Beta blockers - reducing the stigma
Greetings, I wanted to share a recent article that I came across about beta blockers: Here is the article.This was written by Ann Grogan, an amateur pianist whose performance anxiety was getting in the way of her being able to perform for a teacher and thus benefit from lessons - something she very much wanted to do. She tried everything, even taking a course on performance psychology from Noa Kageyama, a wonderful expert on the subject. But she still could not control the nerves - and then she discovered propanolol.
She brings up some very good points about the unfounded stigma around this option for people who simply wish to continue performing without extreme anxiety compounded by physical symptoms of shaking, etc.
My favorite line: "There is a notable amount of online stigma and flamboyant opposition toward beta blockers expressed by some musicians, but not by doctors. Yet I read estimates that up to 60% of orchestra members might take them before performances - so I wondered why the stigma? "
It's an interesting exploration of the topic, from a different perspective.
Tweet
Replies (208)
Contractors for years have openly discriminated against injured musicians, to the point that nearly every professional musician that I have known that has suffered some sort of injury that could have affected their career has concealed it, and sought medical treatment as discreetly as possible so that no one would know about their condition. One soloist I know sometimes needed to wear a wrist brace to prevent re-injuring themselves, but their management team refused to let them wear it in public at or near the performance venue.
But I guess I'd rather not know whether a performer meditates or takes a beta blocker, or visits a domintrix before going on stage. If a performer gives me a cold, clean, yet detached performance (these are all beta-blocker stereotypes I've heard, which I'm agnostic on), I'm going to place that responsibility on the performer. It belongs to the performer, or the constellation of performers and their interactions, which create the performance. Maybe I find out a performer took a beta blocker, and I didn't like the performance, and I attribute the cause of my reaction to the beta blocker, but maybe the performer just plays that way.
Better for me to give the benefit of the doubt, and then trust my own experience enough as being my best guess of reality. But yeah, I need to understand that there's no gluten in my sausage, whatever that means.
I recently saw an article regarding selecting candidates at a conservatory. Nerves were a factor they considered.
Now, one might point out that medications help with nerves. However, they are also documented and people want it to be secret.
There is also the competative factor. People want to hinder their competition so they give the meds a bad name.
There is the whole dependence and control bit too. People do not want to be dependent on things, they want control.
Using beta-blockers to help deal with performance anxiety, under the care of your family physician who presumably prescribed them to you, is not really any different than using a shoulder rest to help keep your violin in the right place. It's just a personal decision.
All such things have their place in moderation.
"But I guess I'd rather not know whether a performer meditates or takes a beta blocker, or visits a domintrix before going on stage."
__________________________
Absent that, much of the drama goes away. Doesn't successful stage performance need to incorporate elements of drama?
"Using beta-blockers to help deal with performance anxiety, under the care of your family physician who presumably prescribed them to you, is not really any different than using a shoulder rest to help keep your violin in the right place. It's just a personal decision."
_______________________
A short while back, physicians over-prescribed addictive painkillers. Didn't work out all that well, from the perspective of hindsight.
Beta blockers are a lot newer on the scene than opioids. I'm thinkin' that there is still much to be learned.
So the question morphs into, to what extent should we try to alter people, either by drugs or therapy, to try to make them more "normal"?
Are "outside the envelope" thinkers more of an asset, or more something to be corrected?
The bigger work is to transform society and the culture of classical music to take the competitive pressure off an artistic endeavor, so that maybe a more compassionate society might produce people that don't feel such frightening anxiety on sharing the thing they love. I have more thoughts on this than I can probably coherently and briskly articulate here.
I could see the logic of banning beta blockers in competitions as a form of doping, but people sacrifice and self-lacerate for all kinds of passion projects, and often produce great art. It's all quite irrational. Bizet, I believe only slept a few scant hours per night, and he died in his early 30s. Was that drive of his both his downfall and the source of his creativity? Hard to say, but I don't believe in taking a paternalistic approach of protecting people from themselves if they want to sacrifice for their art (even if my framing might sound hyperbolic).
I was first hit with stage fright (as bow shakes) at age 17 during the simplest, lowest risk solo violin performance in the 3 years that I had been doing them. I didn't feel nervous, in fact, I had been concertmaster of my high school orchestra for 3 years. I had no idea what was going on, but they never went away in performance after that until I learned about beta blockers at a chamber music workshop 26 years later.
What a difference that made - I could bow all the way to the frog in solo performance without a shake with only 5mg of the drug.
And then, 40 years after that, with age-related essential tremor hindering my bowing, when even just practicing alone, I found the same little dose of beta blocker will suppresses the bow shakes from that as well (actually my internist told me about it and renewed my Rx). So I used it for weekly orchestra rehearsals (and occasional chamber music sessions) since then.
I could write a small book of beta blocker experience - in fact, I have (in a sense) with earlier posts at maestronet.com and here over the past 24 years.
http://test.woodwind.org/clarinet/BBoard/read.html?f=20&i=68&t=68
The big argument is the restriction of performance-enhancing drugs, which are the source of ongoing major controversy in the sporting world (Lance Armstrong, Russian skaters, etc.), and a number of folks think that Beta-blockers fall into this category. The opposing viewpoint is that Beta-blockers can suppress the physical outcomes of the "fight or flight" syndrome, but they aren't going to make someone magically better. If the technique, musicianship, and consistency aren't there, not having the side-effects of being nervous isn't going to somehow generate a good performance.
If Juilliard starts requiring its auditioners to pee in a cup to be tested for beta-blockers (among other chemicals that might be helping a student such as Ritalin or Adderol or marijuana), I guess that's their prerogative as a private institution. Personally I hope they don't do that.
And I know relatively little about beta-blockers and their biochemistry, but what little I have read suggests they're not habit-forming in the same way as, say, oxycodone. And as far as beta-blockers being a lot newer than opioids, I think both have been with us long enough (propranolol since the 1960s; oxycodone since the 1930s) that we should have a pretty good idea of long-term adverse outcomes. Sometimes adverse effects do take a while to surface, as in the case of Vioxx.
With any such chemical intervention there will undoubtedly be some finite level of abuse and a certain fraction of individuals who respond poorly or show unusual sensitivities or side-effects. That's why, in my previous post, I emphasized being under the care of one's physician when using beta-blockers, and keeping moderation as a guiding principle.
FWIW James Black, Nobel Prize in Medicine, 1988, for the discovery of propranolol.
It works very well although it can sometimes leave you a little flat feeling so you have to play a little more from your head than your heart. That said, not having a rush of shakes/tension and having to fight them while trying to perform, makes for a better show. I can relax and enjoy playing the music much more.
She married Bill Nuy The Science Guy, and apparently Bill applied for an annulment shortly thereafter. She is now deceased.
More information here, although I have not managed to dig up that old Violinist.com thread.
https://stanfordmag.org/contents/oboist-who-pulled-back-the-curtain
https://www.violinist.com/discussion/archive/4816/
The search box at the top of the page is not perfect but if you type "beta blockers" (with the quotation marks) or even "Blair Tindall" then you can find more than you were hoping for. Grab your popcorn and settle in to your favorite recliner!
For instance here's another blog post from Laurie from several years ago:
Even though they're only available by prescription, I suspect most physicians would be amenable to writing a scrip, if someone is healthy. Propranolol is frequently prescribed for anxiety, in general, even though I believe that's still an off-label use.
It may be labeled to expire in that short time, but I found that 20 year old pills still worked for me. BUT 5 years ago when I changed doctors I got a new years supply of 10mg pills that should last me until my 200th birthday.
Q: What do Deadheads say when they’re not on acid?
A: “This band sucks!”
Whether or not it is appropriate or necessary for you is an entirely different issue.
I imagine that forty years later, with hypertension more common in the population, the percentage of musicians prescribed beta blockers for purely medical reasons has risen.
I suspect nobody cares, other than perhaps people who would like to feel smug that they don't need them.
Also what should the policy be re kids?
My policy is never to discuss the use of beta blockers with minor students but if an adult (18+) asks about them, I will share my thoughts and suggest that they talk to their doctor if they want to pursue that avenue.
I suspect many teachers are not well acquainted with up-to-date best practices in performance psychology and therefore don't incorporate them into their teaching. Without overcoming the psychological component, a beta blocker's usefulness is likely to be limited.
Decades ago, when I was a teen, the use of Valium for high stakes auditions/competitions was not uncommon amongst preprofessional teens, from what I saw and my friends told me about. Those pills generally did NOT come from a prescription for that teen, I believe, and there were lots of trade-offs.
I don't think there is anything wrong with a teacher suggesting to a teen that they talk to a physician (or therapist) about their performance anxiety. I have no personal experience with whether a physician would agree to a beta blocker prescription for a teen. I am guessing the answer would be yes, since the evidence is strong that propranolol can help this form of anxiety l.
Our daughter just completed her conservatory admission process. Fortunately she does not have significant stage-fright issues. Had she, then the possibility of using beta blockers would have been a conversation that included her teacher (if even he was willing to discuss that) and our family physician in addition to my wife and me.
I think most minors are likely in the situation where other options for managing stage fright have not been explored to any significant degree. Often the issue doesn't even surface until the late teens. Still, it's an issue that should be under personal and parental control. If it's not legal to prescribe propranolol to a minor (I have no idea) for reasons of drug safety, then I would not seek to dispense that medicine to my child under the table. As Lyndon has reminded us, it's medicine and there are always some counter-indications.
Mary Ellen's policy sounds right to me. I would guess that for a teacher to have a conversation with a student about beta-blockers, especially in the absence of the parents, would be very awkward (at minimum) and potentially unethical, as one could well argue that it's beyond the sphere of what parents are expecting to happen during lessons. There are many subjects, where If a student asks a question or initiates a certain type of conversation, there will be the standard response "That's a subject that you should take up with your parents (or your doctor or your high school counselor)."
Greetings everyone!
Here is a blog I wrote about having a panic attack on stage and how beta blockers helped me perform again:
https://www.violinist.com/blog/laurie/20216/28795/
It certainly wasn't a casual decision. I wanted to write the story just to help people understand that sometimes it really is not possible to just "overcome yourself" with "hard work." Sometimes the "getting help" part IS the actually "overcoming yourself"!
One should never be blindly taking chemicals to manage issues in our life. It doesn't matter whether it's beta blockers or just a big cup of coffee to achieve the opposite result, causing your heart to race. I think students and other young people must be trying everything else first. Lots of performance experience. Lots of natural learning how to manage your stress. Only after doing that, should one consider something like a beta blocker.
The last time I reacted loudly when everybody jumped on the idea of this young woman just out of university taking beta blockers after having spent two years unable to perform due to the pandemic. Lots of performance experience first! Only after that, should you consider a beta blocker?
And let's say you know you're a really nervous performer and it just seems to be getting worse and you've got several auditions in the next few months that will determine the course of your livelihood ... not the longer period one might need to explore meditation and dietary changes and breathing exercises and books about golf or tennis and whatever else. The great thing about a beta-blocker is that it can potentially help you tomorrow if that is what you need.
However, I can still count on one hand the number of times I performed since I was 21. I am 53 now. I stopped playing the violin for 28 years. I don't get a lot of opportunities to perform. Maybe beta blockers will be a solution for me at some point, but not yet.
Frankly, I'm appalled that b-blockers have been lumped in with opioids, sedative hypnotics, prescription stimulants, and benzos in this thread. All of those medications are often habit forming and/or abused. B-blockers are not. We need to be careful of what we say or we risk seeding negative connotations toward b-blockers, which is unfair and may in fact worsen its stigma.
It's not exactly the same, but people argue about finger tapes for beginners, but they provide a response to a short-term need. Over the long term, we put in endless hours of scales, and refine our approach to intonation through performance and in many ways, until we start to develop a kind of solidity. We may never truly 'conquer' intonation or become 'perfect' in that sense, but there is a great pleasure in getting closer and closer.
I think there is a similar kind of pressure in bringing our imperfect selves to the forge of performance and seeing how that plays out, but violin is also hard enough as it is, and presumably we can rely on a crutch at times without committing to the crutch as an end in itself. (Although the anti-shoulder-rest people make the argument that the shoulder rest is a kind of crutch that should be dispensed with, but I'm happy to keep my shoulder rest, crutch or not)
Live and let live!
You should have been at the "stage fright" discussion at the 1977 San Diego Chamber Music Workshop that first evebibg. In addition to about 8 professional performers on stage in the round table discussion there were probably 200 musicians in the audience. Probably most of the professional musicians in San Diego as well a couple of dozen workshop participants. By the way, the professionals in the audience confirmed the opinions and experiences of the professionals here.
I don't think teachers would need to actively mention their existence. I'd bet that a student would ask proactively if they were interested in the possibility. I assume that a physician will conduct an appropriate evaluation to determine the safety of an occasional low dose of propranolol.
The world of classical music is intensely competitive; there's getting into music schools, auditioning for orchestras, any kind of paid gig, actual music competitions, and a whole lot more. On one hand, we live in an increasingly competitive world, where people take stimulants, or take small doses of psychedelic drugs, or meditate, just to get an edge at their boring corporate jobs, and then the more that gets normalized, the more the temperature gets turned up for the whole industry, and the higher the expectation gets. But then if you're in an industry that has turned so competitive, can you be blamed for joining in to keep your head above water? The use of steroids is prevalent in a ton of sports, or other kinds of doping, some of which are pretty harmless to the participants, and others that can have pretty grave health effects.
Us amateurs don't really have a lot riding on outcomes like people that have thrown their hats into the ring. I think it might be more interesting at least to open up the conversation, because at least it allows for frank discussions, and perhaps better informed decisions. I'm not sure how the discourse around steroids ends up affecting the rates that people use them; when you look at the stars of the latest Marvel movie, they are ALL obviously on steroids, and yet they all claim that merely by eating healthy and spending some time in the gym, they attain physiques in a few months that would have blown Sean Connery's 3rd place physique in 1953's Mr. Universe competition out of the water. If my source is legit, the rate of steroid use for highschoolers has actual decreased over the last 20 years. But I digress...
Because music is so high-pressure, a lot of secrets get kept, and some of these can be really destructive. A lot of musicians develop really serious injuries, and because of cultures of silence, they might just power through, or not feel like they can get help, and resources can be hard to come by. Why do musicians often seem to get away with abuse for years and years?
The use of beta-blockers seems to me to be pretty innocuous compared to some of the bigger issues in music. Sure, there are some well-studied side-effects, but they are pretty minimal. Just think about all the musicians in the past that could have been great performers, but couldn't deal with their nerves. Maybe a simple beta blocker at a key point could have made the difference for some of them to get their confidence back? Maybe they could have gone on to make some of our favorite recordings, or inspired the writing of concertos.
".. is not really any different than using a shoulder rest to help keep your violin in the right place. It's just a personal decision."
There is absolutely nothing easy about performing or auditioning on the highest professional level. Beta blockers aren’t magic. All they do is remove some of the physiological effects of performance anxiety. The musician still has to do the work, and still has to prepare psychologically as well.
It’s very easy for those whose entire livelihood does not hinge on an audition or a performance to describe some sort of shangri-la in which all musicians dig deep within themselves to solve all psychological difficulties, and perform with the purest of minds and bodies.
As for the idea that everyone will eventually be peer pressured into taking b-blockers, that made me laugh. They’ve been around for many decades and this hasn’t happened yet.
"In a US report in January 2010, a senior violin tutor from the University of Minnesota School of Music suggested that between 80 and 90 per cent of professional musicians take them before orchestral auditions."
https://www.thestrad.com/is-popping-pills-the-sure-way-to-beat-performance-nerves/3133.article
Just because 80% of musicians use b-blockers to deal with performance anxiety doesn't mean they were "peer-pressured" into doing so. They might use them simply because they work.
I'll bet at least 90% of musicians use toothpaste, too. How's that for an analogy, Bruce? Was it helpful in any non-rhetorical sense?
I was attempting to show you that your shoulder rest analogy was poor. Anyhow both of us used analogies, perhaps inappropriately, so let's move on.
And one pill makes you small
And the ones that mother gives you
Don't do anything at all
Go ask Alice..."
If such a high percentage of audition candidates take b-blockers, it’s because they find them effective in that uniquely stressful experience. In my experience that means nothing about the prevalence of medication use on a daily basis.
Hearing from my wife's fellow musicians about the prevalence of mental illness within the Orchestra, uncomfortable politics, etc., I would wonder if this pill popping is simply a symptom of a much bigger problem within this industry that needs to be dealt with in a more effective manner.
I did have one unique performance experience many years ago. We were to perform the Brahms horn trio and at one rehearsal we discussed our up coming performance and each of us had concerns about performance anxiety and its effects on us. The pianist worried about his hands, the horn player worried about controlling his wind and I had my 27-year long bout with bow shakes.
So I divided a 20mg Inderal pill into thirds - and everything worked fine. I think we may have done that at our final rehearsal too, to see if it would cause any difficulties (you cannot tell if the beta blocker is working for stress relief in the absence of the stressor).
I agree with Mary Ellen in that b-blockers are not magic pills. They will not improve any skill beyond whatever the musician already possesses. They are merely tools that will help the individual achieve THEIR highest potential. They will not enable them to become Joshua Bell or Hillary Hahn.
Steve, auditioning for a position in a professional orchestra IS a uniquely stressful experience. Don't insinuate that stress is stress. That's just too simplistic. Finally, I would take that Stad article with a grain of salt. Prescription practices have changed since 2010, and that quote was some unnamed person's opinion--completely anecdotal and lacking in facts.
As someone whose career has a significant public speaking component (in front of very large audiences), I'm honestly not sure what a beta blocker would do for me other than stopping my hand from trembling as I hold the clicker. You won't hear nervousness in my voice, nor do I feel particularly anxious -- it's just another work day -- and yet, my hand shakes. If I'm unprepared, I will of course feel considerably more nervous, but this doesn't especially seem to affect how much my hand shakes.
Now, the fact that my hands shake when I perform is obviously a MUCH bigger problem. They shake even when I'm totally unworried about the performance. They shake despite my having done quite a lot of performance psychology-type prep. At this point, it's quite possible that they shake as a learned response, since I've spent several decades of my existence with performance nerves.
Worrying about the shakes decreases the joy of what should be a fun hobby. I could argue that amateurs absolutely should be ENCOURAGED to talk to their physicians about beta blockers.
(My cardiologist is an extremely fine amateur violinist. I've never asked them the overly-personal question of whether they personally use beta blockers before performances, though.)
I had stressful job interviews back in the day. And I was nervous for my first few university lectures. And yet, even though neither my livelihood nor my future career depend on my violin playing, somehow I am the most intensely anxious -- by wide margin -- to play the violin before an audience. The intensity is similar to having encountered a rattlesnake or an angry hornet along my path. But more than that, it's a peculiarly (Mary Ellen said "uniquely") debilitating and devilish type of anxiety that erodes the basic physical processes of playing the violin. I can only imagine what I would feel like to have a job riding on my Don Juan excerpt (I've never tried playing that). I'm the CM of our local community orchestra. I do feel nerves before and during the performance, but there is "strength in numbers" and it's nothing like a solo performance. It's more like a little warmth that I can channel into concentrated effort -- totally different. It helps greatly that all my "CM solos" are typically simple things -- we'll never play Scheherazade.
I'm all for offering a benefit to those who truly need it so that they can compete as equals with the majority. However, in this case the majority are the pill takers and it is those who don't take the pill who are at a disadvantage. In a sense, this is like affirmative action. Yes, I approve of this - help the minority to compete as equals with the majority. However, in this case, the majority are the pill takers and those who don't take the pill are in the minority.
Sorry, but this isn't ethical.
At best, beta blockers allow someone whose physiological response to extreme stress cannot be mitigated by training, breathing, meditation, bananas, etc. to be able to function at the baseline of people who can.
How can you possibly argue that that isn't an advantage? I get a racing heart. I get a shaking right hand. Now, what if I were one of those individuals who had had a bad reaction to this pill. I am now at a disadvantage. A lot of people are really against the idea of medicating away symptoms like this. However, because of the current system where apparently 80 to 90% of people are taking this pill, people like me are now pressured to take this pill so that we can compete effectively.
Gene, if it's true that 80 to 90% of auditioners are taking this pill, we need a new "baseline".
Paul, whether or not the 80 to 90% is accurate, is beside the point. All indicators are that the majority of auditioners are medicated with this pill.
I'm reacting to an 80 to 90% post above. This was a comment made by Steve referencing a Strad article. You make a good point, Paul, about how these numbers could be wrong, but ....
"John Beder recently directed a documentary on performance anxiety called “Composed.” He surveyed over 5,000 classical musicians and found that 72 percent of the musicians in his study use or had used beta blockers."
My boy's behaviour improves immensely when we get him active and away from the screen! Yet, the teachers are now actively putting the kids in front of screens ( chrome books), and teaching the kids directly from their computers. Sigh .. Anyhow, this is a different topic.
2,122 orchestral musicians surveyed. 27% used propranolol -- 19% daily, 11% regularly, 70% infrequently. (Another study that explored reasons for use indicated that 19% took propanolol for a medical condition, which would match the "daily use" figure from the 1986 survey. I wasn't able to casually track down a citation, though.)
Breaking that down... 27% of 2,122 is 573. Of those, 11% use propranolol regularly -- 3% of the whole, or 63 people. And 70% have infrequent use -- 19% of the whole, or 401 people.
Note that this survey was done by ICSOM, and the respondents were musicians who were in ICSOM orchestras. So this is the top of the profession. However, this was their poll; it was not a scientific study.
The survey done for the "Composed" documentary is similarly not a scientific study and has not been published in a journal, AFAIK.
I think it's probably safe to assume that ICSOM members have already done everything possible to deal with the mental side of reducing performance anxiety, and that the use of a beta blocker is not some form of laziness or character weakness. (However, it's also true that in 1986 we knew FAR less about the science of performance than we do now.)
I'm a fan of better living through chemistry, although obviously all medication has its drawbacks, too.
Furthermore, What you have affectively done here is exclude any individual who actually chooses not to take the medication, or can't take the medication due to complications, or personal philosophy/religion etc.
I really don't see the distinction between this and drug use in sports, aside from the obvious fact that the side effects may be less severe with beta blockers. Yes, both industries are highly cutthroat. However, they aren't just cutthroat to those who are taking medications of some sort; they are also cutthroat to those who are not.
That's the thing--to a certain extent, those things do not become excessive enough to hurt a person's performance, and managing it is one of those skills one develops. What we're talking about is a drug to help with the most excessive cases, where despite all the training, coaching, and knowledge, a player is unable to mitigate excessive tremors, sweating, and other symptoms beyond the norm. It can't eliminate what we colloquially call "the shakes" completely, as the dosage to accomplish that would be toxic.
A safe dose gets a person to the baseline of humans who are able to manage it without drugs, while putting one at risk for fatigue, weight gain, dizziness, depression, and sleep issues, among other side effects that can hurt one's performance skills in the long term. But it certainly would not do anything for one's technical command of the instrument, our knowledge of the score, or ability to communicate with our peers--none of these things comes in pill form.
This thread has largely avoided talking about the problems that taking beta blockers can introduce, especially for people in the population who have hypotension or are diabetic. Like any drug, they present a risk, and intake has to be carefully managed, just like painkillers.
As for equating the use of beta blockers to doping in sports--that's not even remotely accurate. The violinist Jascha Heifetz and the tennis player Andre Agassi both relied on twice-yearly cortisone shots to mitigate pain-related issues. What's next? Painkillers not allowed? I can't use a neck strap to hold up my clarinet or saxophone? Glasses aren't allowed? Itzhak Perlman can't use a wheelchair because it's not fair he gets to sit when everyone else has to stand?
This has been fun, but apparently done nothing to reduce the STIGMA.
I repeat, I'm all for helping those individuals who truly need it. However, it sounds to be like it's being abused. And therefore, the stigma is justified.
Bruce, try repeating the 80-90% statistic a few more times. That's how to make something true these days. And even if that is true, your claim that beta blockers are "abused by a majority In an audition setting" is unwarranted. There is a difference between using a drug (even if by a lot of people) and abusing it. You're not qualified to say whether anyone using propranolol is abusing it. Even "borrowing" a pill or two from a friend -- while illegal -- is not necessarily drug abuse.
I think if one person cites a majority figure and then uses inflammatory and inaccurate language to describe what they are doing (the expression ‘drug abuse’ is extremely rude in my opinion) then there would seem to be quite a high probability that the individual needs to rethink their argument.
I had hoped that the sensible use of beta blockers had lost its stigma in a profession as valuable and yet so terribly hard for so many people. Sadly this does not appear to be the case so I think I will just toddle off and worry about global warming.
Cheers,
Buri
I used these expressions which are much softer.
" However, it sounds to be like it's being abused."
"plenty of performers, abuse all sorts of different chemicals"
"This is blatant abuse of this chemical "
"but appears to be abused by a majority In An audition setting."
Lots of people also overuse pain killers like Tylenol etc. Therefore, its intended purpose is being abused. Lots of people overuse alcohol. Lots of people overuse caffeine. In this sense, the chemical is being abused.
When you string the words together as you are doing Stephen and Paul: "drug abuse", this sounds much worse. It makes a person sound like an addict, like a person you see with a needle in their arm. I never used that expression in this thread.
Stephen, what you are now doing is abusive. You are misusing my words and misquoting me.
And, once again Stephen and Paul, you are starting a personal attack rather than simply debating the topic of this thread. We've been here before several times in the last couple of years.
Medicate because you have a genuine problem, and not out of fear that you're going to be left behind. This is what the industry is doing to these musicians!!
When I note that the opinion that a practice done by a majority of professionals with good reason is an abuse of a chemical (or however you want not say what you are saying), then that opinion might need reassessing is not a personal attack. It is a reasonable observation that does not insult your intelligence or malign your character in anyway. I would respectfully suggest that trying to qualify my comments as a personal attack outside the bounds of this debate is actually far more personal response.
I do believe yours sentiments and intenstions in this area are genuine and full of concern but even just looking at the wording of your last message it does not seem like you have a true understanding of the situation (Sorry. That is personal). In particular ‘Pressured beyond belief to achive, they are chasing every bit of edge they can get.’ I think the huge number of musicians you are so blithely talk about in this way would not be too happy about this kind of commentary. Musicians work hard, they make choices, Smometimes they are pressured beyond belief, sometimes not at all. It is a vast spectrum, not a one size fits all situation. They are doing there best to get a job like anyone else but not by constantly thinking that they want to beat the next person. They would just like to be treated fairly as their talent deserves. Musicians are surprisingly supportive and friendly with each other most of the time. They are not on a constant search for ways to beat out the competition.
I would also note that in your response to Paul and I you explained and justified the term ‘abuse’
by citing examples of drugs and alcohol as substances that are abused. This does not seem to hold up since there is no evidence whatsoever that this 80% take excessive quanties, and are addicted. Throughout this thread it here has been constant references to medical supervision. There doesn’t seem too be any analogy here at all.
Cheers,
Buri
Still I wouldn't have thought anyone deliberately rude and obtuse, until Lyndon chimes in with his characteristically insensitive remarks.
I am reacting to Steve Jones comment about AUDITIONERS I am specifically objecting to their use by what is apparently a majority in an AUDITION setting. Don't attempt for second to argue that individuals in an audition are not chasing whatever edge they can to get the coveted seat in an orchestra.
Please note that beta blockers are actually disallowed in certain sports.
https://www.sportintegrity.ch/en/anti-doping/prevention/education/mobile-lesson/p1-beta-blockers#:~:text=Affected%20sports,%2C%20darts%2C%20golf%20and%20snooker.
"In a US report in January 2010, a senior violin tutor from the University of Minnesota School of Music suggested that between 80 and 90 per cent of professional musicians take them before orchestral auditions." - Steve Jones
Here is the article that Steve was referencing: https://www.thestrad.com/is-popping-pills-the-sure-way-to-beat-performance-nerves/3133.article
I am specifically reacting to this. I have used the expression multiple time here: "IF THIS IS TRUE"
It is not possible to develop an addiction to propranolol.
It’s worth pointing out that every professional musician in this discussion as well as nearly all the amateurs who are most closely adjacent to professional musicians
(including the single poster with medical training) are in agreement on the use of beta blockers. This is actually a degree of unanimity that seldom occurs on this website and should be noted.
(if you’re going to shout at me, I would appreciate the use of my proper name.)
This is not the reference I had in mind, but you stated in 2017: "My audition days are long in the past, but when I was on the circuit, a significant percentage of musicians were taking them for auditions. "
https://www.violinist.com/discussion/thread.cfm?page=761
When were you auditioning in the 70s or 80s? Beta blockers would be much more mainstream now.
Quoting you again: " It's an unnatural situation, ultra high stakes, with little relationship to actually doing the job"
Guys, this is where I am coming from when I say: chasing whatever edge they can.
My opinion is anecdotal as is the opinion you are basing your argument on. However, mine was derived from personal observation and experience. My audition days were from approximately 1984 to 1995.
I find it fascinating that you are so stuck on this argument that the use of beta blockers somehow provides an unfair advantage to people taking auditions. This is an opinion which I have heard expressed by zero people who have actually taken professional auditions, whether they themselves use beta blockers or not.
If the 80% to 90% is true, of course no auditioners are going to express this opinion. The other 10 to 20% will be silent not wanting to get into trouble as I am with everybody right now. :) :)
https://www.musicianshealthcollective.com/blog/2016/8/24/follow-up-on-the-musicians-health-survey-with
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1MQV7zwp04
Mary Ellen, What does stage fright do to your tone quality, and focus, and therefore, your capacity to properly interpret the music that you performing? To a certain extent the majority of us suffer from some level of stage fright. However, I think it's reasonable to argue that only a minority can call it "crippling stage fright". Nonetheless, a young person preparing for an all important audition in an orchestra they want to play in, will be chasing every bit of edge so that they can win that audition. Of course, they're now gonna be tempted to try that pill.
You are correct, Mary Ellen, I've never been in the orchestra audition circuit. However, if I were to look at this from the perspective of an adjudicator, I wouldn't necessarily be looking for a musician who was brilliant and soloistic. I would be seeking a musician who is musical, controlled, and precise. Isn't this exactly the advantage that the beta blockers are giving people? Stage fright takes that precision away from you. It takes away quality tone. Therefore, for the individuals it benefits, the beta blockers are giving you back that control, and precision that you're losing from the stage fright.
This is why I'm talking about abuse from the other 40+% . Since we all to a certain extent suffer from stage fright, Aren't those other individuals now going to be tempted to chase a drug that is not appropriate for them? And this is the real reason why the majority of individuals allegedly, are using this drug in auditions?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1MQV7zwp04
Sympathetic, balanced, nuanced.
Medicate because you have a genuine problem, and not out of fear that you're going to be left behind. This is what the industry is doing to these musicians!!"
Let's not get carried away. It's simply a competitive world--just like it always has been. I don't think the (classical) industry is "doing anything" to musicians.
People just want to get a gig, a way to make a living and pay the mortgage. They want to put their best foot forward and sound like the musician they really are.
One thing people have to realize (I think I've pointed this out many times in the past) is that it's not always an either-or situation: Either you're a nervous musician that doesn't really belong on the stage or you're not.
Nerves are capricious--you can go for years without them, and suddenly get hit with them. It can depend on other factors going on in your life, financial and otherwise.
I've taken beta blockers here and there. Are they very effective? I think it's hard to say, actually. They seemed very subtle to me, and I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of it was a placebo effect.
Is there any research on this? Maybe give one group a BB and the other a placebo.
"I think it's reasonable to argue that only a minority can call it 'crippling stage fright'. That's a conclusion that is not based on any type of scientific process. In other words, it's just conjecture.
The article that Steve linked said that 72% of musicians have TRIED beta blockers. That's going to put a very hard upper bound on the number who have used them routinely for a specific application such as job auditions.
Finally, Mary Ellen already (openly / bravely) described the circumstances under which she has used a beta blocker. From her remarks I inferred that she used it when she felt she needed it, and I presume that she has a prescription from her physician for that.
You can call this conjecture if you want, but the reality is, you can't offer a countering statistic with any greater credibility.
You're discerning between managing a problem and gaining an edge. Having taken the drug, in my experience, it will NOT give you an edge in the sense that other performance-enhancing drugs will.
For example, anabolic steroids will make you stronger than you ordinarily would have been. EPO can make you a better cyclist than you would have been otherwise.
Beta blockers don't actually make you better at anything. They won't take you above and beyond what you have achieved in practice and in your studies. If you can't play Mozart with good taste, or choose poor fingerings or bowing, it won't help you. If you have a habit of rushing dotted rhythms, you still will. If you simply can't play the triplets in Don Juan fast enough, you still won't.
The concept of fairness is a rabbit hole. In conservatory, I knew kids whose parents were able to afford mega-bucks old Italian instruments. Some started at 3 or 4. Some had famous musician parents.
Some could afford to spend summers at expensive music camps. Do things like this make for an unfair playing field?
While we're in the rabbit hole, what about having jet lag from flying across the country to an audition?
Drinking coffee to get going for an earlier audition than you would normally get up?
In the end, what's important to the typical musician? Fairness...or survival?
Sure, wouldn't it be great if life was perfectly fair and every aspect a level playing field?
I'm trying to evaluate the degree of performance anxiety in the general public. I'm trying to find a statistic that tells us how many people suffer from debilitating anxiety when they're up in front of the public. The best statistic I've been able to find is 7% of public speakers.
Let me emphasize that I'm not equating these drugs with beta blockers!! I'm expressing it in this way to Make the point that you don't need to try something to understand.
You are taking a chemical that impacts heart rate, blood pressure, and by extension, the rate at which oxygen and other nutrients are being sent into your brain and the rest of your body. Now, perhaps this is completely harmless for most people, but… This is not something I'm willing to experiment with.
People get nervous in circumstances in which there is a lot at stake. Such as violent crime, etc. There is a whole lot at stake in the audition. It can be tye difference between pursuing music, or having to do something else. And music is something they have strived for for most of their life.
The wording of questions in surveys matters. Here, you'll note the use of would consider and not currently use.
A diagram shows that of the musicians surveyed, 37% had tried beta blockers and found them very effective, 29% had tried and found them somewhat effective, 6% had tried and didn't find them effective, 26% hadn't tried them, and the remainder didn't answer. Those stats indicate that about half the musicians had tried them and found them at least somewhat effective.
I'd love to see cross-tabs for severity of performance anxiety and those results, as well as a cross-tab for first experience of performance anxiety. It'd also be really interesting to see how it breaks down by instrument. But the key piece of data that is missing from the article is when did the musician last take a beta blocker? and what for?
There's definitely some theorizing involved here. This is a survey of people who are already in ICSOM positions, and statistically, nearly all of them would be tenured. Many of them may not have taken an audition in decades. The fact that they would consider taking a beta blocker now for a theoretical audition is functionally irrelevant to the state of the world. We do see the occasional bit of reshuffling, but it's not a routine occurrence for most ICSOM musicians.
The choice of the word "consider" is terrible to begin with. What does it mean to "consider"? Is it a five-second thought that's immediately discarded? Is that a consultation with a physician about a prescription? Is it going to look for the old prescription bottle in your bathroom so you have it hand if you decide you want to take one? A lot of people are going to answer "Yeah, I'd give it a thought."
Heck, Bruce, your list of reasons for rejecting taking a beta blocker counts as "considering" taking them!
It makes me wonder a lot about the quality of the survey itself. Good primary researchers don't word questions that way, quite bluntly. (I've worked with enough primary research scientists professionally -- to field surveys and write about the data -- to have at least somewhat informed opinions.)
I can think of various professional acquaintances who have acknowledged use of beta blockers for auditions, but who don't normally use them.
On the other hand, I've known numerous amateurs -- many of them physicians! -- who routinely use beta blockers for performances. For them, being nervous makes it less fun to perform, and they want to perform and do it well and enjoy it. Getting a prescription is relatively straightforward for most, and if it doesn't work or has unpleasant side-effects, well, the stakes are low.
For most such people, it probably amounts to no more than 50 mg of propranolol in a year, which is a daily dose for plenty of people who use it to control hypertension.
What I'm reading on this thread is a lot of opinions from people who aren't professionals and haven't had to take job auditions expounding on morality.
Maybe walk in a professional's shoes first.
Here is an explanation of how every musician in the San Antonio Symphony won a chair in the orchestra. This process is similar in every professional orchestra in North America, though the bigger ones have more applicants and require a more rigorous screening process before candidates come to the audition. My perspective is that of a member of the string audition committee as well as a former audition candidate myself.
Say we had an opening in a string section due to a retirement or a resignation, or perhaps a sabbatical year for a staff musician. The management placed an ad in the International Musician (union newspaper) and these days, online as well. Musicians who were interested in taking this audition sent their resumes to our personnel manager, who then passed the resumes along in batches to the members of the string audition committee for screening.
Screening the resumes is a kindness to the candidates. It does nobody any good to encourage them to spend hundreds of dollars on airfare, a hotel, restaurant meals, all for the purpose of taking an audition which they have no chance of winning. That being said, while larger orchestras have a rigorous screening process due to the number of applicants, we tended to invite most candidates if they had prior professional experience, had attended a name music school and/or studied with a name teacher, or had already subbed with us. Our history of years of pay cuts and threats to our existence made us a less attractive job despite our widespread and deserved reputation for musical excellence, so where other orchestras might have to whittle down hundreds of applicants to have 50 or 60 in attendance at an audition, we were fortunate in recent years when we had 25 candidates present at an audition for one job.
All of these hopeful future colleagues traveled to San Antonio at their own expense. The lucky ones had a friend in the orchestra they could stay with, but the cost still added up. This is in addition to any coaching candidates may have sought out in advance with knowledgeable teachers who charge commensurate fees.
In any professional orchestra, an audition list (required solos and orchestral repertoire) will be sent well in advance to the candidates, who will likely spend five to six hours a day for one to two months prior to the audition practicing the material on the list. Incidentally, this level of practicing is much easier to maintain if one is a young musician recently out of school, without students or other professional commitments, and without a family. This is why I never considered taking auditions for another job during the Symphony bankruptcy of 2003 - 2004--in addition to my husband's job here in San Antonio, we had three young children whom I would have had to neglect, as well as needing to give up everything else I was doing at the time that brought in money, in order to practice.
On the day of the audition, the candidates were assigned a time slot - five or six per hour - and given a warmup room when they sign in. There was a very large screen between the candidate and the audition committee; as is accepted practice, our auditions were "blind" in the first round and often in later rounds too if we had reason to believe one or more of the candidates are known to us. A monitor (another member of the orchestra) sat on stage with the candidate in order to answer questions or relay them to the audition committee so there is no voice identification (male or female?) possible.
The audition committee selected from the list the solo and excerpts that we wanted to hear in the first round - usually about four excerpts from the ten or twelve on the list - and each candidate in turn was brought from their warmup room to the stage to play an audition lasting from seven to ten minutes.
At the end of each hour, the audition committee voted on the candidates they would like to hear again in a subsequent round - this usually ended up being three to five musicians total - and everyone else heard the dreaded "thank you very much" and went back to the hotel to pack their bags for home.
The lucky few got to play another round, and then perhaps two or three of them played another, and so on, until the audition committee had selected a winner OR until the audition committee determined that none of the candidates on that particular day had demonstrated the level we seek, and we ended up with a no-hire audition. Nobody likes a no-hire audition, not the personnel manager, not the audition committee, and certainly not the candidates themselves, but this is how professional orchestras maintain a level of excellence. Sometimes it happened that a very good candidate simply had a bad day, and they came back to our next audition and won. We liked that.
If you have figured out that it's possible to spend hundreds of dollars on an audition, play for perhaps eight minutes, and find yourself on an airplane heading home only to continue repeating this process until you either win a job or give up, congratulations, you have just understood my point. Every staff musician on stage with the San Antonio Symphony, with the exception of a few emergency one-year appointments (who had no future with the SAS without winning such an audition down the road) endured this process.
I was also trying to point out how obvious it is to see in many individuals, at a very young age, who will be comfortable in front of people performing. Some individuals naturally thrive in public performance, some just get by, and others completely shut down.
Anyhow, I'm driving right now, and I can't Fully read your essay. I stopped after the first paragraph.
Stage fright affects a lot of performers, even extremely experienced and talented ones. Katy Perry has disclosed she takes propranolol for every performance. Robert Downey Jr. cheerfully told the audience he'd taken a beta blocker for his Golden Globes speech. And these folks didn't even need fine motor control for their performances.
I mean, sure, it would be great if people didn't find one-off high-pressure events stressful, but that's not how people work. And sure, it'd be great if there were plenty of jobs for all musicians and there were no stress involved in getting those jobs -- but that's not how the world works, and that's not going to change.
Personally, I wouldn't negatively regard any job candidate using a beta blocker for the interview process, even though that's clearly far less stressful than something like an orchestra audition. If medication allows people to be at their best, great. People caffeinate, take ADHD medication, etc. That's their personal business, not mine.
Sorry for the sloe reply. The comment about global warming had absolutely no connection with any previous discussions we have had. I honestly do not remeber anything connected with it so I can only apologize if I have inadvertently taken an offensive personal dig at you. The point I was making (apparently very badly) was that in my opinion the issue has been over dramatized and is not really significant in the general scheme of things.
Most musicians are reasonably intelligent and make informed choices about using them or not. They do not give an edge in terms of abilty and general performance/. The stigma associated with injury and related loss of livelihood is a far more serious issue to my mind.
Cheers,
Buri
PS I think an awful lot of orchestral players ended up in orchestras because they found out when they got to a music institute that they were not good enough. The dream job for most people is probably being in a string quartet.
We could all find something there to support our own point of view but the clearest message seems to be that the auditioning system is misguided and needs to change.
(This isn't coming from me. This was stated by the doctor who diagnosed my son.)
And then many of the teachers plunk the kids in front of screens all day and show them YouTube learning videos rather than actively teaching them, and then wonder why the boys, in particular, are restless and acting out.
Yes, Mark, drugs are being used in a lot of abusive ways to maintain a broken system.
But as several of you have noted, intelligent, educated people, who don't REALLY need it ( not to undermine those of you who TRULY do need it) are actively choosing to take drugs and are therefore actively maintaining the broken system.
@Bruce I have a close life-long friend about my age who was one of those boys who just couldn't sit still in school, always cutting up and getting into some kind of trouble. He's a skilled tradesman now and makes a decent middle-class income, and that's fine. But had he been diagnosed and perhaps medicated for his hyperactivity as a child and teenager, a broader range of options (not necessarily "better" options) may have been available to him, including a college education and so forth. He might have had choices that, at the time, were out of reach. So, when a school system encourages *testing* for ADHD for disruptive students (which is probably what they are doing in Ottawa, our local schools do the same), they might just have the well-being and future potential of their students in mind, rather than the convenience of the staff.
Also, note that doctors don't always prescribe medication for moderate cases as alternate methods for managing the systems are viewed as just effective. Kind of like managing performance anxiety?? :) :)
There’s nothing wrong with the audition process.
The reality is simply that people who don’t get nervous are freaks of nature.
So, perhaps that's the real problem: There are too many people aiming at that goalie.
Thus the pill ... Who has the greatest self-control? Who's going to snap first?
(Paul is gonna give me hell for Yet another analogy. :-) :-))
This, plus usually a trial week in a larger orchestra for a titled chair.
No interview, no checking references, nothing that would compromise anonymity at least in the first round. In my former orchestra, we were prohibited from looking at/discussing resumes during the audition.
I also know that the NAC orchestra here in Ottawa Canada does request a résumé as a part of the application process. Only then are you invited to audition. Therefore, the résumé could be used as a filtering mechanism right from the very beginning before they give you the opportunity to come and perform in the audition.
All these are great ideas, and frankly I've been in orchestras with people who didn't belong there.
However...
What you are describing--sifting through mission statements, conducting interviews--these would demand exponentially higher resources in time and energy on the part of a committee.
As it is, few committee members enjoy having to devote days or weekends to auditions. I suppose they are paid as part of their principal duties, but I doubt they want to interview or read endless letters or statements about how enthusiastic people claim to be.
This would be my mission statement: "I will not play in the rests."
Along with Scott’s excellent comments, there is no way to implement that without opening the entire process up to abuse. We don’t want to go back to the bad old days when conductors filled the orchestra with friends, and women/people of color were nonexistent.
“Steve, notice that Mary Ellen said, "in the first round…". I think this implies that, after they first choose a few of the best possible musicians , only then do they begin looking at resumes, etc. to select the final best person.“
No, that is absolutely not how it works. The purpose of the audition is to pick the best player. Although it is typical that the screen comes down for the final round, some orchestras - notably the Metropolitan Opera - conduct every round behind a screen and only find out who they’ve hired after they pick the winner. In the late San Antonio Symphony, if we thought there was any possibility that we might know one of the finalists, we also kept the screen up. When I won my job as SAS principal second, I played four separate rounds, all behind a screen, with the first one being at 9 AM and the last one being in the evening. Any kind of discussion of resumes, personalities, and so forth before the audition has concluded leaves the committee wide open to accusations of favoritism or discrimination.
The tenure process exists not only to be sure that a musician is a good musical fit, but also can be used to weed out people who are impossible to work with. Generally, the first two seasons with an orchestra are probationary, and tenure is granted with the offer of a third year contract.
The sole purpose of sending a résumé to a professional orchestra is to get invited to the audition. That’s it. After that, it is all in the playing. I recommend reading my essay posted above for a more complete description of the audition process.
I implore people to keep in mind that there is zero transference, none, nada, between the process of getting a job in the corporate or nonprofit world, and the process of getting a job in a professional orchestra. There is also nearly zero transference between the experiences of an amateur musician or a student and the employment path of a career musician.
That's about the age that children CAN be diagnosed with ADHD. The amygdala matures at different rates in children, and until about age 6 or 7, impulsiveness and inattentiveness are largely age-appropriate. Some ADHD children are more impulsive and higher-energy at a younger age, but normally before age 6 they will tell you to monitor the behavior and re-test when they're older, and maybe they'll say probable ADHD.
In other words, the pandemic coincided with the point when your child's behavior was expected to settle down. (The pandemic caused plenty of issues for high-energy kids, certainly. And I don't disagree with you that more screens are bad; my kid has been at a screen-free school from the start, despite our very strong belief that technological literacy is a must for modern life.)
Like all things with a physiological basis, cases of ADHD vary in their nature, intensity, and disruption to the child's life. There are both medical aspects and "life" aspects -- i.e. a child who goes to a progressive school with an active, hands-on classroom likely needs less intervention than one who is in a traditional classroom. Some kids respond readily to a common drug; others don't. Some kids have more side-effects than others.
ADHD drugs tend to suppress appetite and therefore affect a child's growth. They can make it hard to sleep. Most people balance the positives with the drawbacks to arrive at a dose that's right for that kid at that particular time in their life. And there's a certain amount of privilege involved, too. (I can, for example, afford to put my kid in a private school that's pretty tolerant and active, so his medication can be minimal. And my husband and I can cope with him when he's not medicated, so he only gets medicated for school. ADHD meds affect more than academics or teacher convenience; they also have positive effects on general self-control, which tend to help kids in socializing with peers.)
On another note, yes, children who are diagnosed with ADHD may receive testing accommodations. Doctors do not simply hand out these diagnoses without appropriate testing (at least, not in the US). It is true that there are unethical parents and unethical neuropsychologists who will write reports with falsified testing, but such psychologists are risking their licenses when they do this (and the families are taking a risk, too).
The abuse of Ritalin and other stimulants by people who don't have ADHD is pretty rife in certain student segments. This is certainly not new, although the popular drugs have changed over time. These people generally acquire the stimulants illegally, which opens them to all the dangers of obtaining pills of unknown origin and purity.
What does everything I say below have to do with this thread and beta blockers. If you are a borderline case, make sure you've tried everything else first and developed all of the skills you need to manage your anxiety without drugs. The drugs should be a last resort.
Because the doctor presented our son's case as borderline and gave us the choice, and even suggested it may be better, we chose to at least for now simply manage his symptoms without medication. At this young age of lots of physical changes, and when school is important, but not yet critical for his future, we decided it was important for him to develop the skills he needs to manage his own symptoms. As I said, I like my sister's approach with her son. Actually, both of my sisters have a son with the same issue. And both of them made the same choice to manage it without the drugs. As long as we keep him active, and away from screens, except in very limited doses, his behaviour is actually pretty good. Lots of hockey, martial arts, lots of Summer camps, and he loves his guitar and singing, and performing. He's actually remarkably focussed on the things he actually wants to focus on. However, getting him to come downstairs to do some schoolwork in the workbooks that we have for him, can be a big of a challenge.
I used that expression, "presented itself", for a good reason. Our boy went from a fairly easy, normal, five-year-old, to an absolute terror as we tried to get him to start the online learning in the second half of his senior kindergarten. It was a sudden, abrupt change in his behaviour: "who is this boy ?" I believe it was just before Christmas of 2019 when both my kids arrived home, with chrome books in their backpacks, handed to them by the school. Online learning began in the new year, and continued for much of his grade 1, and grade 2. Ultimately, we gave up on the online learning, and taught him as much as we could ourselves. He simply checked in with his class each day online, and then went off to do his own thing away from the computer.
I'm trying to recall when he was actually tested and diagnosed with his moderate case of ADHD. I think it was actually in grade 2, Just as they returned to in class learning, when the teachers insisted that we get him tested. During that period the kids were briefly going back to in person learning and then being sent back to online learning. It was a very awkward learning period as I'm sure you experienced as well, Lydia.
This last year was very difficult for him. He was with a teacher who taught almost exclusively from the computer. My daughter confirmed this. In her final year of elementary school ( grade 6 ), she got straight A's, except for one C, which happened to be the class taught by this teacher. The teacher would place the kids in front of the computer for the majority of the class, and teach them with YouTube learning videos. Both my daughter and son told me that this teacher would sit there during the videos, and stare at her own phone. Apparently, lots of the boys were acting out and being punished, so much so that my son was convinced that this teacher was showing favouritism to the girls, who seem to manage computer learning better than the boys. Over and over again, he was being kept inside and away from recess because he was not completing one final assignment. He finally admitted the problem to me, and asked for help. It was an online set of questions he needed to answer about the metric system. A little horribly presented description and chart at the top of about 60 questions. Even I was being driven crazy scrolling back-and-forth to look at the chart and see what the teacher was trying to show with this chart and possibly helping him to answer the question. Scroll up. Scroll back down . Answer the question. Scroll back up … Etc. No wonder he wasn't completing it. This was driving me crazy too. Finally, I got fed up with it, and just carefully explained the metric system to him on a separate piece of paper. One hour later, he had all 60 questions answered without any difficulty.
My point in all of this, I guess, Is to show that yes, ADHD is definitely real, yes, it requires extra effort, and so often teachers in this day and age, are not willing to give that extra effort. Therefore, they attempt to push parents to medicate their kid, perhaps to help the kids, but I think also it's to help the teachers.
You mentioned the issue of appetite, and therefore growth etc., being affected by these drugs, and I'm very happy to read this. We now have a boy who is much bigger than the average boy, strong and healthy, and full of confidence. Yes, he's extremely intense in his socialization, but all the kids like him.
We may still choose to medicate him in the future to help him through his more advanced studies, however for now we will continue to help him develop skills to manage ADHD without drugs.
If you have a problem with how your son is being taught in the public school in Ottawa, I suggest having a polite, respectful conversation with his teachers first, and then if you don't make progress there try the principal of his school. Maybe you'll discover that there's another point of view or perhaps even that you don't have all the facts. I do have direct experience with that, and those experiences were uniformly positive. (We never had to reach out to the principal. For each child we had a friendly conversation with one teacher -- a history teacher in both cases!)
I'm NOT trying to suggest the drugs are in anyway connected in terms of their intended use, however like any drug, it can be abused. (Howver, in certain instances beta blockers are used by people with ADHD to manage symptoms)
However what is connected in my opinion at least, is the inportance of trying everything else first if your issue is only moderate. This is something that violinist.com should be communicating to kids like the grade 9 boy who posted a question here a couple of weeks ago. We don't want a stigma but we also don't want to normalize it for young people.
As for my son, we have had many conversations with teachers and principal, including one very frustrated and angry conversation with the principal after the teacher, apparently in agreement, completely ignored the agreement we came to in a previous meeting. I guess this is one very unfortunate argument in favour of drugs since some teachers refuse to cooperate.
Not to dwell too much on your son's personal issue, but I'm sorry it hasn't gone well for you. A suggestion: Here in the US, in your situation I would consider asking the school district for a disability accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), to limit your son's screen time in school if you suspect that to be a significant problem. A letter from a physician or psychologist to the effect that screen time is especially harmful to your son would probably be adequate to get the accommodation, likely a year a time. I'm not sure whether there is something similar in Canada, but I suspect there is. I teach university chemistry, and for our large-enrollment general chemistry course, students show up to their exams (2500 at a time) with their laptops and they take the exam online in proctored spaces (in evenings when several large rooms have been set aside for this purpose, on five dates throughout the term). The salient point is that there are always a few students with a disability accommodation that allows them to have an actual paper exam. They go do a different room, too, because they usually also have an extra-time allowance.
That wasn't a 9 year old boy, but a boy in Grade 9 ( 14 or 15?) I'm not sure what the rules are at that age. Increasingly kids have a lot more control without parental influence
Arguably a beta blocker is more dangerous to a child than Valium, but neither should be getting passed around casually. However, it would be disingenuous to say that teenaged musicians were not dosing themselves with substances before beta blockers came on the scene.
I know pro orchestra musicians whose preferred coping mechanism is a glass of wine before a concert. We don't call this taking a drug, but in reality, it is.
In reality, performance psychology tricks are far from a cure-all. The investment is significant. You can read a book, but that only goes so far. Instruction and practice under someone's eye is far more useful, in my experience, but that comes at a cost and accessibility is a limiting factor. And you have to do the exercises for every performance, although eventually you learn what works and what doesn't work for you, and do only what usually works.
Arguably, every serious performer should learn these tricks, eventually. Some private teachers will integrate them into routine lessons, but many won't (and many won't know the tricks, anyway).
But ultimately, what the tricks do is to offer you mental preparation. They will not stop the effects of adrenaline, which are physiological. The mental/physical divide probably explains much of the divide in how effective players think beta blockers are: the players who are physically affected but are psychologically calm are the ones who benefit the most.
There are too many people competing for the same jobs. Normalizing everybody with chemicals so that more people can compete for the same jobs, is not healthy.
The CM of my previous orchestra played professionally in regional orchestras as well and she took BBs for migraines.
It can be a never-ending controversy, but it has certainly spread the info. I wish I had had this information source when I first needed it 72 years ago. (But the BBs didn't even exist then.)
I'm picturing right now one of those shorts that I watched on Facebook. The short man arrives at the door of his date, and she is surprised that he's so short. I forget the exact details, but it was something along the line of "I thought you were 6 feet!". "No, I identify as 6 feet."
These can be HIGHLY addictive.
And, as predicted, this thread has disappeared down the rabbit hole.
And surely you thought to yourself, "Paul was right! Analogies ARE always wrong."
Not a chance, Paul! That would be like shooting myself in the foot! :-) :-) You see what i did there, right?
How about Paganini Caprice number one on a real bike.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=4FWhK7y96yk&pp=ygUWcGFnYW5pbmkgZXhlcmNpc2UgYmlrZQ%3D%3D
There are plenty of people who are anxious in audition situations that are not especially anxious in routine performance situations, and who aren't prone to chronic anxiety.
In any event, those of you opposed to the notion of performers taking beta blockers are unlikely to ever know whether or not a given performer is doing so. Unless someone in your immediate circle decides to deliberately disclose it (which they're unlikely to do if you generally seem like a judge-y sort of person), you're unlikely to discover just how prevalent use is around you.
Propranolol has a labeled expiration of 3 years but studies seem to suggest tablets retain their potency and are safe for 10 years or more. There's a goodly chance that people who are only taking it in a handful of exceptionally high-stress situation can get a refill every decade or so, and maybe spend $10-$20 on it for a lifetime of playing.
I can't find that thread so I can't verify whether or not the reply count was indeed higher. Nonetheless, here's the video.
We actually shouldn't be making fun of this guy, he's actually getting better. Good for him.
https://violinist.com/discussion/thread.cfm?page=532
This discussion has been archived and is no longer accepting responses.
Violinist.com is made possible by...
International Violin Competition of Indianapolis
Violinist.com Holiday Gift Guide
Dimitri Musafia, Master Maker of Violin and Viola Cases
Johnson String Instrument/Carriage House Violins
Subscribe
Laurie's Books
Discover the best of Violinist.com in these collections of editor Laurie Niles' exclusive interviews.
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 1, with introduction by Hilary Hahn
Violinist.com Interviews Volume 2, with introduction by Rachel Barton Pine
It's not my business how the sausage gets made - I'm just here as an audience member to eat some sausage.