Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 21

Thread: Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

  1. #11

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    Felix, you are welcome to read the piece before you shoot the messenger.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../AR2010090603018.html

    Using the Army's own figures is part of his methodology. From the above piece:

    "The Army, according to a spokesman, estimates that it spends about $195 million a year on its bands, but that does not include those of the National Guard. Altogether, the Army says on its Web site that it has 5,000 musicians, describing itself as "the largest and oldest employer of musicians in the country."

  2. #12

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    Already read it, and I stand by my assertion.

    The problem with Army's numbers is that the numbers cited include ALL costs, including the costs to maintain the various bases where the bands are housed (Ft. Meyer, Ft. Bragg, Ft. Ord, Ft. Lee, Ft. Sam Houston, etc): bases that house other, non-band units, and whose costs would NOT be recovered or saved if the bands located at those facilities were reduced or eliminated, but there's not the slightest indication that he attempts to separate out those non-recoverable costs from the direct costs of maintaining the bands. Unfortunately, those facts doesn't support Pincus' pre-formed conclusion to mention that fact. That's why I specifically said until he details the methodology by which he arrives at his estimates, they're not credible.

    Furthermore, at no point in the series of articles does Pincus acknowledge that the VAST majority of military bands are dual-mission bands, that the members are fully qualified as soldiers/sailors, that they deploy like other units (like the 82nd Airborne Division Band's recent deployment in Afganistan where they provided perimeter security at Camp Bagram IN ADDITION to their musical duties, and the 392's in Iraq).

    Of course, those sorts of "Inconvenient Truths" don't suit his thesis, so he didn't see fit to mention them. (Gee. I wonder why not.)

  3. #13

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    I was working on this (while watching a movie) as Felix posted, so there is some duplication of effort. I didn't copy his homework, honest!

    Keep in mind my point about what should and should not be federal responsibility. The Constitution limited the role of the government by what it did and did not authorize. Then to emphasize the point the founders added the 10th Amendment:

    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

    Any power the feds take on diminishes the powers of the states and the people. And the federal government simply cannot do things as efficiently in a great many cases. When they take over something that states used to manage, we get closer to a one-size-fits-all approach, which works fine with things like civil rights, but not so well with education standards. I'd estimate the majority of teachers lean toward the left; certainly the NEA does. Yet teachers I have spoken to are NOT in favor of federal programs that try to measure Arkansas teachers the same way the measure California or Maine teachers. One example.

    Ignore the dollar amounts on my list of stimulus projects above. Actually, I chose to mention only the ones I thought were funny regardless of cost. But just ask yourself if the federal government was the best entity to "own" them. I'll grant that a project for the U.S. Forest Service is a federal project. But Microsoft, Syracuse U., baseball complexes, a small airport, and snow-making in Duluth, for example, are not best suited to the feds to own.

    To me that's a logical argument and a legal one. I'm not silly enough to think the government can suddenly drop everything that is not truly authorized by the Constitution, but I'd like to see us start to think a lot more about what the government is authorized to do. If one's political tendencies are to ignore the 10th Amendment and just fund what seems like a good idea, then what is the limit? What controls are there on the government? If we prefer to ignore the Constitution, why do we swear to support it?

    The military has units all over the nation and the world. If bands are part of their life, that will mean supplying a proportionate number of musicians. Some of the musicians will be in exotic locations, some in icky locations, all are supporting the overall mission of the military, which is a role of the federal goverment. But should the feds try to pay for all the ball parks in the country (even if it is the "national passtime")? Should they pay to weatherize all the county pickup trucks?

    And I would like to know more about the numbers used in the article. Just because he got them from the military doesn't mean the context is what we might assume. This particular phrase sounds very fuzzy, implying there is some extrapolation going on:

    "Based on the Marine figures, total Defense Department spending could reach $500 million or more a year."

    Don't forget that, except for the top bands, a lot of musicians are doing many other duties. The figures may or may not include the use-cost of the land and building use on Ft. Myer for the Army Band, for example. But if the band disappears, the land is not likely to be sold to local developers. The military likes the bands for recruiting purposes. If it weren't for the bands, would it cost the military $XXXXXX to make up for the impact the music program has? And how do we even measure the value of troop morale? The bands provide a public relations benefit, and even though that may not seem like a proper military job, it IS necessary today. All that leaves a lot of fuzzy math available. If the military cut the number of musicians in half, would the budget be reduced by 50%? Nope. That should also be a factor in numeric comparisons.

    I guess that's why I prefer to look to the Constitution, actions of Jefferson, the long history in the USA and other countries of military music, etc.

    One last point, which is REALLY off-beat, even within my arguments:
    Something that has struck me in recent years is when I see a ceremony from some small and rather poor country somewhere in the world. If a dignitary from the USA (or some other country) arrives, there is almost always a military band. A bad band, maybe, but a paid-for-by-government-money band. Even poor countries are funding these things. What's up with that? Maybe it does indicate that music is a universal language.

    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  4. #14

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    Bravo, Felix. Excellent points.

    Since JTJ has admitted his left-leaning stance, and respecting the non-partisan nature of the board, I shall refrain from admitting my conservative bent.

    That said, every once in awhile, some moonbat comes up and attacks military bands. The charges involve money, of course, enormous scads of money in comparison to freezers full of fish sperm, but also the fact that it's enormously difficult to quantify the impact and effect that military bands have on the troops in the field and the taxpayers at home.

    I spent an entire career as an Army musician and I dare say that the reason that military band impact on audiences around the world is difficult to quantify is because it's incalculable.

    In a day and age where the big guns, big ships, and big weapons platforms command most of the big bucks, it's easy to look at an intangible like music and scoff at its worth.

    I'm wondering if Mr. Pincus ever rucked up in his long, illustrious career. Something tells me he wouldn't know a rucksack from a golf bag.

    U.S. Army, Retired (built mid-1950s)
    Adams E2 Euph (built 2017)
    Boosey & Co. Imperial Euph (built 1941)
    Edwards B454 Bass Trombone (built 2012)
    Boosey & Hawkes Imperial Eb tuba (built 1958)
    Kanstul 33-T lBBb tuba (built 2010)

  5. #15

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    Here's my contribution to the discussion: I served as Commander of the Air Force Theater Hospital at Balad AB Iraq for a year. During that time we were able to helo in a 5-member Army Dixieland Band to play a few sets for our staff and patients. For that brief period of time, the war stopped for our patients and staff and all were able to visit a different, better place. I expected to see rapture on the faces of our American patients. What I did NOT expect to see was rapture on the faces of our Iraqi patients. So, did the Army Dixieland Band make a contribution to the war efforts? My answer is a resounding YES. For that short but wonderful period of time, music offered greater healing that all the bandages in my hospital!

    Sterling Virtuoso Euphonium, Denis Wick 4AL

  6. #16

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    Originally posted by: Eupher6
    I'm wondering if Mr. Pincus ever rucked up in his long, illustrious career.
    Just to note that Mr. Pincus' profile on Wikipedia states that he was drafted in 1955 and served in the Army Counterintelligence Corps until 1957.

  7. #17

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    Well, OK everyone. I do not have much more to say other than these kinds of arguments are at the core, political, and laden with all kinds of value judgments (Bill Bennett likes band music better than NEA type music -- pure value judgment, has noting to do with the correctness of the spending).

    But when I read very long posts touting the various ways the federal government subtracts from our freedoms, quality of life -- whatever -- without discussing any of the benefits of the federal system, I find it hard to believe that we somehow are not talking politics. If that's the way people feel, lets just dump the Constitution and go back the the Articles of Confederation, because in many ways that is what is being advocated.

    So here's my thoughts, which I won't back with long posts:

    > I have always liked Jefferson's positions on freedom, even thought like all of his time, he was inconsistent. But I have come to like Hamilton's position on the federal government's role better. When I was young, I read Rand, Hyack, Rothbard, the whole crew. But as I aged, my positions have shifted. Still libertarian but seeing an important role for the central government.

    > I like military bands and want them continued, even expanded.

    > Felix is right that if you eliminated bands the costs may not go away fully; the question is what are the marginal costs of maintaining the bands. I think, though, that many people have been astounded by the sums and that is what is behind the media attention.

    > if you are going to argue from the position of today's facile and selective media based conservatism, at least read the other side. If you are touting Austrian economics, then go Google up Paul Krugman's criticism, and so forth. For every one of these attractive arguments, there is a well thought out spectrum of opinion, which as a citizen it is good to read.

  8. #18

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    Well, this is getting a little off topic, isn't it? And I'll step right up and take blame. But gee whiz, I need to have a little fun now and then!

    I'll try to get back on the main track and summarize what I see above. We all seem to agree that we should keep the bands!

    And since the bands DO exist, we should all be aware of the easily obtained recordings they have online. In "the old days" you had to jump through a hoop or two, or just get lucky, or visit your library, to get a military band recording. And of course that was somewhat expensive for the bands, and they would usually just "go out of stock" once the first printing was distributed. That's still the case for the most part if you want a CD.

    But in the era of the Internet and MP3 files, here are a few links you might want to check out (if you don't already know about them):

    Marine Band Recordings

    Air Force Band Recordings

    Army Band Recordings

    Navy Band Recordings

    Coast Guard Band Recordings



    Dave Werden (ASCAP)
    Euphonium Soloist, U.S. Coast Guard Band, retired
    Adams Artist (Adams E3)
    Alliance Mouthpiece (DC3)
    YouTube: dwerden
    Facebook: davewerden
    Twitter: davewerden
    Instagram: davewerdeneuphonium

  9. #19

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    Dave, I am with you 100%, all politics aside. The bands are so important within the services supporting the mission, and so important to our larger society as a cultural contribution that I hope the budget cutting fetish of both the left and the right in this country spares them.

  10. #20

    Several articles in the Washington Post about the legitimacy and necessity of military bands...

    An eloquent--and pointed--reply to Walter Pincus.


Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •