical take. I’ve done several chamber music collaborations with a violist who also plays pop music gigs on keyboards.
There are arrogant pricks in classical music. And in software engineering and every other discipline. Personality is orthogonal to field of interest.
Anyway you complain that classical musicians look down on pop music while you yourself do the same about modern composers.
We are largely having a reckoning with whether a discipline is the process or the outcome.
Music didn't enter the conservatory so much as the relative interest in various styles have changed over time. I get that the author was implying that by talking about pop music, but what was music doing before Mozart came around?
Every field is having this existential crisis right now, from art to math. Especially in art, the anti-AI hate mostly reduces to arguing that art is the process not the outcome.
The need for research-level math isn't changing (if anything, it may accelerate), but how we do it is. The languages, systems, and process I used to write code has changed a lot since I wrote my first line of BASIC in 1994. Mathematicians, I expect, have not encountered nearly the same amount of disruption in academia. I feel for them.
>? Especially in art, the anti-AI hate mostly reduces to arguing that art is the process not the outcome.
That is not my objection to AI art at all. The value of art for me is that somebody has an idea to express and they're trying to communicate it to me. That's totally absent from AI-generated material. I'm not categorically opposed to AI, but my interest in automatically generated content tailored to indulge my personal taste is absolutely zero.
> somebody has an idea to express and they're trying to communicate it to me
I don't see why that would exclude GenAI - you have an idea, you write a prompt, you get something that's sort of but not quite what you were going for, so you iterate a bit until it's good enough to communicate what you wanted.
I like this framing. I know that AI has it's place and in others it doesn't. I recognize I sound like an AI shill in personal conversations, but I'm a very outcome driven person. I simply want multiple, thousands of outcomes even, and those outcomes all coming together is my process/journey, which is different to a developer or musicians process may view their career.
What happens if the outcomes were obtained instantaneously, and without effort on your part? Would it be more enjoyable for you?
Besides, I don't think you can be driven by thousands of outcomes, by definition, as you can't be in love with thousands of people. Your main motivation must be the thing that unites them. Perhaps you are driven by the process of imagining solutions to problems and/or realizing your ideas.
People who write prompts can have emotion. If someone is feeling really sad and they say to a computer "draw me a sad thing" and it draws something really sad and they break down crying, and then they show it to you and you also break down crying, that meets your goals, but it probably isn't what you meant.
The sad thing was produced by the machine, as its idea of something sad. It is not s result of this particular episode of sadness.
Put another way, “draw me something sad” is too vague; a million people can issue the same prompt, and what comes out does not correlate to any specifics of their own experience of sadness.
I think classical and symphonic music are helped in the US by school music programs. It's the best way to have 100 kids practice and perform for a concert. Breaking them into 25 jazz quartets is a lot more complicated.
>the anti-AI hate mostly reduces to arguing that art is the process not the outcome.
The outcome is also bad though, once you scale past static images. That's why consumers, who otherwise are apathetic at scale, are extremely negative against generative AI. at least where they (perceive to) notice it.
> Classical music has been institutionalized, sent to the conservatory as a relic. A small segment of society has decided the ability to perform it is worth preserving, and devotes a sliver of capital to that end: training young people, and paying a few of the best players in the biggest cities to do it professionally.
I had a whole discussion with a German friend whose husband works in opera (this was after Chalomet's "opera as a dead art" comments) and their view was mostly that this view of the world does not hold for at least chunks of Europe. To their mind, there is still both active input into this space, support in this space, and there's societal support to some degree or another.
I don't know the realities on the ground, but that annecdote did make me wonder if I simply assumed that the world of classical music wasn't as dire if you leave the States, at least in terms of job stability.
The comparison to popular music is kinda funy too... plenty of pop musicians that don't live off of their music, right? Maybe we're not generating "Taylor Swifts of Oboe"s but I feel like the measure is more about the median (or even the 90th/95th percentile?) when it comes to art, rather than the top of the top.
The job stability in classical music is great. It's getting a job in the first place that's a problem. My partner, in an earlier life, was one of the best young flautists in Canada. There were about eight jobs in the entire country for orchestral flautists, and about a year before graduating, a few of them turned over, meaning it would probably be another five years before any more jobs opened up. Good time for a career change...
I think a lot of people just don't get how much of classical music was foundational for pop music. McCartney said blackbird was a twist on some Bach intro. Billy Joel said similar things. A lot of of good music was cooked in classical knowledge.
I think he agrees it is popular, but in comparison to contemporary styles of music it’s tiny (in skilled performers, listeners, funding and revenue). Right? Even in Europe.
Europe is actually worse, or at least Germany, because the government pays for opera, so it doesn't have to stand on its own two feet. So they don't (have to) care about listeners as much.
Except it runs into an excess problem. As an example, Berlin - just one city - has 7 professional orchestras. They are supported by the government financially to the tune of 200 million EUR per year. There is a very real opportunity cost here and quite a bit of a wealth transfer to old people at the same time (since the audiences for classical music tend to be on the older side).
You could pump a large part of those resources into supporting other kinds of music and arguably the outcome would be more interesting.
Our AI system don't just do things. They do it because someone asks. A lot of the boom in AI maths results are solving human formulated problems mostly for PR benefit. Once the novelty passes, would Anthropic or OpenAI keep spending? And without mathematicians to ask the right questions and able to appreciate the results, why would AI driven research continue?
They didn't mention coders but my idea is to have Silicon habitats of programmers recreating nineties professional programming on Pentium PCs in dimly lit cubicles. Tourists shuffle by watching live coding like watching a blacksmith at a Colonial Williamsburg.
I like the framing in the headline - really more than the article itself.
I think underappreciated in discourse like this is that of course we will still have "mathematicians" - people whose work is mathematics. The job might change, but at the very least someone has to choose where to spend the compute and the dollars, decide what theorems are worth investing in, what definitions matter. Someone still has to serve as the ambassador reminding people at the relevant points to look over at the field for productivity and correctness reasons, presenting fun riddles for entertainment and education, advocating to political bodies for funding.
Metalworking looks a lot different than it used to, but the end of a man with a hammer and leather bellows bashing out a nail didn't end the career of metal working either. The work sure looks a lot different though, and there are many fewer of them.
Well, I think one good thing we can conclude from the music world is that there are people out there who want to pay for humans to do things even when the computer could do it better. I.e. when you go to Vegas and go to a bar, you want to have a guy playing piano and singing, and are willing to pay a bit more for that. You don't want just a jukebox, even if the jukebox can play "Don't Stop Believing" better than the dude with the piano.
All that to say, there will be certain jobs that people will want to pay humans to do even if the robots can do those things "better".
The big weakness of the analogy from the OP is that music is universally accessible, while high level mathematics is not. The potential audience for the human playing the piano is far larger than the human solving complex mathematical theorems.
Pure maths has foreshadowed a lot of physics, and a lot of Computer Science. We should probably keep doing it.
Does the current model (of highly-talented academics at Universities mostly arguing with each other) change because of AI? Does it invalidate human effort, or does it allow humans to push the boundaries further? Is there no point in training or paying for mathematicians because AI will take over the whole role?
Or, as we're finding with so many other areas, does AI do its best work when guided by someone who knows the area and subject well?
I haven't done math since college. Now the things I struggled with I was able to grasp. So much so that I was able to prove a conjecture, small one, but nothing in my life I thought I would of, its even getting peer reviewed.
Its drudgery to prove these things. But man it feels cool when you do.
I now have a better understanding of the entire physical mechanics of life around me, to a gravitational sort of understanding.
Simply because I thought I had a conceptual understanding of p vs np. And after weeks I was able to prove myself wrong.
People seem to worry that AI is going to take away everything. But my experience is that I feel more able to create even ideas before I would never imagine.
It feels more like in HG Wells where he's in the far future talking to the AI about his equations and the AI says "oh your talking about time travel, thats impossible"
It feels like that reality is now more likely than any other, anyone can invent anything now and have the math to back it up.
You can speak physics into existance. I'm excited for the future
Maybe in the future mathematicians could be the ones proposing different axiomatic foundations (e.g. ZF vs ZF + C vs ZF + C + CH vs ...) and then using computers to examine the consequences of these differing foundations?
I'm sure AI could contribute to this, but this is already a well-developed field of mathematics, and most of the consequences of additional axioms have been worked out. (The most productive hypothesis has been what's called "projective determinacy", if you're curious.)
Mathematicians have also gone in the opposite direction, and tried to work out what are the weakest foundations where different results hold. This is called "reverse mathematics".
What name does this "well-developed field of mathematics" go by? (I just want to get a taste of what the field is like.)
I also thought that there are an infinite set of possible extra axioms, e.g. axiomize any statement that's true but not provably so via Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem, though maybe the vast majority of such axioms are "uninteresting".
> To be clear, I haven’t fully verified the proof; I worked through it with Claude Fable and it passes the sniff test, but fully digesting it will take a bit more energy than I have right now.
As predicted, we no longer need mathematicians for math; the math is being both generated and read by models. We're in for some exciting times, when the pace of mathematical advance can run faster than the constraints of human brains.
Conservatories are not going to support the entirety of the white collar market, so something is going to give. Not to mention the blue collar market, as robots take off.
AI could keep on generating an "observable universe," and mathematicians discover things by way of validating results. This doesn't seem much dissimilar to astronomy.
Right. It's not conservatories, because we will have communities of Lean programmers and hobbyists helping things along, a group effort that is poorly described by relegation to a limited, privileged set of performers.
> Our society does not support classical musicians in the same way that we support ‘popular’ musicians.
It really really does. Popular/rock/folk/classical musicians all earn much the same way now: a blend of teaching, occasional performance fees, functions performances like weddings and galas, music-related side-gigs (composition, arrangement and recording for commercial music), and non-music-related side gigs — teaching non-musical things, gardening, painting and decorating, bar work, office temp work, even full time jobs (doctors and lawyers, accountants). I know a couple of classical musicians whose actual money-making music is playing other instruments in funk/rock functions bands.
Even the "best" or most famous musicians, popular or classical, have side gigs. Approximately nobody makes their money only from performing or from recordings; that ended twenty-five or thirty years ago.
Elite soloists, maybe — but that is actually a pretty expensive life to live. I would be surprised if many of them risked a life where they had no other job.
The idea that a "conservatory" system exists that meaningfully supports classical musicians is nonsense almost anywhere in the world, I would think. Even the first-chair musicians and conductors have side gigs.
(ETA: I can't believe this is a workable model for mathematicians, either. Maybe for a couple of dozen the world over. But there is no performance, no regionality, little in the way of public dissemination, little in the way of reflected glory for benefactors. No, the "conservatory" will perhaps be the intelligence agencies, as it was before.)
> Even the first-chair musicians and conductors have side gigs.
A principal player (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair') in a major symphony orchestra in the United States makes $250k-400k a year. These are extremely competitive jobs and they are paid well. Certainly enough to live on if you wanted to.
These people often teach, but not really because they need a "side-gig." If you ask them, they will likely tell you they feel a certain duty to prepare the next generation, they like teaching, and their rehearsal/performance schedule affords them the time.
There are about twenty of these people, though.
I said "approximately nobody".
At a first approximation, no musician who does it for money makes a living out of it. Classical, pop, rock, whatever.
Nobody in music, basically, makes real money. Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living. Perhaps another twenty five of each other instrument. A few international soloists in other instruments. But musicians in those jobs are often burning as much money as they are making. (Even Anouskha Shankar has a portfolio career).
This is essentially nobody. Everyone else in classical music is earning just the same way as popular musicians — and society doesn't "support" popular musicians at all! The perception that rock musicians make money touring, for example, is just that: perception. The vast majority of tours either just break even or lose money. Working in music production and staging makes better money than musicians make.
Everyone else, essentially, has another job.
> (I don't think anyone beyond high school band calls them 'first-chair')
Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary
Most of the major orchestras have a union and they negotiate salaries in the $100-200k range for everyone. It’s a lot more people than you might think (70-150 people on payroll in each orchestra). There are also a lot of touring soloists in the world compared to what you expect. It’s a very stressful life, but it yields somewhere between $100k and $1M per year, and many of your living expenses are fully paid for on top of that.
There are at least 20 such orchestras in the US alone, not to mention all the orchestras in Europe and Asia. There’s also a very long tail with compensation down to $50k for players.
The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
> The US BLS has 35,000 paid musicians listed, with another 10,000 music directors (a lot of church organists are in this category). Median wage of $40/hour, mean of around $52.
So. Not a living then, for most.
$40/hour is not bad. Aside from the few thousand tenured orchestra/chorus musicians, none of them are going to be making 6 figures from one job, but a number of musician-musician households pull in over $100k between two incomes built around relatively unstable gig work without either one having a high-prestige job.
Also note that churches, which are a hub for working-class musicians, are exempt from BLS reporting.
$40/hour is $83,000 per year, that is more then livable in the US, and by definition of the median half make more. So I can't agree that it's not a living wage for most.
Assuming they work 40 hours a week. Do they?
Maybe I’m just off the mark but this doesn’t seem like the kind of job you clock in at 9 and stay till 5.
I understand your point. Music is one of those careers, like professional athlete, that make parents cringe when optimistic children announce an intention to pursue it. Your numbers are off (the base pay of the Chicago Symphony Orchestra last time I checked was around $200k) and there ~30 violinists in that orchestra alone. But it's not an order of magnitude.
But just because the numbers are small doesn't mean society does not support them. There just isn't a need for a lot of them. It would be like saying society does not support professional athletes. Clearly it does, but only at the highest level. And at that level, it supports the very well.
> Snark noted, though I have no earthly idea why you felt it necessary
I apologize. I come from this world, have close friends in major orchestras and experience on the world's opera stages. This culture is full of shibboleths: referring to works as "songs", clapping in the wrong place, hell, even pronouncing 'Don Giovanni' the same way you pronounce "Don Draper" lets people know you are not from around here.
Oddly enough I'm one of those parents. Yes, I cringed, but at the same time I would also have cringed at watching them go into something they hate just for the money. I've seen that too.
An observation I made is that the tournament career system is supported by the entire cadre of players and families, of the kids who won't win one of the prize jobs. One reason is we just don't know which 18 year olds will rise to the level needed to win a symphonic audition a decade later. I've always been ambivalent about this, but don't have a good idea for how to reform it.
I majored in math and physics. My parents didn't cringe, at least quite so much. I became, quite honestly, a mediocre physicist at a time when you had to be a research superstar to apply for a tenure track job at a third rate college. The consolation for me was that a mediocre physicist could still earn a decent living doing something in industry, and I'm now at a late stage of a satisfying career.
I also work on the side as a jazz bassist.
But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA.
Corporate sponsorship pays the bigger amounts: that is a side job with its own commitments. Prize money: by definition not available to most.
Directed pay is a tiny fraction of it (stipend level), even at the highest levels.
Athletes have other jobs.
Again: a bad model for mathematicians. None of them are going to be signing merch deals. Most aren’t winning prizes. I am afraid that mathematicians are just going to have to keep doing all the other jobs they already do.
> But society in general does not really support professional athletes in any directed “conservatory” sense, beyond the weird obsession with college sports in the USA.
At least some countries have programs where (candidate) Olympians get professional support and a stipend.
See for example https://www.uksport.gov.uk/our-work/investing-in-sport/how-u..., https://www.dosb.de/en/themen/athletes/services-for-athletes
A country like Spain has a formal system of grants and awards for athletes designated as "elite" and supports them roughly at the same pay as it supports junior university professors.
> Fifty, maybe a hundred violinists in the entire world do earn a pure living
Coming from Vienna, that can't be right. This city alone breaks that assumption with it's largest 4 orchestras combined.
It is still a very small number compared to all that practice music, and which they could live of it.
> There are about twenty of these people, though.
In Germany every small town has a (state-funded) orchestra. I know someone who plays the violin in such an orchestra, he has a solid salary, big house etc.
He has a side gig, he has a quartet with some friends of his, but it's for fun, not for money.
>>> Elite soloists, maybe — but that is actually a pretty expensive life to live. I would be surprised if many of them risked a life where they had no other job.
Yes, they really did. Getting to that level requires training at an intensity that closes off the option of training for an alternative career.
I think he's alluding to having family money.
So, even though you try hard to become a pianist, if you don't become famous, you're ok.
A friend of mine did this, he lives in a massive house and just enjoys his music, teaches occasionally.
i know some musicians, and it's how you describe it. They have multiple gigs all the time. Even 20-30 years ago. Most of the time one main job, one that pays the bills and is stable, like teaching, and more on the side. A conservatory is just a high-end agency for distributing classical live music.
Modern 'classical' music is a myth. In their day, classical composers were essentially pop performers. Women used to throw their undergarments at mozart...
Today classical music is filled with people who want to pretend to be superior to pop musicians because they keep their repertoire confined to academically acceptable areas.
And then the LARPers that want to make new music make complete and utter arhythmic and atonal trash that demands humans subdue our own aural feelings of beauty.
You'll find classical musicians who complain about this stuff are usually incompetent musicians who really stretch the definition of artist.
Sorry spent almost a decade of my young life in a somewhat competitive music school environment. Lots of the other kids were upset I played what I wanted to and people liked it.
Actual modern composers in the classical tradition (I.e. people alive today who compose music that is similar in feel to older composers) are well compensated because they're often hired to score films, video games, and other capitalist interests that the supposedly 'real' classical musicians would scoff their noses at.
> Today classical music is filled with people who want to pretend to be superior to pop musicians because they keep their repertoire confined to academically acceptable areas.
As somebody with classical training and a brother in the industry, it pains me to read this misinformed opinion of yours. Top-tier symphonies world round are doing crossover concerts with pop artists, play pop songs, modern and experimental music, and regularly feature works by living composers. In my high school orchestra, circa '98, we played stuff like music from Star Wars and West Side Story -- not just the ancients.
Down the foodchain, it gets even weirder. The favorite gig I played involved interpretive dance featuring waterboarding, gallons of fake blood, a live chicken race, and more.
Where you certainly will find a subset of afficionados of any genre who scoff at anything but their extremely narrow definition of "good music," if you take the time to rub elbows with mature classical musicians you'll find many to most of them quite open minded.
Your experience with young artists, finding them to be idealistic and purist, does not extend to the whole field. I know people who only listen to a single narrow genre or decade of pop music. How are they different?
Edit to add:
> And then the LARPers that want to make new music make complete and utter arhythmic and atonal trash that demands humans subdue our own aural feelings of beauty.
Oh, no. No, no no. I've been to a circuit-bent punk show. I recently went to an ambient music festival. I've heard glitch pop. Angine de Poitrine is blowing up because they use a semitonal guitar (though as a bit of a noise snob, I find their use of semitones milquetoast and rather uninspired).
Here you are, narrowly defining music, and excluding what you dislike. But it's not just "classical" living composers doing this.
One thing I've observed is that a subset of that weird and interesting music is only possible due to the availability of musicians who have gone through the classical training. Having access to players who are capable of doing anything you ask, is what allows composers to be even more adventuresome, for two reasons. One is the sheer ability to play the stuff, and the other is the efficiency of doing it with a minimum of rehearsal.
The same has been true to some extent in the past for popular music. Up through maybe the 70s and even 80s, a lot of the instrumental parts for the "hits" were recorded by trained jazz musicians.
> Top-tier symphonies world round are doing crossover concerts with pop artists
And they have been for a long time:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto_for_Group_and_Orchest...
As classic as that collaboration now is, the RPO was not top-tier at the time of it.
My understanding is that many of the classical-heavy orchestra schedules are driven by donor expectations.
I've heard this argument many times, there's a grain of truth and I strongly agree RE 'arhythmic and atonal trash', but it strikes me as disingenuous.
Classical music was somewhat elitist even at the time, coexisting with popular/folk music traditions. The Romantic period definitely saw music and art break away for traditional forms and conservative mores, but it wasn't a free for all.
The people who enjoy classical music today are largely the same people who enjoyed it at the time. Educated and 'enlightened' upper/middle classes, who sought music celebrating their aspirations. Freedom from political oppression and aristocratic control. A world where people could succeed based on talent, hard work, intelligence, and propriety. Where the middle class would have the power to reshape government and social institutions to advance their interests rather than those of the nobility. A personal experience of the religious rather than state ordained. The music pivots to natural, romantic, mystical themes as these people lost faith that industrialization will deliver for them.
Compare modern popular music which deals with universal themes - love, loss, sex, money, partying. You can enjoy pop music and still feel that these themes are not important to you.
People don't fake enjoying classical music to convince you that they're smart and cultured. They just gravitate to music which represents their idea of smart and cultured. The same is true for a lot of art.
The idea that classical composers (before about Liszt) were the "pop music" of their day is uninformed. Consider 1) the size of the venues that Mozart or Haydn's secular music was performed in, and 2) the fact that the bulk of the population was peasantry who wouldn't be admitted to such venues in a time of strict class distinctions.
Outside church settings, classical music of the Baroque, Classical and early Romantic eras was for the elites, and the masses had their own musics. This only changed gradually over the 19th century.
It's also weird to still be hung up on atonality in the contemporary classical world, when the pop-music world has for decades now had acts like Merzbow that are often farther out into noise.
> Today classical music is filled with people who want to pretend to be superior to pop musicians because they keep their repertoire confined to academically acceptable areas.
What an incredibly cynical take. I’ve done several chamber music collaborations with a violist who also plays pop music gigs on keyboards.
There are arrogant pricks in classical music. And in software engineering and every other discipline. Personality is orthogonal to field of interest.
Anyway you complain that classical musicians look down on pop music while you yourself do the same about modern composers.
We are largely having a reckoning with whether a discipline is the process or the outcome.
Music didn't enter the conservatory so much as the relative interest in various styles have changed over time. I get that the author was implying that by talking about pop music, but what was music doing before Mozart came around?
Every field is having this existential crisis right now, from art to math. Especially in art, the anti-AI hate mostly reduces to arguing that art is the process not the outcome.
The need for research-level math isn't changing (if anything, it may accelerate), but how we do it is. The languages, systems, and process I used to write code has changed a lot since I wrote my first line of BASIC in 1994. Mathematicians, I expect, have not encountered nearly the same amount of disruption in academia. I feel for them.
>? Especially in art, the anti-AI hate mostly reduces to arguing that art is the process not the outcome.
That is not my objection to AI art at all. The value of art for me is that somebody has an idea to express and they're trying to communicate it to me. That's totally absent from AI-generated material. I'm not categorically opposed to AI, but my interest in automatically generated content tailored to indulge my personal taste is absolutely zero.
> somebody has an idea to express and they're trying to communicate it to me
I don't see why that would exclude GenAI - you have an idea, you write a prompt, you get something that's sort of but not quite what you were going for, so you iterate a bit until it's good enough to communicate what you wanted.
I like this framing. I know that AI has it's place and in others it doesn't. I recognize I sound like an AI shill in personal conversations, but I'm a very outcome driven person. I simply want multiple, thousands of outcomes even, and those outcomes all coming together is my process/journey, which is different to a developer or musicians process may view their career.
What happens if the outcomes were obtained instantaneously, and without effort on your part? Would it be more enjoyable for you?
Besides, I don't think you can be driven by thousands of outcomes, by definition, as you can't be in love with thousands of people. Your main motivation must be the thing that unites them. Perhaps you are driven by the process of imagining solutions to problems and/or realizing your ideas.
The outcome I want from art is to feel some emotion in common with the artist. Machines don’t have emotion.
People who write prompts can have emotion. If someone is feeling really sad and they say to a computer "draw me a sad thing" and it draws something really sad and they break down crying, and then they show it to you and you also break down crying, that meets your goals, but it probably isn't what you meant.
The sad thing was produced by the machine, as its idea of something sad. It is not s result of this particular episode of sadness.
Put another way, “draw me something sad” is too vague; a million people can issue the same prompt, and what comes out does not correlate to any specifics of their own experience of sadness.
I think classical and symphonic music are helped in the US by school music programs. It's the best way to have 100 kids practice and perform for a concert. Breaking them into 25 jazz quartets is a lot more complicated.
>the anti-AI hate mostly reduces to arguing that art is the process not the outcome.
The outcome is also bad though, once you scale past static images. That's why consumers, who otherwise are apathetic at scale, are extremely negative against generative AI. at least where they (perceive to) notice it.
> Especially in art, the anti-AI hate mostly reduces to arguing that art is the process not the outcome.
It's both. The outcome is bad (boy is it ever bad), and even if it were good I still would rather enjoy art produced by humans.
> Classical music has been institutionalized, sent to the conservatory as a relic. A small segment of society has decided the ability to perform it is worth preserving, and devotes a sliver of capital to that end: training young people, and paying a few of the best players in the biggest cities to do it professionally.
I had a whole discussion with a German friend whose husband works in opera (this was after Chalomet's "opera as a dead art" comments) and their view was mostly that this view of the world does not hold for at least chunks of Europe. To their mind, there is still both active input into this space, support in this space, and there's societal support to some degree or another.
I don't know the realities on the ground, but that annecdote did make me wonder if I simply assumed that the world of classical music wasn't as dire if you leave the States, at least in terms of job stability.
The comparison to popular music is kinda funy too... plenty of pop musicians that don't live off of their music, right? Maybe we're not generating "Taylor Swifts of Oboe"s but I feel like the measure is more about the median (or even the 90th/95th percentile?) when it comes to art, rather than the top of the top.
The job stability in classical music is great. It's getting a job in the first place that's a problem. My partner, in an earlier life, was one of the best young flautists in Canada. There were about eight jobs in the entire country for orchestral flautists, and about a year before graduating, a few of them turned over, meaning it would probably be another five years before any more jobs opened up. Good time for a career change...
Old joke: What's the difference between a flautist and a flutist? About $50 an hour. :-)
I think a lot of people just don't get how much of classical music was foundational for pop music. McCartney said blackbird was a twist on some Bach intro. Billy Joel said similar things. A lot of of good music was cooked in classical knowledge.
I think he agrees it is popular, but in comparison to contemporary styles of music it’s tiny (in skilled performers, listeners, funding and revenue). Right? Even in Europe.
Europe is actually worse, or at least Germany, because the government pays for opera, so it doesn't have to stand on its own two feet. So they don't (have to) care about listeners as much.
> so it doesn't have to stand on its own two feet. So they don't (have to) care about listeners as much.
That's great. A lot is lost when art has to cater to audiences.
Except it runs into an excess problem. As an example, Berlin - just one city - has 7 professional orchestras. They are supported by the government financially to the tune of 200 million EUR per year. There is a very real opportunity cost here and quite a bit of a wealth transfer to old people at the same time (since the audiences for classical music tend to be on the older side).
You could pump a large part of those resources into supporting other kinds of music and arguably the outcome would be more interesting.
There is a certain amount of government support for classical music in the US as well. Not enough to fully fund it.
Our AI system don't just do things. They do it because someone asks. A lot of the boom in AI maths results are solving human formulated problems mostly for PR benefit. Once the novelty passes, would Anthropic or OpenAI keep spending? And without mathematicians to ask the right questions and able to appreciate the results, why would AI driven research continue?
They didn't mention coders but my idea is to have Silicon habitats of programmers recreating nineties professional programming on Pentium PCs in dimly lit cubicles. Tourists shuffle by watching live coding like watching a blacksmith at a Colonial Williamsburg.
> Silicon habitats of programmers recreating nineties professional programming on Pentium PCs in dimly lit cubicles
God I miss those days.
I like the framing in the headline - really more than the article itself.
I think underappreciated in discourse like this is that of course we will still have "mathematicians" - people whose work is mathematics. The job might change, but at the very least someone has to choose where to spend the compute and the dollars, decide what theorems are worth investing in, what definitions matter. Someone still has to serve as the ambassador reminding people at the relevant points to look over at the field for productivity and correctness reasons, presenting fun riddles for entertainment and education, advocating to political bodies for funding.
Metalworking looks a lot different than it used to, but the end of a man with a hammer and leather bellows bashing out a nail didn't end the career of metal working either. The work sure looks a lot different though, and there are many fewer of them.
Well, I think one good thing we can conclude from the music world is that there are people out there who want to pay for humans to do things even when the computer could do it better. I.e. when you go to Vegas and go to a bar, you want to have a guy playing piano and singing, and are willing to pay a bit more for that. You don't want just a jukebox, even if the jukebox can play "Don't Stop Believing" better than the dude with the piano.
All that to say, there will be certain jobs that people will want to pay humans to do even if the robots can do those things "better".
The big weakness of the analogy from the OP is that music is universally accessible, while high level mathematics is not. The potential audience for the human playing the piano is far larger than the human solving complex mathematical theorems.
It's a good question.
Pure maths has foreshadowed a lot of physics, and a lot of Computer Science. We should probably keep doing it.
Does the current model (of highly-talented academics at Universities mostly arguing with each other) change because of AI? Does it invalidate human effort, or does it allow humans to push the boundaries further? Is there no point in training or paying for mathematicians because AI will take over the whole role?
Or, as we're finding with so many other areas, does AI do its best work when guided by someone who knows the area and subject well?
I haven't done math since college. Now the things I struggled with I was able to grasp. So much so that I was able to prove a conjecture, small one, but nothing in my life I thought I would of, its even getting peer reviewed.
Its drudgery to prove these things. But man it feels cool when you do.
I now have a better understanding of the entire physical mechanics of life around me, to a gravitational sort of understanding.
Simply because I thought I had a conceptual understanding of p vs np. And after weeks I was able to prove myself wrong.
People seem to worry that AI is going to take away everything. But my experience is that I feel more able to create even ideas before I would never imagine.
It feels more like in HG Wells where he's in the far future talking to the AI about his equations and the AI says "oh your talking about time travel, thats impossible"
It feels like that reality is now more likely than any other, anyone can invent anything now and have the math to back it up.
You can speak physics into existance. I'm excited for the future
Maybe in the future mathematicians could be the ones proposing different axiomatic foundations (e.g. ZF vs ZF + C vs ZF + C + CH vs ...) and then using computers to examine the consequences of these differing foundations?
I'm sure AI could contribute to this, but this is already a well-developed field of mathematics, and most of the consequences of additional axioms have been worked out. (The most productive hypothesis has been what's called "projective determinacy", if you're curious.)
Mathematicians have also gone in the opposite direction, and tried to work out what are the weakest foundations where different results hold. This is called "reverse mathematics".
What name does this "well-developed field of mathematics" go by? (I just want to get a taste of what the field is like.)
I also thought that there are an infinite set of possible extra axioms, e.g. axiomize any statement that's true but not provably so via Gödel's First Incompleteness Theorem, though maybe the vast majority of such axioms are "uninteresting".
> To be clear, I haven’t fully verified the proof; I worked through it with Claude Fable and it passes the sniff test, but fully digesting it will take a bit more energy than I have right now.
As predicted, we no longer need mathematicians for math; the math is being both generated and read by models. We're in for some exciting times, when the pace of mathematical advance can run faster than the constraints of human brains.
Presumably it’s just a matter of timing till most knowledge work heads that way.
From what I can tell discussions on what to do about it haven’t really advanced much if at all.
Still the same mix of new jobs will appear, jobs will change and perhaps some talk of UBI.
Does math have an end? Or is it an infinite self-construction?
>Mathematics, especially pure mathematics, has always been about communicating stories that help us understand reality more deeply.
I'm pretty sure pure mathematics is the part of math which is not about reality.
Reality encompasses more than the physical universe. Abstract mathematics describe an aspect of reality, too.
Conservatories are not going to support the entirety of the white collar market, so something is going to give. Not to mention the blue collar market, as robots take off.
AI could keep on generating an "observable universe," and mathematicians discover things by way of validating results. This doesn't seem much dissimilar to astronomy.
the article is about music conservatories, not astronomical observatories
Right. It's not conservatories, because we will have communities of Lean programmers and hobbyists helping things along, a group effort that is poorly described by relegation to a limited, privileged set of performers.