The Meritocracy of Morality

The Meritocracy of Morality

Power and authority are generally earned positions by virtue of achievement based on intellect, leadership, accomplishment, aptitude, or in some cases pure accident. Much has been addressed considering how best to achieve a delicious and provoking meritocracy in society, a meritocracy that rewards excellence rather than money or tyranny. But we continue to operate in a web of leadership confusion that sadly tends to reward personality, money, and personal connections. Is it possible to design a society that is structured as a meritocracy of morality? Such a society might be one of mutual respect for each other, regard for personal achievement, acknowledge of private property, unbridled benevolence, and governance with an unswerving eye toward morality.

This fascinating but perhaps over analyzed topic at times, particularly as it relates to contemporary society and ethical conduct, addresses natural law, God's law, man's corruption, and the vast variations of moral interpretation that exist today. In discussion with individuals and searching through the murky waters of the internet, it becomes apparent that the topic of absolutes versus relativism is a hot one today with the ability to polarize churches, teachers, scholars, and businesses. Although most people seem to subscribe and operate their lives within an "absolutes" framework, the constant challenges to their positions compete favorably and, sadly, often victoriously through the relativism of the modern age. This paper intends to demonstrate how the pressures of culture, social contracts, and societal concern have eroded moral absolutes, many of them for the improvement of society but others to its detriment. Along the journey will be some time spent on the arts and its agency responsibility to a higher call and purpose. A few words of parental encouragement for private property and how that relates to moral absolutism are in order as well as the beckoning for truth in a fallen world.

On the surface, particularly in a black or white cognitive approach to the world, human behavior is easily judged by its extremes. While we may rarely find ourselves in ambiguous situations, unable to make a firm decision, it is usually easy by virtue of reason and instinct to determine right from wrong. In this respect, actions are either judged by their absolutes or by their relativism. Because we cannot and should not live in an entirely relativistic world, we determine that moral absolutes are the guiding light behind most people's motivations and for a sense of social and political justice. When we battle against moral absolutes, we do so with conscious awareness of the moral position, advocating for a theory of relativity of conduct rather than a shifting of the absolute. This is called the Categorical Imperative and reminds us of the truth of moral absolutes and a natural desire to adhere to them regardless of the circumstances. The idea is waged by German philosopher Immanuel Kant but is, oddly, considered relativistic in its manifestation[1]. If the categorical imperative is a natural duty then it does become a product of free will which, in essence, makes it a relative action in spite of its imperative design. Morals may be universal and they may be duties apart from consequences or rewards but they are not necessarily absolutes. Morals are products of the reason as imperative in their actions, not as a means to being good, but simply as results of duties. All good thinking, but ultimately relativistic in its outcome.

To be fair, moral relativism is not always a hopeless arrangement for society. We are not individual islands existing in a purely anarchical state of personal moral purity. We are emotionally, economically, and physiologically dependent on each other and there is a great maturation process when a person admits to his or her need for trust and acceptance. Few, if any, activities are devoid of other people’s hands in some way or another. All of economy is built on the idea of trade and of supply and demand. As I type this essay, I may arrogantly want to state that I am achieving these words without help of anybody else. But my absurd thinking quickly diminishes as I realize I am sitting in a chair built by somebody else, using a computer made partly overseas, in a house that was built by many people, using skills that took many years to develop and many dedicated teachers. I look around and see constant evidence of people in my life who have either knowingly or unknowingly contributed to my existence.

Traffic laws, policies, general moral conduct, and a host of other expectations are merely results of relativistic examination of culture and society. My liberty is only liberty if it does not prevent the freedom of other people. If my freedom is another man’s straitjacket, then it is not truly freedom. I must act relative to my environment and if I choose to disregard the laws of the land or to denounce the expected social contract of my world, then I must be prepared to face the consequences of my actions. Relativism is real and alive and a necessary ingredient for progress and social refinement. With gun control as a current hot topic, any laws designed to restrict assault weapons or at least register ownership will be an example of moral relativism. When the United Kingdom made the decision to limit gun usage throughout the country, they acted through the relativism of the need to avoid violence in the people. Moral relativism is necessary and in most cases good.

The damage comes when moral relativism bends itself individually to allow and rationalize behavior not for the common good. The age old saying, “everyone is doing it so it must be okay,” is dissatisfactory in light of right and wrong. Moral relativism is not a justification for corruption, fraud, pain, and destruction. Too many members of the Third Reich justified their decisions on the moral relativism of seeking to eradicate anyone not measuring up to their human design. It is not, and never should be, a license to inflict sorrow on other people. When this happens, one must seek moral absolutes.  

When examining morality, it is essential to look at how individual lives work together with the collective to form a congruent social structure. Analogous to a complex work of polyphony from the 17th century where each line is an independent and often beautiful melody by itself that then works congruently with other independent melodies to form harmony and a complete piece of music, social morality is dependent on the moral actions of individuals working together with the collective in a grand embracing of social contractarianism. In this sense, individuals likely practice and are unconsciously aware of moral absolutes that then are shaped to serve and to reform cultural norms. It makes for an ideal harmonious relationship as we seek to retain our personal melody while operating with congruence in a complex cultural framework. Reflecting on how all this actually works, it seems as though virtue is naturally achieved but also strengthened through education and cultural awareness. Unfortunately, this also means that obstreperous and corrupt behavior may be naturally achieved and, sadly, strengthened through education as well. 

It is difficult, perhaps impossible to write on morality without referencing one's worldview. A responsible essayist works to reach a wide audience without denying his or her personal policies and practice. To this end, one cannot continue long without addressing the role of a deity in the world. If one's view is that all people are inherently good with a naturally growing sense of virtue, then one is stating the ability to become a god over time. The other extreme view is that all people are inherently sinful and cannot achieve deity in any circumstances. This requires the acknowledgement of a need for God to counter the natural sin. As a Christian, I acknowledge my sinful nature and am full of gratitude for the grace of God to counter and absolve my natural inclinations. Redemption is through grace and my faith drives me forward to be virtuous in all I do. Failing to do so, I rely on God to guide me toward a moral life with Christ as a sublime example of service and sacrifice. Naturally optimistic but aware of the potential for sin, I choose to live a life of striving for moral excellence through service to God. This journey is a difficult but rewarding one that does not in any sense abdicate responsibility but, in fact, increases it. In Christian terms, moral absolutes are determined or even predetermined by God, yet in a human sense, moral absolutes are identified through reason and education. 

A few thoughts on art are in order. The arts are built on creativity and imagination, both qualities of which there is great potential for virtue as well as vice. We are easily disgusted by art that pictures obvious immorality and, yet, we are also strangely cleansed by the example. This is true in film, in theatre, in arts, and in music. Because of the cathartic qualities found in art, it is nearly impossible to define moral absolutes in the artistic disciplines. Instead, we find preferences and taste. We are comfortable assigning moral characteristics to the masterpiece “Messiah” by Handel but less sure about addressing the morality of a Brahms Symphony. In this respect, at least to an extent, the arts are strangely exempt from this discussion of moral relativism versus moral absolutes. Artists cannot achieve a meritocracy of morality due to practicing a discipline that is without a clearly defined morality. That stated, all human endeavors can potentially cross the line into immorality and indecency, art being a supreme example. This is probably why musicians, filmmakers, dramatists, authors, and visual artists need to have a broad understanding and establishment of the role of the arts in the collective worldview.

There is a certain amount of gain to realize that through reason we can determine moral absolutes, but if it requires reason, then by virtue of the flaws of logic and cognition, not to mention the obvious imperfections in mankind's makeup, moral absolutes then are merely artificial wisps of human imagination. Good things but mysterious and fleeting. Yet it is not fair to criticize the reasoning of moral behavior. In point of fact, the process of education should be about strengthening the ability to reason through decisions, coming to final conclusions through logical application of what is best for all. As Derek Bok states, "..., when it comes to helping young people to identify ethical problems and to ponder them with care, colleges can certainly make a significant contribution, especially today, when so many students come to college with an easy relativism that clouds their ability to reason about many complex questions, ethical and otherwise." [2]

Certainly education can make a decided difference in how we look at morals and how we live our lives. The process starts at an early age with how we view property rights. There are few doctrines more markedly democratic than the doctrine of private property. When we teach and respect the concept of private property, we develop a sense of moral absolutes. Not that actually owning property is moral but knowing the property is owned is the moral acknowledgement. When we accept another's private property as belonging to that person and when we are aware of our own ownership of property we achieve a type of moral absolute. To take this to its logical conclusion, knowledge and acceptance of ownership is virtuous and serves the idea of cultural congruence. Admittedly, on the surface it would seem that a communal sharing of all property would ultimately serve the greatest social good; but, in truth, it works against itself. This may be due to inherent sin or simply due to the struggle of imposing moral relativism in social settings. 

It may all begin in Kindergarten and usually at home when we make the moral good that of sharing all items with each other. The "good" children share all their toys but the "bad" children are the selfish monsters who choose not to share. The result of this is to teach children that their property is not their own and that everything belongs to everyone. Thus we have moral relativism as it relates to society. Gary North's article on this subject is an excellent opposing view for parents interested in teaching the value of property rights. He argues that when children are taught property rights they will also learn of the value of sharing not through compulsory force but rather through choice of mutual benefit. [3] The article is actually an article on the moral absolutism of property rights over communal relativism. 

I laugh when I recall the few property rights battles that occurred when my children were small. Oldest son: "Joel won't share his toys." Dad says, "Whose toys are they?" Oldest son: "Joel's". Dad: "Then he does not have to share them, but remind Joel that you might decide not to share your toys when he would like to play with them." Silence follows and I decide to go find out why. The boys are mutually cooperating, little to my surprise. They learned to respect each other's property but they also learned the benefit of benevolence out of choice. They were not coerced into sharing but chose to share out of recognition of personal benefit over time. My hope is that acknowledgement and absolute regard for private property added to the social gain that results from benevolence come together to form a high degree of ethical behavior that melds easily with personal achievement and charity. Anyone interested in this concept of child-rearing will need to talk to my children to see if this actually occurred!

Taking this concept into business, the more ownership a person has, the more responsible he or she has to make the business as successful as possible. When an individual invests personal funds into a project, he has a desire for it to improve, to grow, to achieve, and to make a difference. Ironically or perhaps deliberately, the better a business is, the more difference it ultimately makes for people, the more it serves the common good. However, if the personal investment into a project were then forced to be shared with everyone else, all incentive for achievement and for improvement disappears down the black hole of apathy and relativism. Coerced relativism under the guise of collective sharing is a recipe for degeneration and failure. Incentive is dismissed, individual responsibility is abdicated, and employees find themselves working for a business that is destined for corporate ownership that is ultimately forced to disaggregate all profits for the collective whole. 

But private property is a small part of the story of seeking absolutes. A business benefits from applying integrity and wisdom to all decisions. This includes planning, scheduling, accounting, pricing, product developing, marketing, and utilization of distribution channels. The avoidance of moral truth in developing a business manifests itself in poor decisions, dissatisfied customers, incompetent employees, and product inferiority. In contrast, "...moral truth, and the certainty it allows, enables organizations to so operate that planning can be done with confidence and implementation achieved on schedule." [4]

When business is successful, so also does it serve a greater good. This then is one of the paradoxes of morality--the greater the freedom to achieve, the more likely will we the see public benefit. "Serving one's employees involves creating and maintaining an environment in which the company's mission is clear and that people have a sense that what they do matters, not only to the company but to the community and to themselves." [5] Employers have a desire to provide a safe, secure, and healthy environment and to keep their finest employees satisfied and goal-oriented. A successful business is not only providing a fine product to consumers, it is also employing outstanding labor, or as we hear in the news nearly every day, creating jobs. A moral business is a thriving one and moral actions serve many people in the process. Given this truth, it is difficult, however, to understand why we continue to see unethical practice in business and in institutions.

In contrast to the articulated truths addressing morality, it does seem as though we continue to experience fraud and corruption at the highest levels of business and government. This means that in spite of the liberation of business, the acknowledgement of property rights, the emphasis on integrity, we still experience a broad form of moral relativism as demonstrated in the inevitable actions of leaders who practice greed and selfishness in their social contract. Does this represent a radical and hopeless departure from the concept of moral absolutes? Not at all, but it does show how relativism can be both damaging as well as beneficial at the same time. The categorical imperative is the conscious decision to do the right thing in the right way at the right time, resulting in a moral good. But the categorical imperative, for all its qualities, is based on reason and, therefore, flawed in its design. If reason were infinitely perfect and if the reason were the irresistible force driving all actions, then all decisions, all conduct, all behavior would be without flaw. Relying on reason to design moral absolutes is an inevitable anathema of contradictory behavior due to its fundamental flaw of dependence on erroneous data--the reason processing of the human mind!

True moral absolutes are not shaped and molded by events or by social contracts. They are natural applications of duty not always clearly defined or obvious. They span cultures and generations and are not dependent on political machinations or religious interpretations. A moral absolute is not subject to universal approval nor does it function as a rhetorical practice requiring the occasional eulogy for its existence. A moral absolute is not absolute one day for the collective but wrong for the individual, yet neither is it right for the individual but wrong for the collective. An absolute is a demonstrated ideal of rigor that is not subject to debate. A moral absolute is the unconscious and impossible action of right. A moral absolute is a predetermined truth for all ages and a truth that shapes the thoughts and actions of all people, a truth that lives singularly in all cultures and operates not congruently with other morals but, instead, functions vastly without any kind of quest for acceptance. 

The moral absolute that is unequivocal is that of the sanctity of human life. Without the sanctity of human life, all is vain, vapid, and vociferously meaningless in a fallen world destined for misery and abject self-destruction. The sanctity of human life drives all other morality and gives meaning to all that is good and right. Placing comprehensive value on human life alters the process of reason and of all actions and thought. Stealing is an example of moral relativism but becomes an absolute when seen in light of the sanctity of human life. The laws of the land may punish Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister's child, but we forgive such actions in terms of valuing human life. At the same time, had he stolen substantial goods and thereby caused the store owner the inability to feed his own family, we would not have found ourselves as empathetic with Jean Valjean and would likely agree with the harsh punishment. When a CEO or politician extorts large sums of money for personal gain and hurts people in the process, we should not be hasty to diminish the criminal activity. Our sense of respect for human life propels us forward as a nation and denounces conduct damaging to humans. 

Strangely, we seem unaware of how much pain and destruction results from unethical behavior at the top levels. We raise our arms in disbelief and outrage when a crime is perpetrated against a child--and we should, but we shrug when millions of dollars are stolen by individuals for personal gain. Large businesses have a significant effect on people and when corruption becomes the norm, the results are usually devastating to the individuals whose lives depend on the integrity and honest achievement of the company. Is it the attitude of relativism--everyone is doing it? Or is it that the crime is in getting caught not the criminal act itself? After all, most of us break the speed limit particularly when we see others around us not following the law. Is this also true at high levels of bureaucracy or of government? Has moral relativism invaded our though processing and determined our own levels of acceptance? Perhaps. 

Regardless of where we are in society or where our culture is headed, the sanctity of life remains the absolute upon which we need to base our decisions. For a Christian, this is an extension of the Golden Rule and a broad application of God's law to love each other. For a non-believer, this is still a moral absolute to respect the sanctity of human life in all circumstances, in all relationships, and in all transactions. Not all moral relativism is negative and much of it is individually and collectively beneficial but in the end it is the moral absolute of respecting the sanctity of life that reigns supreme over other moral law. This makes the idea of a meritocracy based on morality so appealing to so many.

Respectfully submitted,

Robert Tucker

---

[1]http://sguthrie.net/kant.htm--accessed 2/1/2013

[2] Bok, Derek. Our Underachieving Colleges. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2006

[3] http://plf.typepad.com/plf/2007/02/teaching-kids-that-property-rights-are-evil.html--article on a school that banned Legos due to the problem of arguing over property rights. Accessed, 1/31/2013.

[4] Walton, Clarence, C. The Moral Manager. Ballinger Publishing Company, 1988, p. 143

[5] Wong, Kenman L and Scott B. Rae. Business for the Common Good: A Christian Vision for the Marketplace. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2011, p. 208.

The Decline of the Symphony Orchestra (and ideas to rescue it!)

Nearly once a month we read about another symphony orchestra threatening to close its doors due to a lack of financial solvency. In every case the article mentions a drop in ticket sales, large salaries to musicians, pensions to retired musicians, and a decline in contributions and the shrinking donor base. Other problems such as expensive facility usage, extended contracts, and rental agreements add to the shortfall resulting in many orchestras either reducing their season or stopping performances altogether. While the threat alone has helped revive several of the more prominent organizations, the problem is real and will likely occur at a later date for even the most respected ensembles. 

Many people see the decline as indicative of the position of the arts in our culture while others simply see it as a manifestation of difficult economic times. There are a myriad of opinions offered on the problem of fewer attendees including the proliferation of videos on the internet, saturation of excellent recordings of standard literature, and a population no longer interested in art music from the past. In addition, musicians whose lives have been devoted to purchasing expensive instruments, taking lessons, paying for an education, and relentlessly applying excellence in the practice room in order to produce at a high level in public, demand high salaries, excessive royalty percentages, and often feel entitled to liberal retirement packages.

Management may work hard to market their product of the orchestra performing great music on a stage in an excellent auditorium, but they are subject to the attitudes and expectations of the professionals doing the performance. Add a musician’s union to the mix, and the potential for bankruptcy becomes a reality. Symphony orchestras rarely, if ever, can sustain themselves with ticket sales and are dependent on contributions for their existence, making them economically unsustainable and ultimately no longer viable. With a multitude of options available for entertainment including movies, television, sports events, parties, and community engagements, the choice to attend an orchestra concert often rests at the bottom of pile of things to do. People are choosing to spend their free evening in other ways than attending a classical concert.

In many cases the above stated reasons for the decline sound insurmountable. The changes that are required to “fix” the problems of symphony orchestras are so dramatic as to be impossible given the current cultural climate of most musical organizations. If the very expensive, and not very popular, steakhouse has very few customers and refuses to change its menu, its doors will inevitably shut forever. So goes the symphony orchestra.

And yet, as we study the seemingly untenable situation, we find management trying new things that are working. To reduce expenses, many orchestras are operating with fewer personnel and trying to avoid long-term contracts, keeping musicians on a part-time as needed basis. While this may sound difficult on the individuals, the by-product is that musicians are seeking out other entrepreneurial avenues to supplement their income. Other reductions include reduced pension plans supported through planned retirement and renegotiated contracts with performance facilities. But regardless of the reductions, the problem rests primarily with how to increase ticket sales? This requires a new programming approach and an aggressive marketing plan.

Because the problem of symphony orchestras is long-term and related to production orientation, the cure is a change of product, promotion, and perhaps discussion of place. A price change up might help alleviate some of the cash flow problems but also will not provide any kind of sustainable solution. Marketing to a wider audience is essential to solve the problem. To do so will require creative programming and possibly segmentation of the audience in different ways. Another idea is to break out of the bonds of a formal auditorium and start taking the music to the people. This idea is currently being tried in Detroit.

Success stories: The Dallas Symphony orchestra has enhanced and supplemented its normal classical recording with the use of video, popular music, and even Christian contemporary music. While the normal classical audience has probably not been supportive, the DSO has seen increased ticket sales from a younger, previously unengaged, audience. A program of video-game music with media enhancement was recently very successful and ticket sales have subsequently increased for all concerts. The addition of popular music with Peter Cetera and Kristen Chenoweth added another dimension to the eclectic programming and now the DSO is on solid ground. Their programming is creative, eclectic, and draws a wider and more diverse audience than in years past.

The Royal Philharmonic in London, although not in financial trouble, has benefitted from an arts environment that includes diverse programming, lectures, world music, folk music, and educational opportunities for children. People are drawn to the diversity and then tend to stay for the more traditional offerings by the orchestra. I never attended a concert that was not full during my time in London. The Abilene Philharmonic, taking its cues from an orchestra in the Southeast, is currently experimenting with segmentation. Recognizing that some audience members enjoy texting on their cell phones, typing on their laptops, and drinking beverages during concerts, the Abilene Philharmonic has set aside a section of the auditorium for those audience members desiring the freedom for such activity. This system retains the formality of the experience for the traditional audience members but also allows for greater freedom from those seeking an informal classical music experience. 

These creative approaches to programming require marketing plans to include facebook, twitter, printed material, media exposure, and announcements. Although unlikely to appeal to everyone, academically trained musicians in particular, management is now able to sustain its orchestras while reaching a broad-based audience. Not without its pain, most orchestras need to take a risk in order to stay viable in today’s rapidly changing culture.

The Challenges of Familiarity

It has been said that familiarity breeds contempt, but it has also been said that familiarity leads to love. I think both are true to an extent for as we learn more about a subject or even more about a person, he or she becomes demystified, causing our enamoring to dissipate, at least to an extent. Yet infatuation can be, and usually is, replaced with love and appreciation. But before you think this is a discussion of marriage or relationships, let's think of it in terms of the study of music. At a fairly early age, a young student may find himself or herself in love with music in its broadest forms and may sense great power in music, but, unfortunately, he or she knows very little about how music happens--what makes music tick. And so the love affair with music begins.

The student may listen to music nearly constantly as he walks to class or as he studies or travels or plays games. He may even decide to sing in a group such as a choir at church or with friends and he may even decide to play an instrument like a guitar, piano, or a band or orchestral instrument like a trumpet or cello. His relationship with music then becomes real as he no longer is the passive listener but becomes part of the action of music. While his music making may be dependent on the collective experience in most cases, at the same time, he is creating the sound individually.

His journey reaches a new level when he learns how to make music, how notes work together, how rhythm is formed, and how to make the experience meaningful for the listener and the performer. But the student, having found great satisfaction in making music, desires to know more. He wishes to know the intricacies of music, and he wishes to know how to do it better and how to become a professional. Like an athlete or a businessman or any professional in any discipline, he wants to be excellent at his calling. With this desire he makes the decision to attend a university.

Because education is a process of moving from the known to the unknown, it is quickly determined that the student already knows some of the basics of music, is quite familiar with popular music and most of its forms--rock, pop, country, and hip-hop, and has little need to advance what is already considered familiar. Yet the area of music that is unknown is classical art music. Our focus becomes that which is unfamiliar and that which is unknown. To do otherwise, is to expend great time and energy teaching those things that may, at least to an extent, be already comfortably formed. Rather than moving from popular music to classical music, we assume they know popular music, they know the basics of music, but they ought to know classical art music. Fallacies of thinking aside, this is the tried and true approach of most music curricula.

As teachers, it is meaningful to teach those things that are new and to demonstrate our knowledge base in that which is likely unfamiliar to students. But I recently took a risk and now realize the dangers of expanding into an area of music that is known and comfortable--rock music. The hundreds of times I have directed, performed, organized, or been a part of classical concerts, the students have rarely complained or even held many opinions on the music selected. Because they do not know classical music, they do not have preconceived ideas of discernment. Their apathy toward classical music is not malicious, it is simply out of ignorance, unfamiliarity, and the recognition that the music has little meaning in their lives. Their indifference is a result of not having an appetite for classical music and not knowing how fulfilling it can be in particular settings.

This rock concert I am forming, however, has brought students out of their indifference and into the forefront of personal preference and prodigious perceptions. Each student has an opinion about rock music and each student finds meaning in certain songs, performers, or bands. Their powers of discernment are not based on musical knowledge in general but rather on the emotional experience of the sound. In many ways this is good and right and one could argue that ultimately music is about the emotional experience. But it does make for difficult leadership in determining the musical direction of a rock concert! I must admit, however, that I enjoy the challenges that accompany doing a concert of all familiar, well-loved, and exciting rock music. The end result will be lots of fun and joy. Maybe, just maybe, to paraphrase Lena Lamont in Singing in the Rain, "We can bring a little joy into our hum-drum music!"

Creating Value in Music Curriclum

Our economy is based, or at least should be based, on the idea of giving value to each other. When you buy a taco from Taco Bell, you are expressing that the value to you as you eat the taco is worth the amount of money you paid for the item. Taco Bell is hoping to create something of worth that will be valuable to you for a given price. If Taco Bell decided to charge $100 per taco, likely you would not be willing to pay that price. Or if suddenly it cost $100 to buy 1 corn tortilla from the supplier, then Taco Bell would need to charge the consumer at least $100 per taco to break even. Taco Bell then might decide to buy from a different supplier or no longer make tacos with corn tortillas. At some point, the trade value no longer becomes viable which then alters the result of the product. Consumers seek value when they purchase goods, and suppliers of the goods hope to create the value for the consumer. This is the essence of our economy.

Although filled with potential fallacious thinking, and we certainly are uncomfortable expressing education in terms of economy, to a great extent and in spite of the philosophical pitfalls, a college education is about creating value in students. Each lesson, class, experience should be about adding value to the student in some sort of way. As value is added and layered over several years of a college education, a student becomes ready to meet the demands of his or her chosen profession. For many students, this means they enter the workforce eager to contribute to the economy, but for others they continue their education into graduate school. Regardless of the direction, the students have benefited from the years of creation of value and investment into their lives and their careers.

Giving value to students in a university setting is partly about giving them skills, tools, abilities to be successful while teaching them to develop their own pathway and apply their creative minds and energies to solving problems. We hope that through higher education, students develop the ability to make their own decisions and to keep learning throughout their lives and in their calling. The act of teaching and the learning of the students should be primarily concerned with adding value to all the students through a vast array of learning experiences.

Students receive value at different levels and at different rates and schools offer value in various ways with various types of intensity and results. The greater the value created, the more useful and marketable is the person. Of course a person's worth cannot and should not be measured merely in terms of market value or knowledge and skills. We find truth in relationships, in kindness, in being compassionate and charitable, and in living a life of sacrifice, selflessness, and patience. Value can also be found in the ability to have good judgment and to make good decisions, to be organized, to manage money, to be responsible, and to use the intellect to research information. Developing a strong work ethic and a sense of loyalty is also part of the value package. All these and more shape a student into a contributing, working adult.

Back to economic terms. The student's investment of time, energy, and, yes, money, in order to get a degree is in effect a trade for the value he or she receives after 4 years or more. The process of receiving value in music involves the thorough study of music but also the experience of making music. One of the great ways a music curriculum adds value is through the use of the ensemble experience. Playing an instrument in band, orchestra, or small ensembles or singing in a choir or a small group is fun, educational, enriching, stimulating, and vastly meaningful. The individual effort to be successful almost magically joins with others in a bold expressive of collective joy. It is the ideal demonstration of teamwork and corporate victory! Students are rewarded with value and with the reminder that "together we can accomplish much."

 We also add value through encouraging individual effort. Music performance is best when it is well-prepared. To be prepared requires many hours of individual practice as well as guidance by a professional. When students prepare for the performance and are then held accountable by their peers and their teachers, they achieve value. The system for individual preparation is ultimately a way to create added value by synthesizing musical knowledge and skills with the aim of public accountability. This is not unlike the business world where the continual improvement of a product results in a higher profit margin or value. In the arts, continual improvement of personal skills results in greater excellence and value for the performer and subsequently, the performance.

Lastly we add value through cognitive development in the classroom. Although this system has altered the last few years with the advent of the information age and knowledge at the fingertips of every student, the basic idea remains the same. That is that students learn not just the material they need to know in their future positions, but they also learn how to find, how to discern, and how to utilize the information that is readily available. We create value in our students when they graduate with the ability and the desire to keep learning and to apply their creative and intellectual gifts in their chosen professions.

Truly the responsibility to create value in our students is tremendous and we in college music teaching must take that responsibility seriously by asking ourselves how to improve and how to add more value each day to our students. As we add value to our students, we increase and champion the value of our curriculum and our institutions. This requires continual evaluation of our system, ensuring that we teach with great integrity and relevance for today's ever changing world.

The Tragedy of Exclusion

The common practice period, in the history of European art music (broadly called classical music), spanning the Baroque, Classical, and Romantic periods, lasted from c. 1600 to c. 1900.--http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_practice_period

It is not that there is a problem with teaching art music from the Common Practice, after all it is certainly great music. The music has withstood the test of time and comes from a part of the world that is established, having fought through wars, experienced bloodshed, built castles, and refined itself. Unlike other parts of the world where people are still battling each other, nature, or themselves, much of Europe finds itself in the enviable position of being a continent of well-established nations. They have endured much and come out smiling, holding in their hands great works of art, music, literature, and theatre. From these countries we still enjoy the music of the Renaissance, the Baroque, the Classical, the Romantic, and music of today. This music forms what musicians call the Canon of great music literature, and it is from this great literature that we grow as artists, writers, performers, and historians. Our music programs derive great benefit from music of the Common Practice and it is hoped that this approach never goes away. At the risk of sounding elitist and with just a tad of snobbish selectivity, I believe every music student should know something of the music of Mozart, Bach, Beethoven, and Stravinsky, to name a few examples.

The problem lies not in what is being taught, but rather what is not being taught. When we target one type of music from one general geographical region from a limited time period, we are addressing a small body of music literature in relation to the rest of the world and all of history and culture. Great music no doubt and certainly worthy of study, adulation, and emulation, but is it the only music worthy of such? How did we land on music of the Common Practice as our primary focus for music study in our colleges and universities? Did we look around and find the most advanced civilization, the culture that has attained artistic heights and choose the heritage of that civilization as our standard for study? If so, we chose well for there is no question that the music of the Common Practice from Europe continues to be deemed as high art and deserving of its rightful place in the curriculum.

By emphasizing music from the Common Practice and refusing to acknowledge other music, what are we leaving out in the process? As mentioned earlier, we are ignoring the popular music world which includes a plethora of styles such as jazz, rock, pop, folk, hip-hop, rap, country, film, and Broadway. We are also providing very little exposure to music from around the world including Asian music, Indian music, South America, Africa, and the list continues. In the field of education, we dabble in music for children and we give the occasional nod to music for school-aged ensembles such as band, choir, and orchestra. At the applied level of music study, we are exclusively Common Practice oriented and rarely get out of the time periods prescribed by the music curriculum. Certainly a horn player should know the Mozart Horn Concertos--great music for sure and still performed often, but a horn player should also know something by John Williams, Oliver Messiaen, Douglas Hill, or Tom Varner.

The tragedy occurs when a student graduates from college with a music degree only to realize that his value as a musician is to perform music that very few want to hear. He rarely or even never again has an opportunity to sing an art song or play a concerto or perform a sonata in public. His education has been solid, well-grounded in the classics, but the lack of relevancy makes him vital for a previous world that no longer exists. His value as a musician is limited and he either progresses into a relevant model, playing music that people support or he simply gives up his musicianship quickly recognizing that his skills are not beneficial. Some graduates use their foundational knowledge about music to transform themselves into vital musicians with a purpose in today's world. But for most, they are not sure how to proceed and flail around in a world where less than 5% of the population find meaning in classical music from the Common Practice.

When we exclude vital music from the educational process, we do no favors for our students. The value we are trying to create for them is old and outdated. It is time for us to make sure that we are not teaching our students how to write on a Big Chief tablet when the world is computing on a modern tablet. I am not advocating abolishing the curriculum, but I am recommending we take a serious look at how to augment the knowledge to include music that is vital today.

The Clashing of the Guitars and Drums

When the electric guitar and the trap set became a regular part of the popular music scene, the cultures began to clash, the tensions mounted, and people became polarized. It was the 1950s when this first became obvious, finding greater momentum in the 1960s. Amazingly enough, 60 years later we still live with this tension today. It is funny, even absurd and pathetic, to imagine how often some people hold on to an ideal that has no relevance or completely misses the mark. We champion a cause, and all of us do, that cannot be sustained over time. We point to our heroes or certain ideas as being model examples of our belief system until we discover that our hero or our concept has betrayed us in some way. Rarely can we state unequivocally that one side is always virtuous and the other full of vice or that there is one right way to make music or one wrong way. The ambiguity of art is its very strength and, sadly, its natural inherent weakness. We scream for quality and we demand excellence at all levels; and yet, we have defined these terms through heritage rather than through objective means.

Sound, in and of itself, has no moral position. A sound can neither be good nor bad, right nor wrong, virtuous nor evil. No tone or timbre regardless of whether it is the richness of a violin or the harshness of a chainsaw contains any kind of quality to make it cause a certain behavior or to empower other sounds or people in any kind of sense. A sound is not magical and does not contain properties within itself to change a person or a culture or civilization. There really is not a God-ordained sound in the world nor is there a devil-inscribed agenda on any tone. There is nothing pagan, suggestive, nor deliberately misleading in any sound and, conversely, there are no angels, goodness, or purity in any tone heard by the human ear. Obviously text gives sound a particular meaning but without text, it is simply sound--no more and no less.

There is, however, association with sound and there are, in vast array, preferences for particular sounds. This is true and right and, in some great but intangible way, what makes us a collection of individuals, each with unique blend of preferences, thoughts, and emotions. But with this mosaic of preferences inevitably comes misguided, although well-intentioned, ideas of what constitutes good or bad sound, at least in terms of moral attitude. When we discuss criteria for judgment of sound, we do so with a prescribed set of expectations. Approaching sound with a standard of excellence in mind or with an idea of what constitutes excellence obviously does require ascribing good quality or bad quality to the result, but to reiterate, sound, in and of itself, cannot be good nor bad. It is just sound--it has no moral fiber and no ability to discern its own qualifications for excellence.

Now onto the discussion at hand--guitars and drums. Although both instruments have been around for several centuries, dating back to Medieval times and probably earlier, it was in the 20th century that things began to change. The invention of the electric guitar along with the ability to collect percussion instruments into a single, complex unit gave us sounds never imagined. Both instruments found their pathway in the areas of music for entertainment including Jazz, Broadway, Pop, Rock, Ragtime, Big Bands, and eventually, although used rarely, in serious art music such as Third Stream and Leonard Bernstein's eclectic scores. But herein lies the problem: with few exceptions these instruments have not found residence in academic nor cultivated art music circles. Electric Guitars and Drum Sets are continually battling for the recognition as legitimate instruments for all music.

Many cultural clashes occurred with the rise of Rock music in the 50s including race relations, teenage rebellion, clothing styles, religious differences, and sound questions. Sadly and amazingly, both the electric guitar and the trap set quickly became associated with Rock and Roll of the late 50s and 60s, thus resulting in becoming pariahs of the so-called cultured adult world. The instruments still suffer from this association today, particularly in academia. We are comfortable relegating them to their domiciles in the jazz band or the occasional combo performing jazz or some hybrid of jazz, but beyond those genres, we tend to reject their validity in music study today.

Regardless of the role of the electric guitar and the trap set in academic circles, the instruments enjoy great popularity and credibility in most kinds of music for entertainment and in worship in churches. While they may occasionally feel slighted by the academic community, their very ubiquitous role in all other settings gives them a lasting place in culture. Rejected by some, accepted by most, electric guitars and drum sets are valued instruments deserving of study and acknowledgement by the academic community. Therein lies the clash--should instruments used primarily for popular music be considered a vital part of the music curriculum in academic communities?

As we continue to make our programs relevant, it is time to recognize the value of popular music's role not simply in music but as an expression of current thought, philosophical trends, and cultural expectations. When we decide to expand our curriculum, we will need to include a greater use of instruments not previously considered a part of academic study. Until this happens, clash of guitars and drums with traditional classical music will continue.