The article below was written by Dr. John Pippen, a 2019 Paul R. Judy Center for Innovation and Research Grant Recipient. Pippen is assistant professor of Ethnomusicology at Colorado State University. His courses address sociological and anthropological studies of music, musical practices around the world, and histories of music in the United States and Europe. His primary research has been an extended ethnographic study of the new music scene in Chicago. Blending approaches from labor studies and aesthetic theory, Dr. Pippen writes about struggle in the classical music scene in the United States. 

---

2020 Survey of Innovative Ensemble Members in Chicago

Introduction

This report summarizes findings from the Survey of Innovative Ensemble Members in Chicago.[1] The project aimed to acquire information about markers of class, race, and gender among members of the Chicago new music scene. The Paul R. Judy Center provided a grant for me to design a survey in collaboration with the Institute for Research in the Social Sciences (IRISS) at Colorado State University. IRISS provided expertise in quantitative methods and survey design, and I drew on my ethnographic research in the Chicago new music scene to create questions. I limited the scope of the survey to this scene because I have spent the past decade researching ensembles in the city and have extensive research knowledge of this scene. Little quantitative demographic data exists about new music ensemble members (e.g. Farrell and Notareschi 2021), and the national new music community has a fraught history with racial and gender equity (e.g. Robin 2019). Music workers from the Chicago scene read and critiqued early drafts of the survey. They clarified certain terms (e.g. pay levels for gigs) and helped solicit participants.

This report summarizes the findings of the survey and suggests ways to study forms of injustice in the new and classical music scenes. Originally planned for release in March of 2020, we delayed the survey to add questions about the COVID-19 pandemic. I have synthesized the data into four sections: qualifying questions and demographics, socioeconomic class, job characteristics and satisfaction, and COVID-19. The survey should not be taken as overly representative of the country’s overall new music cohort. Rather, it raises important questions about new music, especially with regards to class, race, and gender that should be examined in a much larger study. The survey foregrounds the voices of music workers, many of whom have some experience of forms of exclusion based on race, gender, or professional networks.

Qualifying questions and demographics

Participants in the survey were asked to give consent and screened based on their work in new music within the past ten years. I designed the survey to capture both working musicians and arts workers involved in the production of new music. These roles can be occupied by the same person or by different people, and I wanted to capture as broad a range of new music work as possible. These questions resulted in a pool of about forty-eight respondents. Not all respondents answered all questions. The total number of respondents for each question is indicated via the “N” number. “New music” was euphemized through several common descriptors in Q7 N=47. The survey asked respondents to identify their race, gender, and sexuality. Tables 1, 2, and 3 give the responses for these questions. The respondents ranged in professional experience, but the majority, about 89%, reported working in the music industry for more than five years (Q8 N=42). This, along with the high amount of university training, signals that we should read the survey as comprised of mostly very experienced workers.

Table 1. Q41 N=35 What is your race or ethnicity? (Check all that apply)

Answer	%	Count
White	91.43%	32
Asian or Asian American	11.43%	4
Hispanic/Chicano/Latinx	11.43%	4
American Indian or Alaskan Native	5.71%	2
Black or African American	2.86%	1
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander	2.86%	1
Prefer not to answer	2.86%	1
Other (please specify)	0.00%	0
Total (N)	100%	35

Table 2. Q42 N=34 What is your gender?

Answer	%	Count
Male	58.82%	20
Female	38.24%	13
Non-binary	2.94%	1
I prefer another term (please specify)	0.00%	0
Total (N)	100%	34

Table 3. Q43 N=33 Do you identify as LGBTQ+?

Answer	%	Count
No	72.72%	24
Yes	24.24%	8
Additional Information/Comments (not counted in N number):	9.09%	3
Prefer not to answer	3.03%	1
Total (N)	100%	33

The racial demographics correspond closely to previous research. The League of American Orchestras (2016) has tracked race since 1980 and reported in 2016 that about 85% of musicians in orchestras identified as white.  A national survey of employed undergraduate music program alumni (Miksza and Hime 2015) found that 90% of respondents identified as white, while Farrell and Notareschi (2021) found that 86% of composers in the United States identified as white in their recent survey. The dominance of white members also corresponds with descriptions of the make-up of New Music Chicago, an organization that helps organize concerts and provides networking to new music musicians. While all these data demonstrate a strong white majority, I would suggest that they are missing people active in avant-garde scenes, especially in Chicago which has both a vibrant history and ongoing presence of non-white musicians (Lewis 2008; Steinbeck 2017). Gender demographics for new music musicians in Chicago skewed more male when compared to research from the League (2016)and on music alumni (Miksza and Hime 2015), but was less male-dominant than reported in Farrell and Notareschi’s (2021) survey of U.S. composers. The high level of graduate training found among respondents, discussed below, could help explain the inequality found in the survey. I have not yet found other demographic data on sexual identity for comparison. The median age (Q44 N=32) of respondents was 36 years old, with the oldest 54 and the youngest 26.

Socioeconomic class

For this study, I interpret class as a broad formation borne of intersecting social, cultural, and economic forms of capital (Bourdieu 1993). The survey usefully compiles information about a class of workers about whom little data exists. Here, I use the term class in a general sense to denote educational attainment, income, and assets such as home ownership. Markers of economic class indicate a relatively middle or lower-middle class level of affluence. The survey asked about methods for paying for university education, income, saving for retirement, and home ownership. Q21 N=35 showed that families were the most common source of financial support for undergraduate degrees (77%), followed by merit-based scholarships (77%), financial aid including loans (60%), work (54%), and need-based scholarships (48%). Respondents paid for graduate school (Q35 N=27) with merit-based scholarships (88%), work (66%), financial aid including loans (62%), and need-based scholarships (44%). The National Center for Educational Statistics reported^⁠7 that 86% of first-time undergraduates in 2017/2018 and 73% of first-time graduate students received some form of financial aid.[2] Median individual income for respondents (Q48 N=29) was about $39,000 a year and median household income (Q49 N=28) was $75,000 a year. This range is somewhat higher when compared with income of music performance undergraduates in a nation-wide study (Miksza and Hime 2015). 2019 Chicago^⁠ median income (which can vary widely by neighborhood) for a household of one was about $62,000 a year, increasing to $89,100 a year for a household of four.[3] 31% of survey respondents owned their home (Q46 N=35), which is lower than the city general rate^⁠ of 45% reported by the US Census Bureau.[4] Retirement savings varied widely, with a median of about $4500 saved for retirement (Q53 N=29). All but one respondent had health insurance (Q54 N=32) either purchased on an “open market” (43%), provided form an employer (25%), or provided through a spouse or partner (28%).

Analysis of survey data shows that respondents were highly educated, but relatively under-paid. In my ethnographic research, I learned that it was very common for new music practitioners to hold graduate degrees, but I did not have formal quantitative data demonstrating such a trend until now. 97% of respondents held a Bachelor’s degree or higher, 52% had a Master’s degree and 30% had a Doctoral or professional degree (Q16 N=40). This level of attainment is quite high when compared with attainment associated with music majors. In 2010 only about a third of music alumni reported earning graduate degrees (Miksza and Hime 2015). Educational attainment of new music ensemble members is also high when compared with data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics data on professional musicians who, depending on the specific classification, report the following for university degrees: 31%-43% undergraduate, 20-22% Masters, and 5.2% Doctoral of professional degree.[5] ^⁠New music workers’ high level of graduate degree attainment is relatively similar to primary, secondary, and post-secondary level teachers, who often report a high level of graduate attainment.[6] ^⁠However, this attainment does not correspond to higher income levels, as is more typical in other professions.[7] Educational attainment among parents (Q52 N=33) of respondents was similarly high with 81% of parents holding a Bachelor’s degree or higher (highest levels were 18% Bachelor’s, 39% Master’s, 24% Doctorate). The survey shows that new music musicians enjoy extensive training in higher education, a characteristic that raises questions about the meritocracy of a field when considered in relation to research on barriers perpetuated within university music programs (Palmer 2011; Clements 2009; Koza 2008).

Job characteristics and satisfaction

The survey asked about characteristics of working in new music, including job satisfaction and reports of unfair treatment. 78% of respondents reported that most of their income comes from music gigs (Q51 N=32). However, respondents differed widely on the extent to which music provided them with a sense of financial security (Q50 N=33). Most gigs were either one time (41%) or long-term lasting more than six months (36%) (Q10 N=41). 91% reported that more than 40% of income comes from just one or two jobs, and 45% indicated that more than 90% of their income comes from one or two sources (Q11 N=24). So-called “portfolio” work (Bartleet et al. 2012), compiling an income from multiple sources, is thus very common, as has been shown to be the case among music education and performance undergraduates (Miksza and Hime 2015). However, my data suggests that even with multiple commitments, people earn a large portion of their income from a few specific jobs. Thus, rather than treat careers in new music as comprised of an assortment of comparable-paying jobs, the survey suggests that people secure one or two longer-term jobs that provide a sort of financial base. This base, especially for those working as non-tenured orchestra players, university faculty, or arts administrators, was especially disrupted by the shutdowns for COVID-19 (see COVID section below). Only 24% reported union membership (Q55 N=33), a strikingly low number considering Chicago’s history of strong union organizing (Roberts 2014; Absher 2014).

What do people think of their work in new music? In my ongoing ethnographic research, musicians frequently described new music as the realization of a strong personal commitment. New music was often contrasted with other types of work such as orchestral, operatic, or ad-hoc projects where people report very little creative agency, perspectives substantiated in other studies (Parasauraman and Purohit 2000; Allmendinger, Hackman, and Lehman 1996; Mogelhof and Rohrer 2005). In my fieldwork, positive and negative experiences often occurred together. Tedious work, frustrations, disagreements, or even rare fights are common characteristics of working in new music. Ensemble members in the survey reported a myriad of attitudes about new music in Chicago. Q13 N=38 asked “If you could change anything about your current work in the music industry, what would it be? Select up to three.” The top three responses were more pay (71%), increased consistency (55%), and more work (44%). About 21% said they wanted more artistic expression, which suggests that a majority find artistic expression to be at least somewhat good, though even new music can be lacking in this regard. In the optional text entry two people cited racism as a problem, and one cited elitism.^⁠ Q14 N=31 asked respondents to provide reasons for their choices. Here I highlight four points about satisfaction:

1. Value forms

The ways people locate value in new music are complex and should not be overly reduced. Value, as a concept, has multiple tangible and ephemeral forms, and these forms interact in different ways for given individuals and societies (Graeber 2001; Taylor 2016). Comments frequently demonstrated that, for example, separating low pay from frequency was not as easy as it sounded in the survey. A substantial increase in pay may or may not invalidate the desire for more work. Financial remuneration was interpreted in part as a sign of social respect, and some interpreted low pay as demonstrating the lack of value society located in music more generally.

2. Multiple levels of frustration

Respondents reported frustration both with the local aspects of the Chicago scene and with issues about work more generally. People cited issues such as commuting, a lack of pay for musical work, and a close-minded attitude toward avant-garde music as undermining their professional work in one way or another. Several respondents cited issues the precarity of work as a source of frustration. As one person wrote, “Ad hoc gigs create a lot of negotiations that drain energy.” The amount of work required to secure even the relatively small number of gigs in Chicago, a major US city with a robust history of thriving arts scenes, is a major challenge that structures the field of new music.

Complaints about the local Chicago new music scene cited a lack of access to specific networks of labor organized around particular ensembles and/or schools of music. Several respondents, at various questions, described struggling to access the network of new music because they were not connected to key music schools. Such claims are consistent with research from Germany and the United Kingdom (Scharff 2018; Cottrell 2004). Research of music alumni shows that university students enjoy at least some access to professional work and move into professional work relatively quickly (Miksza and Hime 2015). The reports from survey takers thus suggests passive forms of gate-keeping, a class-based form of exclusion. This is substantiated in the questions that asked respondents to name undergraduate (Q19 N=32) and graduate (Q33 N=24) schools. I have redacted the specific responses to protect respondents’ anonymity, but both questions demonstrate a high level or attendance at either an elite conservatory (e.g. the Eastman School of Music) or at a school within four hours of Chicago. Based on those criteria, respondents attended such schools an overwhelming majority of the time for both undergraduate and graduate education.

3. Satisfaction with education/training

Q25 N=35 and Q39 N=28 asked about satisfaction with undergraduate and graduate training, and participants rated their agreement with statements using a five-point system from “disagree” to “agree.” In general, most respondents felt that their undergraduate and graduate schooling helped them gain the artistic skills necessary for professional work. However, questions about whether undergraduate degrees helped respondents build connections in the music industry, find mentors, and acquire business skills were far more mixed. This disparity is consistent with previous research among music education and performance majors, who were generally more likely to rank their artistic training highly and more likely to rank other professional training lowly (Miksza and Hime 2015). In my survey, all three of these categories improved for graduate school. This finding is consistent with the rapid if uneven spread of musical entrepreneurship programs, many of which offer more courses at the graduate level compared to the undergraduate level (Essig and Guevara 2016).

4. Reports of unfair treatment

The survey asked respondents about their perception of equity in a variety of questions. Respondents ranked their relative agreement or disagreement with the statement about new music, classical music, and the music industry in general. These reports of unfair treatment should be considered as voiced by people who have worked in new music for several years. As a result, the responses may not capture accounts of unfair treatment experience by novices or newcomers to the profession. Scorings are summarized in Tables 4, 5, and 6:

Table 4. Q26 N= 34 Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Question	Disagree		Somewhat disagree		Neither agree nor disagree		Somewhat agree		Agree		Total N
The new music field is welcoming to people of all genders.	2.94%	1	14.71%	5	8.82%	3	41.18%	14	32.35%	11	34
The new music field is welcoming to people of all races/ethnicities.	14.71%	5	26.47%	9	17.65%	6	17.65%	6	23.53%	8	34
The new music field is welcoming to people of all sexual orientations.	2.94%	1	8.82%	3	0.00%	0	47.06%	16	41.18%	14	34

Table 5. Q27 N=33 Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Question	Disagree		Somewhat disagree		Neither agree nor disagree		Somewhat agree		Agree		Total (N)
The classical music field is welcoming to people of all genders.	12.12%	4	30.30%	10	15.15%	5	33.33%	11	9.09%	3	33
The classical music field is welcoming to people of all races/ethnicities.	30.30%	10	39.39%	13	12.12%	4	12.12%	4	6.06%	2	33
The classical music field is welcoming to people of all sexual orientations.	9.09%	3	24.24%	8	21.21%	7	27.27%	9	18.18%	6	33

Table 6. Q28 (N)=33 Please rate your level of agreement with the following statements.

Question	Disagree		Somewhat disagree		Neither agree nor disagree		Somewhat agree		Agree		Total (N)
The music industry is welcoming to people of all genders.	9.09%	3	24.24%	8	12.12%	4	42.42%	14	12.12%	4	33
The music industry is welcoming to people of all races/ethnicities.	12.12%	4	15.15%	5	30.30%	10	27.27%	9	15.15%	5	33
The music industry is welcoming to people of all sexual orientations.	9.09%	3	18.18%	6	30.30%	10	30.30%	10	12.12%	4	33

Individuals answered questions (Q29 N=34) about whether they had been treated unfairly in rehearsals (50% yes), auditions (41% yes), and in terms of compensation (50% yes). We followed this by asking (Q30 N=32) for whether the reasons for unfair treatment related to race (15% yes), gender (31% yes), sexual orientation (9% yes), or “other” (15%).

The intersection of workplace precarity, gender, and race further shapes labor in the Chicago new music scene. While relative minorities of respondents reported personal experience with unfair treatment based on race, gender, or sexual orientation, many reported (Q31 N=33) knowledge of racial (78%), gender (78%), or sexual orientation-based (42%) forms of discrimination in a friend or colleague. Considering the other data, I suggest interpreting the new music scene as comprised of people how have persisted in this work despite experiencing or knowing about forms of unfair treatment. Given the relative precarity and exclusive nature of the new music field, it is likely that forms of discrimination have influenced peoples’ abilities to work in the new music Chicago scene.

Furthermore, as Cassino and Besen‐Cassino (2019) argue, sexual harassment can increase when male workers feel somehow threatened by the increased status of female or non-binary workers. Informal labor networks such as those common to new music have also been analyzed as reproducing forms of structural discrimination (Eikhof and Warhurst 2013). It is possible, then, that the precarious, informal, and exclusive nature of work in the Chicago new music scene creates conditions that allow for the harassment of workers. This is a serious issue that requires further research on its own.

COVID-19

Q58 N=30 through Q63 N=9 were added to the survey immediately following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. This delayed the planned release of the survey, but we hoped to get information about how the pandemic had impacted respondents. Questions were loosely modeled on the ongoing national survey conducted by Americans for the Arts, which ran a dashboard summarizing the impact of COVID-19 shutdowns on artists and arts organizations.[8] All but one respondent stated that the pandemic would have an impact on their income. Q60 N=31 was presented as a ranked list from most (Severely impacted) to least (Not impacted) The responses below are ranked by response rate. 

Table 7. Q60 N=31 Over the next 12 months, please indicate to what level you believe that your income will be impacted by the COVID-19? Answers ranked in order of response rate (column 2).

Answer	%	Count
Severely impacted	32.26%	10
Impacted	29.03%	9
Somewhat Impacted	25.81%	8
Greatly impacted	9.68%	3
Not impacted	3.23%	1
Total (N)	100%	31

At the same time, all but one respondent indicated that they were working (Q61 N=32). Over 63% reported working in their artistic field and 27% indicated they were working in both an artistic and non-artistic field (Q62 N=30). These numbers suggest that people working in new music tended to fair better than many artists. Americans for the Arts reported that, while they still reported significant losses, Illinois arts organizations in general fared better than organizations in the overwhelming majority of states. Furthermore, new music workers were less somewhat less anxious about the impact of COVID-19 shutdowns on their income. This could be because of the relative stability afforded many of these workers through work with universities, but more research is required to establish that. Furthermore, follow-up research could compare how people were doing in the Spring and Summer of 2020 versus how they fared later in the year or in 2021.

---

[1] The original idea came from Dr. Mary Kouyoumdjian, who suggested creating a survey to test for biases of gender in the evaluation of anonymized scores. While I diverged from her imagined project, I am grateful for Dr. Kouyoumdjian’s encouragement to examine inequity in the new music scene.

[2] https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=31

[3] https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/area_median_incomeamichart.html

[4] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/chicagocityillinois/PST045219

[5] https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/educational-attainment.htm The BLS offers data on two categories of musicians, “Music directors and composers” and “Musicians and singers”.

[6] https://www.bls.gov/emp/tables/educational-attainment.htm

[7] https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2019/data-on-display/education_pays.htm

[8] https://www.americansforthearts.org/by-topic/disaster-preparedness/the-economic-impact-of-coronavirus-on-the-arts-and-culture-sector

---

Work Cited

Absher, Amy. 2014. The Black Musician and the White City: Race and Music in Chicago, 1900-1967. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Allmendinger, J., J. R. Hackman, and E. V. Lehman. 1996. “Life and work in symphony orchestras.” Musical Quarterly 80: 194-219.

Bartleet, Brydie-Leigh, Dawn Bennett, Ruth Bridgstock, Paul Draper, Huib Schippers, and Scott Harrison. 2012. “Preparing for Portfolio Careers in Australian Music: Setting a Research Agenda.” Australian Journal of Music Education (1): 32-41.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production. Translated by Richard Nice. Edited by Randall Johnson. edited by Randal Johnson. New York: Columbia University Press.

Cassino, Dan, and Yasemin Besen‐Cassino. 2019. “Race, threat and workplace sexual harassment: The dynamics of harassment in the United States, 1997–2016.” Gender, work, and organization 26 (9): 1221-1240. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.12394.

Clements, Allen. 2009. “Minority Students and Faculty in Higher Music Education.” Music Educators Journal 95 (3): 53-56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0027432108330862.

Cottrell, Stephen. 2004. Professional music-making in London: Ethnography and experience. Burlington: Ashgate.

Eikhof, Doris Ruth, and Chris Warhurst. 2013. “The promised land? Why social inequalities are systemic in the creative industries.” Employee Relations 35 (5): 495-508. https://doi.org/10.1108/ER-08-2012-0061. https://www.emeraldinsight.com/doi/abs/10.1108/ER-08-2012-0061.

Essig, Linda, and Joanna Guevara. 2016. A Landscape of Arts Entrepreneurship in US Higher Education. ASU Herbinger Institute for Design and the Arts. https://herbergerinstitute.asu.edu/sites/default/files/a_landscape_of_arts_entrepreneurship_in_us_higher_education_0.pdf.

Farrell, David E., and Loretta K. Notareschi. March 15 2021. How Much Do Composers Get Paid? A Report on U.S. Composer Commission Pay in 2017-2018. (http://lorettanotareschi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Farrell-and-Notareschi-How-Much-Do-Composers-Get-Paid-1-31-21.pdf).

Graeber, David. 2001. Toward an Anthropological Theory of Value: The False Coin of Our Own Dreams. New York, NY: Palgrave.

Koza, Julia Eklund. 2008. “Listening for Whiteness: Hearing Racial Politics in Undergraduate School Music.” Philosophy of Music Education Review 16 (2): 145-155. www.jstor.org/stable/40327298.

Lewis, George. 2008. A Power Stronger than Itself: The AACM and American Experimental Music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Miksza, Peter, and Lauren Hime. 2015. “Undergraduate Music Program Alumni’s Career Path, Retrospective Institutional Satisfaction, and Financial Status.” Arts Education Policy Review 116 (4): 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2014.945628. https://doi.org/10.1080/10632913.2014.945628.

Mogelhof, J. P., and L. H. Rohrer. 2005. “Rewards and sacrifices in elite and non-elite organizations: Participation in valued activities and job satisfaction in two symphony orchestras.” International Journal of Manpower 26: 93-109.

Orchestras, League of American, and James Doeser. 2016. Racial / Ethnic and Gender Diversity in the Orchestra Field. http://www.ppv.issuelab.org/resources/25840/25840.pdf.

Palmer, C. Michael. 2011. “Challenges of Access to Post-Secondary Music Education Programs for People of Color.” Visions of Research in Music Education 18: 2-22.

Parasauraman, S., and Y. S. Purohit. 2000. “Distress and boredom among orchestra musicians: The two faces of stress.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 5: 74-83.

Roberts, Michael James. 2014. Tell Tchaikovsky the news: Rock ‘n’ roll, the labor question, and the musicians’ union, 1942-1968. Durham, [North Carolina]: Duke University Press.

Robin, William. 2019. “Horizons ’83, Meet the Composer, and New Romanticism’s New Marketplace.” The Musical Quarterly 102 (2/3): 158-199. https://doi.org/10.1093/musqtl/gdz015. https://doi.org/10.1093/musqtl/gdz015.

Scharff, Christina. 2018. Gender, Subjectivity, and Cultural Work: The Classical Music Profession. New York: Routledge.

Steinbeck, Paul. 2017. Message to Our Folks: The Art Ensemble of Chicago. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Taylor, Timothy Dean. 2016. Music and Capitalism: A History of the Present. Chicago: University of Chicago.

 

 

---