Wednesday, October 12, 2011

The Myth of the Canon

In literature it is Milton, Shakespeare, Dickens, Hawthorne, Melville, Tolstoy, Hemingway among many others. In art it is DaVinci, Rembrandt, Monet, Duchamp, Picasso, etc. For music we find Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and in extreme cases Stravinsky. We are discussing the canon, an established program of study based on those works deemed the highest of academic excellence. In the study of History as a subject we tend to look at the events through the lens of governments and rulers rather than the people. This is not due to a lack of compassion for people but rather an awareness that rulers can make dramatic decisions that affect individual lives. Yet in spite of an emphasis on governments we are also acutely aware of how achievements by successful people can shape the future of our lives. We are often so connected to the past that to ignore it is to be unfair to the present. As I type on this computer, I give thought to the microchip, the transistor, the telephone and telegraph, and electricity, all of which make today on this computer possible. In fact, we could trace the computer back to one of the greatest inventions in history, the printing press.

In thinking these thoughts of the past and the present, I am gainfully charged by the study of history, a look at the past, an acknowledgment of great people, an acceptance of their contributions to the world. It is humbling and energizing to consider the truths found in Shakespeare or Theodore Dreiser, to look upon the beauty of Rembrandt, and to hear the line and form in Mozart. We learn from the masters and we benefit from knowing the truths of past. The past cannot be separated from the present and without the contributions of both the governments and the individuals we would not be who we are today collectively or singularly.

Knowing this truth and acknowledging the greatness of art, of literature, of music that has withstood the test of time, I have to question the permanent residence that the establishment of the canon has brought to our culture. For some reason, perhaps due to history, judgment, scholarship, or simply tradition, we in academia have decided that the established canon of literature, art, and music should never alter, should remain in concrete forever. Rather than studying the canon, respecting it, learning from it, we have made it the end result.

"You, my young student, need to know John Milton so that you may gain from and perhaps imitate John Milton and go out and become a new John Milton." "This is Monet, you should love his work, perhaps paint as Monet painted, now go become another Monet." Or "This is Brahms, a master composer for sure, here is his music. Love it, perform it, copy it, and become as Brahms (if you can)." We teach the great literature and art because we love it and desire for others to love it and live it as well. We teach the finest example of our discipline as a way to demonstrate our own concept of excellence as determined by critics, by audiences, by a general acceptance, by the passing of time. And there is no question that Brahms is worth studying, including his life, his use of rhythmic accents, his harmonic invention, his ability to create variations, and his unequaled musical developments.

But if we are to progress in art and in culture, if we are forge ahead, to plant new crops, to innovate, to create and make the arts vital in our world, we must let go of the necessity to make the canon the goal for our students. The established literature, similar to learning history, is without question necessary for knowing the foundations of our disciplines; and having a solid core of knowledge and a framework for our society is paramount for developing the future. Rather than abolishing the work of the masters, we should and do embrace it, applying its truths and its beauty in all we do in literature, in art, and in music. The canon, however, for all its majesty and essential value, must become a springboard for diving into the artistic future, for to dive into the past is to find stagnant water filled with old algae and old efforts. Students today want and deserve tools that will help them succeed, tools for greater expression, tools of opportunity, of entrepreneurship, tools that will enable music, art, and literature a secure place among the disciplines of today and tomorrow.

The myth of the canon is that the canon is located at the end of a narrow tunnel without any change and without any goals other than a focused but uneventful journey toward an excellence long past. The myth is that there is only one route to the excellence and that the established canon is the reward at the end of the journey. It is time to give our students new tools that will allow them success and allow them to try new routes and discover new art along the way. There might be bumps and twists and turns on our journey of discovery but the gain is the possibility of progression, of creation, and of greater expression. Along the way, we nod at and learn from the past, from the masters, but as we learn from them, we may see a gleam in their eye that reminds us of the need to imagine something new. As I walk by these masters, I have to wonder if they saw their work as timeless artifacts destined for greatness forever. Did they create and write anticipating their work would one day be viewed as the final destiny for all future artists? Did they know they would be the canon?

Our literature, art, and music is a result of somebody's imagination. Time to imagine something new and create a new canon for students today. We respect the printing press, but there is no need to spend 4 years studying how to build it nor how to replicate it.

An advocate not for abolishment of the old but certainly an advocate for expansion of what we deem as necessary, I believe it is time to reinvent the canon, to include new forms, genres, ideas, and thereby propel imagination and creativity to new heights. The study of literature may need to include children's literature, comic books, folk tales, detective stories, science fiction, biographies. Art may need to expand to computer graphics, pop art, signage, comic strips, advertising, furniture, and modern architecture. Music may need to look at rock, pop, jazz, folk, and world music. The old classics are fine but this is a call to seek out and experiment in our quest for new classics. Otherwise we sit in academic quicksand, slowly being engulfed by the past with little gain for the future.

Sunday, October 02, 2011

Church Music

Several weeks ago my wife had an idea that we could check out a movie. Nice idea with a kind of quaintness and charm that typifies her relaxed approach to life. Although not necessarily a movie fan, partly due to my not being much of a visual person and partly due to my lack of emotional response to most movies, I was of course (like any good husband) willing to support her idea. We both knew that I would either fall asleep during the film or would read or work on the computer. Still she liked the idea and started brain-storming about what kind of movie and what snacks would accompany our experience.

Asking what movie I should get and where, we began to discuss the options: Hastings, Red Box, Pay-per-view, Walmart? I knew not to mention my preference for a heavy, serious theme or a "man" kind of movie about fighting and decided to search for a comedy or family film or maybe a combination of comedy and family in a sort of Romantic girl type of movie. Going together, we first stopped at Hastings and headed toward the movie section. Quickly overwhelmed with thousands upon thousands of choices, most of which seemed inane, I found myself in a state of confusion due to the seemingly infinite number of movies from which to select. Gravitating slowly but deliberately to the books where I was in my comfort zone (and yes I do recognize the inconsistency of being comfortable among thousands of books but not among thousands of movies), my wife settled on a nice animated version of Rapunzel.

The emotional anguish and confusion, even bewilderment, is actually greater than the pleasure of the opportunity and almost the movie itself. This is due to having too many options. While freedom of choice is of course preferred, wouldn't it be easier to have fewer selections from which to pick? Obviously the easy answer to this problem is to raise standards to a high point, thus reducing the options to the few deemed worthwhile. I like this plan, but it then requires an analytical approach to entertainment that most people cannot embrace. When entertainment demands the same level of academic analysis that learning in the classroom requires, then it almost ceases to be entertainment. If I have to work hard to relax, is it really relaxation?

The life of a church musician is both similar and different to finding a movie. Luckily church music is not about entertainment, it is about worship. This gives the process a higher purpose that is neither selfish nor individualistic. Instead church music is about God and the collective process of worshiping God.

The problem comes not from the purpose and the goals but from the immediacy of the musical needs. Too much music from which to choose. In the old days, music ministers would pick up the hymnal and select from the 50 or so hymns that most of the congregants seemed to prefer. While it could possibly create a built-in stagnation, and likely did, it sure was a simpler time for church music. Reduce the choices, simplify the decisions. Fast forward to now, and we are often paralyzed by the sheer amount of music available at our fingertips. Songs, hymns, and choruses number in the thousands with several more arriving with the writing of these words.

The typical music minister in a Baptist or non-denominational church with the obligation and yes opportunity to select 4 perhaps 5 pieces of music must choose from thousands of sacred selections to form a worship service that meets the needs of God and the people in the service. Pretty tall order for sure. Add in the questions of choir vs. praise team, organ, piano, drums, guitars, other instruments, plus hopefully provide some kind of theological consistency and Biblical accuracy, and suddenly we have an impossible task. Why do I do it then? Because I love the challenge!

Musical Thoughts this morning

Getting up early and fighting through the morning stretches that seem more necessary at age 51 than bygone years, and dealing with the tightened tendons in the feet, I eventually landed in my chair to find out about the news, read about the economy, and think about music. Music is not always my profession, having made the leap into writing and administration, but it will always be my passion. Music holds an abundance of complexity, emotional depth, and opportunity for exploration at all levels of the musical strata. Sadly and joyfully music also is never quite good enough. A composition can always be improved (although the Beethoven Violin Concerto comes pretty close to perfection!), and a performance can always be stronger. My goals as a musician are never quite met, both as an active performer/composer and as a listener, and I deal with this truth in an ironic blend of excitement and discouragement. In music, like athletics, or wealth, one can never be entirely satisfied. This is both compelling and dispelling.

Youtube certainly is a magnificent resource for music. Regardless of one's interest, be it art music or country or gospel or rock or punk or any number of musical genres, youtube has something for everyone. As a music teacher, I set up about 10 tabs on my browser and supplement my lecture with examples from youtube. The teaching is efficient and the learning becomes multi-dimensioned, with instant examples of whatever is being discussed at the fingertips. It makes for a zingy ride as we ping-pong between cognition and aural experiences enhanced by the visual. A well-planned lesson of Charles Ives can show pictures of him, his house, his piano, moving rapidly to musical examples displaying his theoretical language, arriving at a brief but thorough look at his song output. It makes for a solid Ivesian experience that is not easily forgotten and easily assessed.

But this morning was not about Ives or art music at all. I am enjoying listening to the marvelous singing of Carrie Underwood. Not being a big country/western fan, I do have some favorites here and there. It is unusual for a dean of music to admit to liking something other than art music but in truth I do. A fan of Chicago, Stevie Wonder, most jazz, Skillet, Lady Gaga, Elton John, and Broadway musicals, I also enjoy Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, Randy Travis, Alan Jackson, and am a die-hard Elvis fan. Now I may add Carrie Underwood to the list. She really has a great voice. Wonderful phrasing, emotional power, wide range, personal expression, and lots of great musical instincts.

I do get a little uncomfortable, almost edgy, about the strident vocals reaching for high notes, the delayed vibrato, and the country style scooping, but I cannot deny her amazing ability to turn a phrase, to find the high point, to sing accurately and powerfully. Quite an artist for sure.

On the other side, I have really been enjoying the music of Pierre Boulez. Very complicated, rich music with a collective kind of energy that keeps the listener guessing and eagerly awaiting the next event. Of course I recognize that his music has a limited audience and that much of it is atonal without enough repetition to feel comfortable. Also the extreme order of the musical events seems to result in a random quality that is absurdly ironic. But those things aside, I really enjoy hearing his music.

How can I enjoy Carrie Underwood and Pierre Boulez on the same day? Not sure I can answer this except to say that I love music and sound and I tend to respect all of it for what it is. Not that I like everything I hear, but I do like that I can hear it and that it exists. We may have preferences for certain sounds and certain kinds of order in the sounds, but our desire for one type of music does not preempt the validity of other kinds of music in culture. Rejecting Boulez does not detract from its worth, nor does liking Carrie Underwood make it the superior genre. While liking both may be unusual, it neither elevates the quality of their music nor diminishes it.

Rather than working hard to make others like what I like or to respond to music the way I do, I am comfortable living in musical isolation at least to an extent. That stated, I also have a responsibility as an academician and administrator to teach students the vast array of elements and historical influence of music on a broad scale. How they use that knowledge and how they develop their own preferences or application is up to them. I cannot legislate nor insist on students' preferences for genres or sounds, but I can uphold my academic integrity by teaching them the complex musical world and materials needed for music making.

So back to my eclectic musical life. I love it but suspect it confuses others. Makes sense others are confused since I am a bit confused myself! But as a famous man once said, why do I have be consistent and predictable? (Al Tucker).