I'm with most of the other commenters, and I find this post insulting. I have two degrees in music -- bachelors in Music Ed, and masters in Trumpet Performance. I teach private lessons and also freelance (which is NOT the same thing as being out-of-work, btw).
When I am booked to play a gig, say at a church for christmas, my minimum pay requirement is $200. If there's a ton of music, its more. The author of this post obviously would take this to mean that I get paid $200 an hour, which "logically" puts my annual salary at $400,000.
Sorry, I just fell out of my chair laughing.
For every 60-min church service I play, I spend a minimum of 10 hours practicing the music, 1 hour rehearsing with the choir (or whatever) at the church, and about 45 minutes each way commuting to the church. (I'm not even factoring in the years of training that allowed me to be talented enough to GET gigs.) Let me do the math... ah, I make about $16 dollars an hour, which is *gasp* less than a logger! And that's before taxes!
Lain, put in a little thought and walking-in-another's-shoes before you start judging. You just made yourself look foolish in front of the entire world.
This article is completely misguided. As other posters have mentioned, the teacher has to pay for their own healthcare, travel costs, and travel time. Any freelancer who works on an hourly basis will charge more than someone that has 40 hours per week of steady work (and probably benefits). The freelancer also must pay their own taxes, so there is a large part of the wage that they don't get to keep.
It's fine if you don't want to pay someone $60/hour to teach your daughter basic piano skills, but don't have such an awful attitude about it. What don't you understand about why piano teachers (who are not just out of work musicians) make more per hour than another musician with a more reliable performance gig? I want to stop reading this blog after reading your description of piano teachers as out of work musicians. What a naive, senseless, and stuck-up point of view.
I think this is entirely unfair. They should make it retroactive to at least the beginning of this year. It does not make sense to have two standards of eligibility in the same tax year.
My wife used to be a temp worker; According to her, the best time for a temp worker is the day they don't have to be a temp worker anymore.
Low wages, but the temp agency gets paid well for you. No benefits, no security, no respect. No vacation pay, no paid stat holidays. Even if we wanted to take a vacation, we couldn't because we might miss an opportunity for her to work. No mat leave!! That's a biggie for us where full time workers are entitled to a full year of mat leave.
Also, the temp agency she was stuck with were poorly managed and regularly rude to her when she had to call in for stuff. She was so happy the day she called them and told them to take her off their list. And they still tried to go after her new employer for a "referral fee". They had nothing to do with her getting that job; their rationale - they provided (some of) the job experience that she cited in her resume.
Temp work should not be thought of as just temporary workers for some company; it should be thought of as a temporary situation for the temp worker. Do what you have to to survive, but don't tolerate this for too long.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The comparison rates you show should be adjusted to their "fully loaded" rates.
Any usability cost-benefit analysis should value people's time based on their fully loaded cost and not simply on their take-home salary. The cost to a company of having a staff member work for an hour is not that person's hourly rate but also includes the cost of benefits, vacation time, facilities costs (office space, heating and cleaning, computers etc.), and the many other costs associated with having that person employed.
All of those costs are absorbed into that music teachers $60 an hour rate because they essentially are doing all of those things. If you added all those things into the other rates I think you would be surprised at what they are.
If my parents had "balked" when I was seven and showed interest in playing the piano, I wouldn't be a professional composer today.
Of course there were pursuits I gave up as a kid, but my parents had a simple rule: they would fund the basics for a while until I either moved on or stuck with it. And after a few months if they saw I was passionate about something, (in my case, guitar, piano, and mandolin) they would invest in better instruments and more training.
I think I'll call my mom and thank her for respecting my request instead of "doing a little research, for comparison's sake."
For a company, the beauty of a temp worker is: no commitment, hard-worker (as every day could be his or her last) and, best of all, no benefits. It certainly is a good time to be a temp.
I don't think you have set the right goals for your child when it comes to learning music. Music is not JUST about becoming good at an instrument. It's about character and general intellectual development as well, especially at an impressionable young age. There are a myriad of skills that contribute to being an excellent musician which can apply to other facets of life, especially during a time when academic excellence is of importance. Overall, I think you were a little out of tune with this music-bashing.
Let me do the math slightly differently. Most music teachers have a hard time getting students to stick around in the summer months, when school is out. School (at least in my part of the world) runs from September through June, with about four weeks of vacation, plus miscellaneous holidays. So, let's call that nine months of teaching. Multiply that by 4.3 weeks per month, times 40 hours per week, times 60 dollars per hour, and you're at a number just under 93K. A far cry from $160.
Then subtract to allow for the fact that most piano teachers -- even if they work 40 hours a week -- don't have students to fill those 40 hours. Some of that time is spent in preparing for lessons and running a business.
Now, factor in the years of training, the cost of buying a piano and keeping it tuned, the hours spent practicing to stay current and nimble. Then subtract out private-pay health insurance or medical bills, retirement savings, and the other costs associated with any self-employed business. And suddenly the hourly rate really isn't that far off of the ones you list above.
(disclaimer: my kids both take music lessons, and my two best friends teach the flute and the piano).
...and I didn't make $60 an hour. If your kid goes to practice weekly, that is 3000 a year. Way more than I have ever paid for hockey. My kids did guitar lessons for a while and while it was a endeavor in finding out what they didn't like.
These people are making more than the people teaching your kids reading and writing and math. Hmmm.... which is more likely to pay off?
Forty-five years ago I started taking clarinet lessons from a professional musician (he'd played in the Lawrence Welk Orchestra, as well as for the Glenn Miller Band). The rate then was $10 for a 30-minute lesson. I'd say the cost of music lessons has scaled quite nicely in the intervening years.
Perhaps next time, a little research might be in order.
If you hire someone to teach you any skill/sport it will cost you anywhere from $40 to hundreds/hour (depending on your relative skill levels). Be it tutoring, skiing, music, even things you might think of as totally frivolous - for instance I play pool pretty seriously, i'm NEVER going to make any serious money playing - yet instruction at a serious level will still run you at least $50/hour.
The thing is that it takes years and special skills to be able to teach another human a skill/craft.
I keep everything in MSMoney, down to the last cent. All in categories, with memos, etc. I also keep an Excel spreadsheet for things like medical mileage, gas mileage for all of our cars, and how much the eggs my chickens lay cost me... so far it's about $15 per egg so it's a good thing they also serve as entertainment and pest control. Anyway, MSMoney and Excel.
Wow, did this ever strike a sour chord with me (and others as it seems from the comments).
My children's piano teacher only charges $19 per half hour lesson but she is worth her weight in gold. She is far more than a piano teacher – she's a life teacher. She teaches patience, learning from mistakes, the value of practice. She teaches stepping back and breaking things down when they become tough. She teaches them to laugh at their mistakes and not take things so seriously. She teaches encouragement and positive attitude.
My daughter says she teaches “that everything takes time, but if you put your heart into it and work hard you can do it.” I want her to take that message through her whole life.
Yes, kids try a lot of things as they grow up – a good but expensive thing. I would discuss with your daughter the commitment required to learn to play the piano and see if she is still enthusiastic. Then I think you and your daughter should meet and interview several piano instructors and discuss their methods and what they would require from her. See if you're a good fit with any of them. Then let your daughter think on it all and see if she wants to pursue the piano.
A good instructor is far more than a competent musician. It takes a special person to teach. They deserve the extra money.
I haven't even delve into the benefits of a good musical background – piano especially – but they're immense. My kids create their own songs which sound like songs and not random notes. That's wonderful for me to hear.
Neither my husband nor myself play an instrument and my husband can't carry a tune in a bucket. It hasn't held them back.
My children started their lessons at 8 years. My daughter is now 12 and my son is 10. It hasn't always been easy, but it's been worth it.
I'm not sure what to say exactly. I recently posted an article encouraging people to Quit Collecting Crap and Get a Real Hobby. The "real hobby" I suggested was learning to play a musical instrument. When you consider the benefits associated with learning music, it goes way beyond dollars and cents. Once you learn to play, you will reap the benefits and enjoyment over the course of your lifetime.
Why would you put a child in private lessons when just starting to learn? Group lessons through a local school, church or community group would be much cheaper and would give your child a chance to see if they really enjoy playing. The more expensive lessons could then come later, if your child shows real interest.
I agree with the comments that $60 is not high for private lessons, for the reasons given.
I paid $50 per 30 minutes vocal lessons in 1995. The teacher I went to was the most reasonable in town too. So, $60/hour seems quite reasonable to me.
I agree with previous comments about this post being erroneous because there are so many expenses and other factors to consider. I really think this post could have been better researched and less "how dare they try to rip me off!"-style rant.
I was expecting a reasoned listing of expenses (like the lessons, maintenance, renting or owning an instrument, etc), or tips and alternatives to foster a child's love of music while sticking to a budget. I was disappointed to see someone who claims to support the arts essentially trashing them and not making any attempt to understand the industry.
If that teacher is traveling to you, those 40 hours a week are not 40 hours of teaching.
I've yet to meet a teacher that manages to actually have enough students to work "full time" that's not also working every night of the week, plus weekends (crappy hours) - AND in most cases working a part time job during the day to pay the bills.
And probably doing badly paid and uncomfortable gigs on weekend evenings as well.
Being a private music instructor is not easy: people don't show up, they don't pay you, they "accidentally" pay to little, they are late, they disrespect you, they cancel lessons, they "forget", they don't show up prepared (I had a student not bring her instrument to a lesson once, and then her mother refused to pay me when I couldn't actually have a lesson with her) and at any time they can stop coming and you have to find yet another person to do the work for you.
Add to that your own continuing training, the fact that YOU have to be practicing to keep up with all of your students (especially if you're teaching anything beyond elementary/intermediate stuff), and your own practicing so that you can continue to be an effective musician?
Wow, that post just had me unsubscribe your feed. The value of good music education goes beyond dollars and cents. The fact you can't understand that probably explains why you're self prescribed tone deaf. I would hope your children deserve a chance to appreciate the beauty of music.
Additionally, freelance musician does not work 40+ hours a week and often requires high level of education / training. I'd recommend doing a bit more research than lazy Google search of average salary.
My husband and I have been using Quicken for over 15 years. The budgeting tools are pretty cool, though we've not been as good as keeping to strict budgets in the last few years. Luckily, we've been fortunate to save money for so long that we have pad built up. We mostly use budgets to compare how our spending is changing from year to year and when we see particular categories grow more than we'd like, we start reducing that kind of spending.
With a lot of the posters here. $60 is not an exhorbitant rate for lessons. If you shopped around you could definitely find a cheaper rate, and if your hair cut is so important to you then find someone cheaper than $60 an hour. It's also good to go cheap at first, just to see if the kid's interested and wants to continue.
I think this article's priorities are in the wrong place, if an expensive haircut is more important than their children's education. Piano lessons may indeed be a luxury but so is that hair cut.
Teaching music and performing are two very different things. While a teacher is expected to be a fairly good performer, performers aren't expected to be good teachers. Consider that just because some can do math doesn't make them good at teaching math. Teaching takes additional skills and many teachers have additional training as teachers.
Also, teaching music is rarely a regular 9-5 sort of job. It takes a lot of prep work behind the scenes that you don't see, and a lot of people who give lessons are doing so on the side to supplement their income. Music teachers often have spent a lot of money on materials, tools and instruments, as well. They might also have to pay to own/rent a studio or travel. And as music teachers are often self-employed, their taxes and lack of benefits do factor in (so, we're not comparing apples to apples with those other jobs).
But anyhow, I think it's fair to say that wages aren't necessarily based on how physically demanding a job is or even how much training one needs. If it were, construction workers and most teachers would get paid more. What it comes down to is what people will pay for the work and what others will work for.
I'm with most of the other commenters, and I find this post insulting. I have two degrees in music -- bachelors in Music Ed, and masters in Trumpet Performance. I teach private lessons and also freelance (which is NOT the same thing as being out-of-work, btw).
When I am booked to play a gig, say at a church for christmas, my minimum pay requirement is $200. If there's a ton of music, its more. The author of this post obviously would take this to mean that I get paid $200 an hour, which "logically" puts my annual salary at $400,000.
Sorry, I just fell out of my chair laughing.
For every 60-min church service I play, I spend a minimum of 10 hours practicing the music, 1 hour rehearsing with the choir (or whatever) at the church, and about 45 minutes each way commuting to the church. (I'm not even factoring in the years of training that allowed me to be talented enough to GET gigs.) Let me do the math... ah, I make about $16 dollars an hour, which is *gasp* less than a logger! And that's before taxes!
Lain, put in a little thought and walking-in-another's-shoes before you start judging. You just made yourself look foolish in front of the entire world.
This article is completely misguided. As other posters have mentioned, the teacher has to pay for their own healthcare, travel costs, and travel time. Any freelancer who works on an hourly basis will charge more than someone that has 40 hours per week of steady work (and probably benefits). The freelancer also must pay their own taxes, so there is a large part of the wage that they don't get to keep.
It's fine if you don't want to pay someone $60/hour to teach your daughter basic piano skills, but don't have such an awful attitude about it. What don't you understand about why piano teachers (who are not just out of work musicians) make more per hour than another musician with a more reliable performance gig? I want to stop reading this blog after reading your description of piano teachers as out of work musicians. What a naive, senseless, and stuck-up point of view.
I think this is entirely unfair. They should make it retroactive to at least the beginning of this year. It does not make sense to have two standards of eligibility in the same tax year.
No wonder you guys didn't get hired...
You don't even know how to spell
*practicing, not practising
My wife used to be a temp worker; According to her, the best time for a temp worker is the day they don't have to be a temp worker anymore.
Low wages, but the temp agency gets paid well for you. No benefits, no security, no respect. No vacation pay, no paid stat holidays. Even if we wanted to take a vacation, we couldn't because we might miss an opportunity for her to work. No mat leave!! That's a biggie for us where full time workers are entitled to a full year of mat leave.
Also, the temp agency she was stuck with were poorly managed and regularly rude to her when she had to call in for stuff. She was so happy the day she called them and told them to take her off their list. And they still tried to go after her new employer for a "referral fee". They had nothing to do with her getting that job; their rationale - they provided (some of) the job experience that she cited in her resume.
Temp work should not be thought of as just temporary workers for some company; it should be thought of as a temporary situation for the temp worker. Do what you have to to survive, but don't tolerate this for too long.
You are comparing apples to oranges. The comparison rates you show should be adjusted to their "fully loaded" rates.
Any usability cost-benefit analysis should value people's time based on their fully loaded cost and not simply on their take-home salary. The cost to a company of having a staff member work for an hour is not that person's hourly rate but also includes the cost of benefits, vacation time, facilities costs (office space, heating and cleaning, computers etc.), and the many other costs associated with having that person employed.
All of those costs are absorbed into that music teachers $60 an hour rate because they essentially are doing all of those things. If you added all those things into the other rates I think you would be surprised at what they are.
15 years ago i'm using Lotus 123. Since 1995 until now i'm using Excel.
If my parents had "balked" when I was seven and showed interest in playing the piano, I wouldn't be a professional composer today.
Of course there were pursuits I gave up as a kid, but my parents had a simple rule: they would fund the basics for a while until I either moved on or stuck with it. And after a few months if they saw I was passionate about something, (in my case, guitar, piano, and mandolin) they would invest in better instruments and more training.
I think I'll call my mom and thank her for respecting my request instead of "doing a little research, for comparison's sake."
For a company, the beauty of a temp worker is: no commitment, hard-worker (as every day could be his or her last) and, best of all, no benefits. It certainly is a good time to be a temp.
I don't think you have set the right goals for your child when it comes to learning music. Music is not JUST about becoming good at an instrument. It's about character and general intellectual development as well, especially at an impressionable young age. There are a myriad of skills that contribute to being an excellent musician which can apply to other facets of life, especially during a time when academic excellence is of importance. Overall, I think you were a little out of tune with this music-bashing.
Let me do the math slightly differently. Most music teachers have a hard time getting students to stick around in the summer months, when school is out. School (at least in my part of the world) runs from September through June, with about four weeks of vacation, plus miscellaneous holidays. So, let's call that nine months of teaching. Multiply that by 4.3 weeks per month, times 40 hours per week, times 60 dollars per hour, and you're at a number just under 93K. A far cry from $160.
Then subtract to allow for the fact that most piano teachers -- even if they work 40 hours a week -- don't have students to fill those 40 hours. Some of that time is spent in preparing for lessons and running a business.
Now, factor in the years of training, the cost of buying a piano and keeping it tuned, the hours spent practicing to stay current and nimble. Then subtract out private-pay health insurance or medical bills, retirement savings, and the other costs associated with any self-employed business. And suddenly the hourly rate really isn't that far off of the ones you list above.
(disclaimer: my kids both take music lessons, and my two best friends teach the flute and the piano).
...and I didn't make $60 an hour. If your kid goes to practice weekly, that is 3000 a year. Way more than I have ever paid for hockey. My kids did guitar lessons for a while and while it was a endeavor in finding out what they didn't like.
These people are making more than the people teaching your kids reading and writing and math. Hmmm.... which is more likely to pay off?
In what world are music teachers "out of work" musicians?
Forty-five years ago I started taking clarinet lessons from a professional musician (he'd played in the Lawrence Welk Orchestra, as well as for the Glenn Miller Band). The rate then was $10 for a 30-minute lesson. I'd say the cost of music lessons has scaled quite nicely in the intervening years.
Perhaps next time, a little research might be in order.
If you hire someone to teach you any skill/sport it will cost you anywhere from $40 to hundreds/hour (depending on your relative skill levels). Be it tutoring, skiing, music, even things you might think of as totally frivolous - for instance I play pool pretty seriously, i'm NEVER going to make any serious money playing - yet instruction at a serious level will still run you at least $50/hour.
The thing is that it takes years and special skills to be able to teach another human a skill/craft.
I keep everything in MSMoney, down to the last cent. All in categories, with memos, etc. I also keep an Excel spreadsheet for things like medical mileage, gas mileage for all of our cars, and how much the eggs my chickens lay cost me... so far it's about $15 per egg so it's a good thing they also serve as entertainment and pest control. Anyway, MSMoney and Excel.
Wow, did this ever strike a sour chord with me (and others as it seems from the comments).
My children's piano teacher only charges $19 per half hour lesson but she is worth her weight in gold. She is far more than a piano teacher – she's a life teacher. She teaches patience, learning from mistakes, the value of practice. She teaches stepping back and breaking things down when they become tough. She teaches them to laugh at their mistakes and not take things so seriously. She teaches encouragement and positive attitude.
My daughter says she teaches “that everything takes time, but if you put your heart into it and work hard you can do it.” I want her to take that message through her whole life.
Yes, kids try a lot of things as they grow up – a good but expensive thing. I would discuss with your daughter the commitment required to learn to play the piano and see if she is still enthusiastic. Then I think you and your daughter should meet and interview several piano instructors and discuss their methods and what they would require from her. See if you're a good fit with any of them. Then let your daughter think on it all and see if she wants to pursue the piano.
A good instructor is far more than a competent musician. It takes a special person to teach. They deserve the extra money.
I haven't even delve into the benefits of a good musical background – piano especially – but they're immense. My kids create their own songs which sound like songs and not random notes. That's wonderful for me to hear.
Neither my husband nor myself play an instrument and my husband can't carry a tune in a bucket. It hasn't held them back.
My children started their lessons at 8 years. My daughter is now 12 and my son is 10. It hasn't always been easy, but it's been worth it.
I'm not sure what to say exactly. I recently posted an article encouraging people to Quit Collecting Crap and Get a Real Hobby. The "real hobby" I suggested was learning to play a musical instrument. When you consider the benefits associated with learning music, it goes way beyond dollars and cents. Once you learn to play, you will reap the benefits and enjoyment over the course of your lifetime.
Think of it as teaching a "man to fish.."
Why would you put a child in private lessons when just starting to learn? Group lessons through a local school, church or community group would be much cheaper and would give your child a chance to see if they really enjoy playing. The more expensive lessons could then come later, if your child shows real interest.
I agree with the comments that $60 is not high for private lessons, for the reasons given.
I paid $50 per 30 minutes vocal lessons in 1995. The teacher I went to was the most reasonable in town too. So, $60/hour seems quite reasonable to me.
I agree with previous comments about this post being erroneous because there are so many expenses and other factors to consider. I really think this post could have been better researched and less "how dare they try to rip me off!"-style rant.
I was expecting a reasoned listing of expenses (like the lessons, maintenance, renting or owning an instrument, etc), or tips and alternatives to foster a child's love of music while sticking to a budget. I was disappointed to see someone who claims to support the arts essentially trashing them and not making any attempt to understand the industry.
If that teacher is traveling to you, those 40 hours a week are not 40 hours of teaching.
I've yet to meet a teacher that manages to actually have enough students to work "full time" that's not also working every night of the week, plus weekends (crappy hours) - AND in most cases working a part time job during the day to pay the bills.
And probably doing badly paid and uncomfortable gigs on weekend evenings as well.
Being a private music instructor is not easy: people don't show up, they don't pay you, they "accidentally" pay to little, they are late, they disrespect you, they cancel lessons, they "forget", they don't show up prepared (I had a student not bring her instrument to a lesson once, and then her mother refused to pay me when I couldn't actually have a lesson with her) and at any time they can stop coming and you have to find yet another person to do the work for you.
Add to that your own continuing training, the fact that YOU have to be practicing to keep up with all of your students (especially if you're teaching anything beyond elementary/intermediate stuff), and your own practicing so that you can continue to be an effective musician?
You seriously missed the boat on this one.
Wow, that post just had me unsubscribe your feed. The value of good music education goes beyond dollars and cents. The fact you can't understand that probably explains why you're self prescribed tone deaf. I would hope your children deserve a chance to appreciate the beauty of music.
Additionally, freelance musician does not work 40+ hours a week and often requires high level of education / training. I'd recommend doing a bit more research than lazy Google search of average salary.
My husband and I have been using Quicken for over 15 years. The budgeting tools are pretty cool, though we've not been as good as keeping to strict budgets in the last few years. Luckily, we've been fortunate to save money for so long that we have pad built up. We mostly use budgets to compare how our spending is changing from year to year and when we see particular categories grow more than we'd like, we start reducing that kind of spending.
With a lot of the posters here. $60 is not an exhorbitant rate for lessons. If you shopped around you could definitely find a cheaper rate, and if your hair cut is so important to you then find someone cheaper than $60 an hour. It's also good to go cheap at first, just to see if the kid's interested and wants to continue.
I think this article's priorities are in the wrong place, if an expensive haircut is more important than their children's education. Piano lessons may indeed be a luxury but so is that hair cut.
Teaching music and performing are two very different things. While a teacher is expected to be a fairly good performer, performers aren't expected to be good teachers. Consider that just because some can do math doesn't make them good at teaching math. Teaching takes additional skills and many teachers have additional training as teachers.
Also, teaching music is rarely a regular 9-5 sort of job. It takes a lot of prep work behind the scenes that you don't see, and a lot of people who give lessons are doing so on the side to supplement their income. Music teachers often have spent a lot of money on materials, tools and instruments, as well. They might also have to pay to own/rent a studio or travel. And as music teachers are often self-employed, their taxes and lack of benefits do factor in (so, we're not comparing apples to apples with those other jobs).
But anyhow, I think it's fair to say that wages aren't necessarily based on how physically demanding a job is or even how much training one needs. If it were, construction workers and most teachers would get paid more. What it comes down to is what people will pay for the work and what others will work for.