• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is $440 million per year for military music a good buy?

Hawkeye10

Buttermilk Man
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 29, 2015
Messages
45,404
Reaction score
11,746
Location
Olympia Wa
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
According to Pentagon data from fiscal 2015, the last time the Defense Department did a full inventory, the military spends at least $437 million a year on musicians, their instruments, special uniforms, travel and related costs.
That marks a steady rise from previous years, even as the Pentagon insists the services have cut a sizable number of musical troupes. By some official estimates, it's now spending $100 million more a year than in 2011.
The Army, by far, has the largest musical contingent, with a total of 99 bands and approximately 4,350 total musical personnel across its active-duty, National Guard and Reserve forces. The Air Force is second, with 15 bands and 800 personnel, followed by the Marine Corps with 12 bands and 750 personnel and the Navy's 11 bands and 600 musicians.
At the Pentagon, spokesman Mark Wright asserted that all four military branches have cut the number of bands in recent years, but acknowledges the cuts have done little to rein in the overall cost — largely because the schedule of events at which military musicians perform has not diminished much.


Read more: The Pentagon's battle of the bands - POLITICO
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Look, no one loves old school military culture more than me, it has been sad seeing it wither away, but the fact is that todays kids are not buying into it much. Also we are a failing superpower that needs to put what money we can find to good use, some of this old time super power whoopty doo needs to go away ASAP. Also these cats dont tend to be all that good, so dont give me a song and dance about how lucky I am to sometimes be able to see them.

Let's put Trump on this.

Seriously.
 
Last edited:
The question is why are these events not paying for the costs of the band to get there?
almost all other performers have their costs paid for by the event so why not them?
 
The question is why are these events not paying for the costs of the band to get there?
almost all other performers have their costs paid for by the event so why not them?

Most of the time when they play no one is getting paid. Also military band members are not just performers, they are soldiers representing the USA and their branch of service.
 
I suspect this is one of those things where if we didn’t have it, proposing we created it would generate loads of complaints about it being not important or worth the expense but since we do have it, proposing we get rid of or reduce it would generate loads of complaints about it being an important tradition and worth the expense. A lot of the time, it would be the same people complaining in each case too.
 
Most of the time when they play no one is getting paid. Also military band members are not just performers, they are soldiers representing the USA and their branch of service.

Maybe Hillary can make Trump Czar of Military Bands and give him a fancy uniform.
 
Military band are soldiers, first and foremost. They complete all training that any other soldier completes. Reading the article carefully, they claim that the Army has 99 bands. So we are talking about a lot of people here. How much is the real difference between that number of soldiers and the musicians? Military bands have a lot of equipment, so does an infantry unit or a cavalry unit. I was field artillery. How expensive were our warheads that never got used?

These soldiers usually travel by bus and van. They play at parades, schools, and events.


Sent from my iPad Pro 12.9" AT&T using Tapatalk
 
Military band are soldiers, first and foremost. They complete all training that any other soldier completes. Reading the article carefully, they claim that the Army has 99 bands. So we are talking about a lot of people here. How much is the real difference between that number of soldiers and the musicians? Military bands have a lot of equipment, so does an infantry unit or a cavalry unit. I was field artillery. How expensive were our warheads that never got used?

These soldiers usually travel by bus and van. They play at parades, schools, and events.


Sent from my iPad Pro 12.9" AT&T using Tapatalk

There are just over 30 active Army bands. I presume the rest are reserve or National Guard:

Army National Guard Bands
 
There are just over 30 active Army bands. I presume the rest are reserve or National Guard:

Army National Guard Bands

Okay, so are you wanting them abolished? What's your position on them? Is this amount of a money excessive for service members and their equipment when compared to a field artillery unit? The military band is made up of soldiers. They still qualify with their rifles. They still do PT. They still do everything that ever other soldier does.
 
Look, no one loves old school military culture more than me, it has been sad seeing it wither away, but the fact is that todays kids are not buying into it much. Also we are a failing superpower that needs to put what money we can find to good use, some of this old time super power whoopty doo needs to go away ASAP. Also these cats dont tend to be all that good, so dont give me a song and dance about how lucky I am to sometimes be able to see them.

Let's put Trump on this.

Seriously.

If the generals can persuade the SoD that it is worth more than alternative spending? They are the ones guaranteeing security and should be held responsible, if it does not work.
 
According to Pentagon data from fiscal 2015, the last time the Defense Department did a full inventory, the military spends at least $437 million a year on musicians, their instruments, special uniforms, travel and related costs.
That marks a steady rise from previous years, even as the Pentagon insists the services have cut a sizable number of musical troupes. By some official estimates, it's now spending $100 million more a year than in 2011.
The Army, by far, has the largest musical contingent, with a total of 99 bands and approximately 4,350 total musical personnel across its active-duty, National Guard and Reserve forces. The Air Force is second, with 15 bands and 800 personnel, followed by the Marine Corps with 12 bands and 750 personnel and the Navy's 11 bands and 600 musicians.

With 6500 musicians, that's about 0.5% or 1 in every 200 members of the US military (or roughly one band for every 10,300 troops).
At $437 million, it's a bit over $67,000 per musician per year for salary, instruments, special uniforms, travel and related costs.

In case anyone's interested :lol:
 
With 6500 musicians, that's about 0.5% or 1 in every 200 members of the US military (or roughly one band for every 10,300 troops).
At $437 million, it's a bit over $67,000 per musician per year for salary, instruments, special uniforms, travel and related costs.

In case anyone's interested :lol:

Does that sound even close to right to you? I think $67K does not even pay for an E-4 before the first dollar of band cost is added in. No wonder the Pentagon has been told to recount how much the bands cost.
 
Does that sound even close to right to you? I think $67K does not even pay for an E-4 before the first dollar of band cost is added in. No wonder the Pentagon has been told to recount how much the bands cost.

Dunno - I don't even know what an E-4 is. I'm just a compulsive number checker. Pretty much have to be to maintain some sanity in these forums: You get people posting half a dozen 'outrage' threads about schools or universities or Trump supporters or whatever, and you can spot the wise folk by the way they ask about ratios and percentages rather than leaping to hasty generalizations.

$67,000 per musician doesn't sound excessive. 1 musician per 200 troops might be.
 
Does that sound even close to right to you? I think $67K does not even pay for an E-4 before the first dollar of band cost is added in. No wonder the Pentagon has been told to recount how much the bands cost.

The base salary of an E-4 is $29,796 per year. BAS is $4419 per year. In the US Army, band members enter the service as E-3 which is a significant step up in pay and advancement opportunity as an E-1. They are paid the same as every other service member at that grade. Like every other service member they are issued their first uniforms, then given the same exact allowance that every other enlisted service member gets.
 
Dunno - I don't even know what an E-4 is. I'm just a compulsive number checker. Pretty much have to be to maintain some sanity in these forums: You get people posting half a dozen 'outrage' threads about schools or universities or Trump supporters or whatever, and you can spot the wise folk by the way they ask about ratios and percentages rather than leaping to hasty generalizations.

$67,000 per musician doesn't sound excessive. 1 musician per 200 troops might be.

An E-4 is the US Army rank of Specialist (equivalent of a Corporal). It is a step above PFC (Private First Class) and below SGT (Sergeant).
 
Dunno - I don't even know what an E-4 is. I'm just a compulsive number checker. Pretty much have to be to maintain some sanity in these forums: You get people posting half a dozen 'outrage' threads about schools or universities or Trump supporters or whatever, and you can spot the wise folk by the way they ask about ratios and percentages rather than leaping to hasty generalizations.

$67,000 per musician doesn't sound excessive. 1 musician per 200 troops might be.

E-4's (think corporal) with 6 years in service make $29,127.60 per year base pay.

Army Base Pay and Basic Pay Chart | goarmy.com
 
Trump will eliminate baseline budgeting which is the #1 driver of military waste.

How can you predict Trump's actions?
 
Okay, so are you wanting them abolished? What's your position on them? Is this amount of a money excessive for service members and their equipment when compared to a field artillery unit? The military band is made up of soldiers. They still qualify with their rifles. They still do PT. They still do everything that ever other soldier does.

Actually, I am ambivalent on the matter, so my opinion is up for grabs.
 
How can you predict Trump's actions?

How can anyone predict anyone's actions? Trump says he wants to end baseline budgeting. It's within his purview as executive.
 
When I was working at embassies the ability for us to have a US military band perform at diplomatic functions was always a useful tool. Sometimes it was the difference between a senior official coming or him just sending an underling. And we always had to make a strong case in order for them to come. We were required to schedule a public outreach performance in addition to any fancy official gigs we wanted them to do.
 
Look, no one loves old school military culture more than me, it has been sad seeing it wither away, but the fact is that todays kids are not buying into it much. Also we are a failing superpower that needs to put what money we can find to good use, some of this old time super power whoopty doo needs to go away ASAP. Also these cats dont tend to be all that good, so dont give me a song and dance about how lucky I am to sometimes be able to see them.

Let's put Trump on this.

Seriously.

I have been privileged to hear military bands over the years and maybe they aren't the Philharmonic orchestra, but they are enjoyable. BUT. . . that does seem to be a lot of money for something that should be voluntary, and yes, those who invite the band to play at their various venues should pay the expense for them to come. On the other hand, I have older friends and relatives who as WWII vets recounted how much it meant to them to have that short break from the war while being entertained by USO troops and the Glenn Miller Orchestra.

So I'm a bit ambivalent on this one. Military bands have been such a long tradition and have such a rich history. But they should not exist at the expense of military strength and protection of our fighting forces.
 
How can anyone predict anyone's actions? Trump says he wants to end baseline budgeting. It's within his purview as executive.

That's why I was asking. You did claim "Trump will eliminate baseline budgeting which is the #1 driver of military waste," so I am asking why no one but you can predict Trumps actions?

Of course, if you are conducting a forum symposium on circular logic, please disregard my question and carry on.
 
I have been privileged to hear military bands over the years and maybe they aren't the Philharmonic orchestra, but they are enjoyable. BUT. . . that does seem to be a lot of money for something that should be voluntary, and yes, those who invite the band to play at their various venues should pay the expense for them to come. On the other hand, I have older friends and relatives who as WWII vets recounted how much it meant to them to have that short break from the war while being entertained by USO troops and the Glenn Miller Orchestra.

So I'm a bit ambivalent on this one. Military bands have been such a long tradition and have such a rich history. But they should not exist at the expense of military strength and protection of our fighting forces.

The dances used to be very important too. I remember visiting an elaborate hall at Fort Ord that had been built with soldier contributions (think many years of fundraising/special events)......in the 1950's. It had not been used in years, the Army wanted to bulldoze it, but a bunch of old guys who had decades before danced in it and given money objected.

Look, we need to move on. Now days the bands are mostly sent to play minor events that nobody cares enough about to be willing to pay for a band (actually would probably rather have a DJ) under the banner "community relations". I understand the desire to link back to old traditions but if we are going to spend 3/4 billion dollars a year (or whatever it is, I dont believe the $440 million figure) lets make sure we are paying for something the people (particularly soldiers) actually want.
 
The dances used to be very important too. I remember visiting an elaborate hall at Fort Ord that had been built with soldier contributions (think many years of fundraising/special events)......in the 1950's. It had not been used in years, the Army wanted to bulldoze it, but a bunch of old guys who had decades before danced in it and given money objected.

Look, we need to move on. Now days the bands are mostly sent to play minor events that nobody cares enough about to be willing to pay for a band (actually would probably rather have a DJ) under the banner "community relations". I understand the desire to link back to old traditions but if we are going to spend 3/4 billion dollars a year (or whatever it is, I dont believe the $440 million figure) lets make sure we are paying for something the people (particularly soldiers) actually want.

It's hard to argue with this.

But then again, it just wouldn't be the same with "Hail to the Chief" on a boom box instead of the military band and colors when the President arrives at a domestic or foreign base. How to strike just the right balance? It is a puzzlement.
 
Back
Top Bottom