In ‘Our children’s hobbies have cost us £150,000’ (14 July, The Times), Gillian Harvey explores the cost of extra-curricular activities for parents. The article opens with a family of three children — the Bonnars — all of whom have studied instruments up to Grade 8 and have secured new instruments along the way. Total spent on lessons, exams, instruments, and music is £150K.

“Euan, 25, Tom, 22, and Phoebe, 18, each play at least two instruments to Grade 8 or diploma standard. The total cost? Nearly £150,000, according to their parents.

‘It’s probably a good thing I didn’t know how much it would be at the outset,’ said Bonnar, 57, from Portsmouth. She estimates that 41 weeks of lessons a year from ages 5 to 19 cost about £118,000, musical exams £5,700, plus theory tests at £675. Sheet music (including online subscriptions and exam books) cost about £6,000 and the cost of buying instruments, including a new piano and clarinet, almost £18,000. ‘We had to upgrade the piano once they got to the more advanced grades, and the clarinet when Phoebe got to grade six,’ she said.”

Phoebe is the only one of the three who is seen as still actively using her musical talents, and hopes to join the Royal Marine Band as a percussionist.

“Phoebe plays piano, clarinet, drums and xylophone — she still has one percussion lesson a week at £35 an hour,” Bonnar said. “The boys don’t play professionally, although Euan, who plays euphonium and piano, did benefit from a musical scholarship payment of £1,000 each year when he went to university, even though he was studying biochemistry.”

It’s worth noting that Phoebe plays percussion — though the quote presents this as a list of separate instruments: piano, clarinet, drums, and xylophone. I doubt she owns her own xylophone; more likely, she accesses percussion instruments through a school or organisation, which is typical. Still, the breadth of her skill set is clear.

Had the article banged the drum (pun intended) for a commitment to music experiences — let alone music education — in state schools of the kind the Association of British Orchestras are currently campaigning for, then the Times story might have been quite useful. But that isn’t the angle. It’s highlighting the cost of extra-curricular activities like music and failing to account for the benefits of that education in a wider context.

As an average, the music lessons cost (based on 41 lessons a year for three children over a fourteen-year period) around £65 a lesson. The Musicians’ Union recommends a baseline rate of £44 an hour for a one-to-one lesson. These are high-quality lessons and the rate reflects that. Interestingly, Phoebe’s current percussion lesson is reported at £35 an hour — below the Musicians’ Union’s recommended rate. That seems unusually low for a specialist area like percussion, where lessons often include access to instruments. But as skills develop and different teachers are sought at the higher end, rates inevitably fluctuate. This variability makes it difficult to generalise about what music education “should” cost.

But it also highlights a deeper issue: this kind of sustained musical education is simply out of reach for many families. What the article doesn’t explore is how unequal access to music has become — and how little state provision exists to change that. A missed opportunity to speak up for those already excluded from the benefits of music education.

The expectation is on the parents, of course, to buy the necessary instruments — a compensation for schools not having the budget to realise the will to provide the tools necessary for pupils to develop. That said, the cost of instruments feels a little inflated, and more advanced grades don’t in turn demand upgraded instruments.

That this amount of money was spent on the instruments and lessons indicates that this was regarded by those making the payments as affordable. For a great many others, that privilege isn’t — and the opportunity is closed off. For many others, that kind of choice simply isn’t on the table. And when public provision is lacking, that gap widens quickly. It’s a shame that point isn’t made. That’s the pertinent one.

That all three kids pursued music-making to Grade 8 and diploma indicates that they both displayed an ever-improving proficiency in music-making — something which the parents were clearly willing to commit to.

To further underline the lack of understanding of the wider consequences of music as a practice, we’re told that a music scholarship was awarded even though he’s studying biochemistry. The implication here is that the money invested in music is irrelevant now simply because he’s only specialising in biochemistry. This isn’t an administrative error or mismatch in thinking on the part of the university — it is a sign that the establishment recognises what musical excellence might bring to supporting an existing musical culture in that environment. Put simply, the university recognises he’s a musician who could contribute to its musical life. So, here’s some money to recognise that skill in the hopes that you’ll participate in that musical life.

Many of the mid-life professional musicians who thrive today are those who studied something entirely different at university — simply because they recognised at that moment in their lives that having a fallback career path would be sound judgment. Yet now, a generation later, we’re seeing music education presented simply as a luxury or an indulgence — something illustrated by those who can afford to pursue that path anyway.

The article touches on the possibility of ‘enrichment’ not only from music education but other hobbies too — but by and large, the lifelong benefits of extra-curricular activities are overlooked. Some of those activities that aren’t assessed are central to personal development: discipline, community, connection, self-awareness, emotional intelligence, respect. Incorporating those experiences into life as early as possible is surely the goal — so that the outcome is felt throughout life, not as a source of income, but as the basis of understanding.

That intangible measure rarely gets made. Or at least it doesn’t get made quite so explicitly nor forcefully. For those who can afford it, it strikes me those three kids have benefited from the very best investment — one that will make them great citizens and future leaders. Money well spent. The real challenge is making that opportunity available to all, not just those whose parents have the money.

Journalism is failing the arts. The niche talk to the choir, while the generalists appeal to the congregation with outrage.

---