Introduction

Some people have musical families.  I was, happily enough, one of those born into a long tradition of Western classical music.  My parents, some extended family, and most of our family friends either are or have been involved in symphony orchestra life as musicians, administrators, or board members.  In my family, all of the performers are also teachers.  Among my musical mentors, I always saw performer-pedagogues who were deeply engaged in their musical lives.  Being an orchestra musician, music teacher, and a lover of the genre, I am interested in discovering the relationship of performance, pedagogy, and career satisfaction.

There is a very limited pool of information regarding the career satisfaction of symphony orchestra musicians. The researcher Erin Lehman (1995) wrote and excellent article on the literature about symphony orchestras since 1960. She describes a great variety of references that look at the organization of the symphony orchestra in different ways. Lehman was also one of the researchers who compiled data from over nine hundred musicians in seventy-eight orchestras in four countries to paint a picture of the organizations’ struggles and triumphs in different parts of the globe (Allemendinger, Hackman, and Lehman, 1996).  For this project, I have gathered a short list of authors who clearly express points of view related to the current trends in symphony orchestras in comparison to references regarding personal well-being.  The picture does not look good for the job satisfaction levels of orchestra musicians.   

Early in my research, I found one article with a strong point of view.  Gunther Schuller (1986) is a renowned conductor, composer, and MacArthur Fellow.  In 1979 in an address at Tanglewood Music Center he commented on his perceptions of symphony orchestras and caused a huge controversy in the field.  Schuller spoke passionately about the lack of common goals among musicians, administration, and board members as creating a deep division in many organizations.  In turn, he clearly stated how each part of the organization of an orchestra contributes to its difficulties. Regarding the musicians, he described people who are “embittered, disgruntled, bored, who have come to hate music” (p. 185).  Schuller makes no secret of his emotional reaction to working with musicians who seem less than committed to their art.  Some parts of this have been my experience, but other parts not.  I wondered if this was a common situation for symphony orchestras, or was simply an expression of personal frustration.

In 1990, J. Allmendinger, J.R. Hackman, and E. Lehman began the large-scale study of symphony orchestras and their musicians I mentioned above (1996).  Part of their survey was focused on the levels of satisfaction and motivation as compared to thirteen other professions.  They found that orchestra members ranked seventh out of the thirteen professions in general job satisfaction with a score of 5.4 on a seven point scale (1996, p. 201).  Just above them were the federal prison guards, and just below were “Industrial production teams.”  In the category of “satisfaction with growth opportunities,” orchestra musicians ranked ninth, with a score of 4.9 out of seven.  This seems to confirm on some level the difficulties that Schuller described.

In an interview for Harmony magazine about the study, Dr. Hackman remarked, “The good news is that for … the level of internal motivation, symphony orchestra musicians are pushing the top of the scale—their average score, across all orchestras and countries, is 6.2 out of a possible seven.  No group or organization we have studied scores higher. Orchestra players are, indeed, fueled by their own pride and professionalism” (Judy, 1996, p.2).  The level of player commitment to performing well is very high in all the orchestras they studied.  Hackman continues, “Yet their overall job satisfaction, and especially their satisfaction with opportunities for continued growth and development, are not pushing the top of the scale.  The professional symphony orchestra, it seems, does not provide as rich and rewarding an occupational setting for musicians as one would hope” (p. 3).  For some reason, the situation seems out of balance.  This study found confirmation for a high level of commitment and a high level of dissatisfaction among orchestra members. Perhaps this is not so irreconcilable.  As one explanation, Hackman says, “Especially challenging for orchestras is how to provide players with meaningful recognition for their contributions to the orchestra—especially tutti players, many of whom have real difficulty reconciling their early hopes for careers as concertizing soloists with the reality that they will be playing in unison for the rest of their orchestra careers.  Applause from the audience, passed on to the orchestra as a whole after the conductor has smiled and nodded and bowed for a while, just doesn’t do the trick.  Few orchestras in our sample have found ways to provide individual players (other than principals) the kind of respect and recognition that we all seek in our professional work” (p. 5).  He addresses many possibilities that he found important in his research.  I sought more information on the psychological factors that could contribute to a greater sense of well-being among musicians.  

In the literature on motivation and well-being, two particular articles drew my attention.  The first was “The Nature of Vital Engagement in Adulthood” (Nakamura, 2001).  In this chapter, Nakamura presents certain examples of conditions where engagement is more likely for adults.  If people feel that their work is both meaningful and includes “experiences of enjoyed absorption (flow)” (p. 8), and this state is continued over time rather than as an isolated event, they can develop this kind of relationship with the world.  She mentions specifically the possibilities of engagement in “creative work and service work” (p. 12).  People can be very passionate about their work in these areas, and they have perhaps unending avenues for challenge over time.  The impetus for developing vital engagement is often a mentor, a teacher, or other role model’s engagement and/or an individual’s personal experience of flow in a domain. Nakamura writes, “All such relationships transform both the object and the individual.  For the individual, valued aspects of the self find expression and realization in the relationship to the object.  In addition, vital engagement contributes to a person’s overall well-being.  Happiness and a sense that life has meaning are attained not by directly pursuing them but as the by-products of being vitally engaged with the world” (p. 16).  This is the kind of relationship I would expect musicians to have with their work.  Most of us learn our trade from committed mentors, and in order to pursue music to the level at which one can be a professional, we must have had experiences early in life that led us to choose such a career.  Is there something disengaging about the careers of orchestra musicians as Hackman and Schuller found?  In what ways does the job of orchestra musician not meet these criteria?

A second perspective comes from “Self Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being” (Ryan and Deci, 2000).  In order to promote high internal motivation, these authors identify three conditions: “the needs for competence, … relatedness, … and autonomy” (p. 68).  Competence refers to recognition of the individual’s skills.  Relatedness is, in my view, along the same lines as felt significance or meaning in the Nakamura article.  The third condition of autonomy is something that is quite rare in the symphony orchestra, as it refers to the feeling that one can act creatively and somewhat independently.  Ryan and Deci comment, “Perhaps no single phenomenon reflects the positive potential of human nature as much as intrinsic motivation, the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn” (p.70).  According to their framework, the forces that regulate intrinsic motivation are “interest, enjoyment, [and] inherent satisfaction” (p. 72).  On the other end of the spectrum is external motivation these authors characterize by the qualities of “compliance, [and] external rewards and punishments” (p. 72).  Hackman addresses the condition of little recognition for individuals in the orchestra.  That resonates with musicians’ perceptions of whether their competence and autonomy is respected. Theoretically, if they receive recognition, their perception would be of having more competence and autonomy than what Hackman posited earlier.

Schuller, at the end of his article, discusses an exemplary example.  He mentions the music directorship of Maurice Abravanel with the Utah Symphony as “superb” (1986, p. 193).  Schuller says, “Abravanel developed the Utah Symphony into not only a first-rate orchestra, but one with exceptionally high morale and a very positive attitude and work ethic.”  Considering the picture of the field I was finding in the literature, this was a point of great interest!  Schuller mentions several areas where this orchestra was in better shape than most: they performed at a very high level, had carefully selected repertoire, and were especially conscious of the role of the orchestra within the community.  Abravanel had committed himself to the role of “educator” (p. 193).  What is the possibility that through education and community involvement performers could enrich their own environment?

  I am interested specifically in the symphony orchestra players.  Theoretically, I find that the work environment for a music teacher matches more of the criteria for vital engagement and well-being than that of a symphony orchestra musician.  What would happen if an orchestra musician had part of his career with the orchestra, and part as a pedagogue?  What differences in career satisfaction will be reported between orchestra musicians who also teach versus those who perform only?