Sunday morning in church the pastor spoke on sin and how the devil finds ways to move into our lives and affect our moral behavior. He spoke eloquently and dramatically in a sermon filled with compelling wisdom and accurate scriptural references. The sermon was a reminder of the activity of Satan in the world and how all of us are subject to the whims and wiles of the devil, not unlike the marvelous book by C.S. Lewis called The Screwtape Letters where Screwtape describes the ways he tricks humans into sinful actions. The sermon was well-delivered and I actually felt fear that Satan would show up ready to get me for my sins. As a relatively successful administrator in a faith-based institution, I do not take sin nor poor behavior lightly and I am sincerely appreciative of the reminder that Satan is alive and well in the world. It does not take long to recognize the problems of evil in the world and all one needs to do is watch the news or read a newspaper, and whether a person interprets the evil as the hand of Satan or the failings of man, there remains a moral conduct problem in our culture.
But looking at this sermon sociologically, and this certainly may not be the best way to look at this issue, I have to wonder if fear is an effective but not preferred motivation for good behavior. Before proceeding, there is no doubt that negative motivation is an effective deterrent for poor conduct and all of us tend to follow the laws partly out of preference to avoid punishment for breaking them. We pay taxes for police protection and we expect them to uphold the laws, yet we tend to push to the edge of traffic laws, allowing the thought to enter our minds, "I hope I don't get caught!" Although heavily debated, it seems as though our inability to govern ourselves as a society requires some sort of judicial system and punishment to protect citizens from evil. We may occasionally resist the law, but in the end we respect it to a degree and recognize that without the law we would live in a perpetual state of anarchy (yes I realize my libertarian friends will quickly argue that we would be better off!).
For centuries philosophers have written extensively about moral behavior and a study of historical literature from Dante, Bunyan, Shakespeare, Dickens, and contemporaries including Camus, Dreiser, Roth, and Doctorow have provided further insights into human behavior. Yet no solution to the problems accompanying human destructiveness is clear. If fear is the primary motivation for moral conduct, then the result will be continual resentment, paranoia, and suspicion. Do we behave so as to avoid the alternative which is some kind of pain? Or is it possible to promote an environment whereby excellent moral behavior is the choice regardless of the consequences of poor behavior?
Assuming we live in a rational world where people make decisions that are both self-serving and collectively beneficial, it stands to reason that quality moral behavior is best if chosen without coercion and particularly without fear. We, as a society, will choose to avoid negative behavior and, instead, will be motivated by the positive forces that improve us both individually and corporately. Sin and Satan may be part of our lives but only love, tolerance, and forgiveness can improve us. There is little to gain from postulating a practice based on fear but everything to gain from practicing a life full of compassion, right choices, and respect for each other. Laws are needed and commitment to protection of the weak is a sign of refinement, but ultimately good behavior belongs to the individual.
Monday, March 17, 2014
Sunday, March 16, 2014
Academic Financing and the Problem in the Arts, Part 1
As we wade into the financial challenges of the arts in academia, it would be helpful to have a basic understanding of how institutional finance operates. The basics of running a business are similar to running an academic institution. It is all about revenues and expenses and one needs to exceed the other in order to stay solvent. Customers, and at some point a further discussion is needed on who are the customers, must have a demand for the product and be willing to pay for it. Demand is created when the product is beneficial to the customer and the customer believes the value of the product is greater than the expense. Such is true of basic economic practice.
When we begin to look at institutional finance, we must consider additional factors such as endowment yields, inventory, capital, depreciation, insurance, grants, funding sources, budgets, salaries, property needs, and taxes when applicable. Funding sources can include but are not limited to student tuition, fees, residence halls, gifts, and funds that flow through institutions in various forms such as financial aid and governmental grants. The sheer complexity of accounts ultimately demonstrates a complex web of expenses that are managed through a typical institutional governance structure that involves a board of trustees, a president, vice-presidents, deans, chairs, and other responsible parties within the organization.
Academic institutions tend to operate broadly, being satisfied when the end of the year ends with more money left than spent. Because most academic institutions are considered "non-profit," it is essential to keep money flowing by demonstrating a constant need for growth and improvement. Accreditation also plays an essential role in the process and ensures students are receiving quality instruction and an overall positive experience that involves advising, protection, health, resources, and a myriad of student requirements. But whether a school is large, small, for profit, non-profit, private, or state, in the end the school must have students to keep its doors open. Because personnel costs are generally 50% or more of the expenses of an institution, academia depends on a series of quality teachers within a variety of disciplines that encompass the institution. While it is hoped that most disciplines support themselves through student numbers, there are some areas in academia where the expenses are greater than the revenues whether or not enrollment numbers are high. Such is true in the fine arts.
It is in discipline specific areas where academia and traditional business part ways. A low producing area or product would either receive more attention to bring it to the level of success or be evaluated for possible removal from the process. If the expenses for the area are greater than the revenues it contributes to the business, then changes would be made.The product itself would be studied for ways to generate greater revenues and/or reduce expenses. In the business realm, earnings and financial ratios are carefully studied with comprehensive scrutiny over every area of the business. In academia, however, we tend to look at the whole, knowing that the sum of the parts contributes to the entire institution, ignoring, at least to some extent, the differences in expenses of the parts.
There are many disciplines in academia that do not require a substantial outlay of funds to operate at a high level. Given that individual personnel costs, within certain discipline parameters, do not change from discipline to discipline, many areas do not require extensive inventory, budgets, capital improvements, nor advanced facilities to operate. Taking advanced technological needs out of the picture, there are disciplines that need classrooms with desks, basic projection, a computer, wi-fi connection, a temperature controlled environment, and a teacher for each class. Variables in size, scope, and mission aside, there are many inexpensive academic disciplines operating within most institutions of higher learning. Thankfully, these are the areas that allow for the more expensive disciplines to remain a part of the whole. Which brings us onto the fragile ice called the arts. This is not to say the arts are the only expensive discipline on campus, but they are certainly near or at the top of the pile, or to say it another way, they are skating on thin ice with the potential for serious cracks.
While at some level we know that the arts contribute positively to the cultural experience of society and the immediate community, and that the arts are an essential part of the academic experience, we are also aware of the expenses that an arts education requires. There are five additional requirements for running an arts program that most other disciplines do not have: 1) Large inventory, 2) Scholarships, 3) Unique facility requirements, 4) Individualized instruction, and 5) Extensive contact hours. But before diving too far into these challenges, let us take an analytical look at some projections for the future as though looking at a stock for growth patterns.
According to Jim Cramer, there are three requirements for understanding whether an individual stock will grow: world economy, sector growth, and company health (Get Rich Carefully, Blue Rider Press, 2013). Using these ideas in arts analysis, we find a rapidly changing world, decline in classical art interest, and a generally healthy but self-serving company. When we factor in the five expensive requirements for running an arts program in higher education, we are skirting the edge of an untenable situation regardless of the size, scope, or mission of the institution. Continuing down the slope without dramatic changes in approach could result in closed programs, lost personnel, significant tension in administration, and, in some cases, failed institutions. The time to make changes is upon us. Those who can change may survive, but those who cannot will be added to the long list of archaic disciplines once taught in colleges and universities. We are in a cultural crises in the arts that will be driven by economic data more than emotion. Although not a hopeless situation, it is critical that we in the arts come to some conclusions that will save a valued discipline which is an essential part of both higher education and ultimately contributes to societal refinement.
When we begin to look at institutional finance, we must consider additional factors such as endowment yields, inventory, capital, depreciation, insurance, grants, funding sources, budgets, salaries, property needs, and taxes when applicable. Funding sources can include but are not limited to student tuition, fees, residence halls, gifts, and funds that flow through institutions in various forms such as financial aid and governmental grants. The sheer complexity of accounts ultimately demonstrates a complex web of expenses that are managed through a typical institutional governance structure that involves a board of trustees, a president, vice-presidents, deans, chairs, and other responsible parties within the organization.
Academic institutions tend to operate broadly, being satisfied when the end of the year ends with more money left than spent. Because most academic institutions are considered "non-profit," it is essential to keep money flowing by demonstrating a constant need for growth and improvement. Accreditation also plays an essential role in the process and ensures students are receiving quality instruction and an overall positive experience that involves advising, protection, health, resources, and a myriad of student requirements. But whether a school is large, small, for profit, non-profit, private, or state, in the end the school must have students to keep its doors open. Because personnel costs are generally 50% or more of the expenses of an institution, academia depends on a series of quality teachers within a variety of disciplines that encompass the institution. While it is hoped that most disciplines support themselves through student numbers, there are some areas in academia where the expenses are greater than the revenues whether or not enrollment numbers are high. Such is true in the fine arts.
It is in discipline specific areas where academia and traditional business part ways. A low producing area or product would either receive more attention to bring it to the level of success or be evaluated for possible removal from the process. If the expenses for the area are greater than the revenues it contributes to the business, then changes would be made.The product itself would be studied for ways to generate greater revenues and/or reduce expenses. In the business realm, earnings and financial ratios are carefully studied with comprehensive scrutiny over every area of the business. In academia, however, we tend to look at the whole, knowing that the sum of the parts contributes to the entire institution, ignoring, at least to some extent, the differences in expenses of the parts.
There are many disciplines in academia that do not require a substantial outlay of funds to operate at a high level. Given that individual personnel costs, within certain discipline parameters, do not change from discipline to discipline, many areas do not require extensive inventory, budgets, capital improvements, nor advanced facilities to operate. Taking advanced technological needs out of the picture, there are disciplines that need classrooms with desks, basic projection, a computer, wi-fi connection, a temperature controlled environment, and a teacher for each class. Variables in size, scope, and mission aside, there are many inexpensive academic disciplines operating within most institutions of higher learning. Thankfully, these are the areas that allow for the more expensive disciplines to remain a part of the whole. Which brings us onto the fragile ice called the arts. This is not to say the arts are the only expensive discipline on campus, but they are certainly near or at the top of the pile, or to say it another way, they are skating on thin ice with the potential for serious cracks.
While at some level we know that the arts contribute positively to the cultural experience of society and the immediate community, and that the arts are an essential part of the academic experience, we are also aware of the expenses that an arts education requires. There are five additional requirements for running an arts program that most other disciplines do not have: 1) Large inventory, 2) Scholarships, 3) Unique facility requirements, 4) Individualized instruction, and 5) Extensive contact hours. But before diving too far into these challenges, let us take an analytical look at some projections for the future as though looking at a stock for growth patterns.
According to Jim Cramer, there are three requirements for understanding whether an individual stock will grow: world economy, sector growth, and company health (Get Rich Carefully, Blue Rider Press, 2013). Using these ideas in arts analysis, we find a rapidly changing world, decline in classical art interest, and a generally healthy but self-serving company. When we factor in the five expensive requirements for running an arts program in higher education, we are skirting the edge of an untenable situation regardless of the size, scope, or mission of the institution. Continuing down the slope without dramatic changes in approach could result in closed programs, lost personnel, significant tension in administration, and, in some cases, failed institutions. The time to make changes is upon us. Those who can change may survive, but those who cannot will be added to the long list of archaic disciplines once taught in colleges and universities. We are in a cultural crises in the arts that will be driven by economic data more than emotion. Although not a hopeless situation, it is critical that we in the arts come to some conclusions that will save a valued discipline which is an essential part of both higher education and ultimately contributes to societal refinement.
Friday, March 14, 2014
The Ensemble Experience
Among the great joys of being a musician is the opportunity to participate and perform with a musical ensemble. It is the age-old concept of individuals working collectively to solve a problem by applying skill, fastidiousness, and emotion to sound. Musical ensembles are in effect manifestations of society and culture attempting to uphold independence while operating congruently, ideas that can be found in virtually every part of our culture. When we dine together at home or a restaurant we are acting on the principle of social polyphony whereby each person participates in the eating to meet his own needs while allowing and encouraging the group experience to include not just the actual eating but talking, sharing, passing food, and working to conform to the group needs while retaining the independence of the act.
Having dined with large groups in banquet settings, I am always intrigued by the general timing of the experience. Most finish the salad within the same few minutes, the main course, the dessert, and most require refills of drinks at the same rate. This is yet another example of the congruence that occurs when in social settings. The same is true when we drive down the road, put on our clothes, manage our lives, and the list of independent yet congruent activities is extensive. Granted that many actions remain purely individual, there is no question that we enjoy and respond to the idea of collective goals. In a sense, we are dependent on those opportunities to join with other people either in social engagement or in accomplishment of some worthy task.
Such is true in the musical ensemble. The euphoria that occurs from playing in an outstanding ensemble and performing for an appreciative and eager audience is difficult to put into words. It is simply an incredible experience and one that I wish all people could have at some point in their lives. Certainly a powerful experience, I can point to hundreds of great experiences as a performer, conductor, and composer, in bands, choirs, orchestras, and many combinations of smaller organizations. There is something magical and boldly unified that occurs when each individual uses skill and excellence to bring out the finest in music. Many amazing sounds work together to provide music to audiences and give them a similar sense of the euphoria that accompanies music ensembles in their product.
When choirs are singing, strings are playing, bands are marching, it is as though the challenges of the world take a back seat to the experience on the stage or field. The music ensemble serves as a shining example of how people can work together for a common purpose and instead of promoting non-conformity or individuality, ensembles are promoting unity, harmony, and congruence. Add in the power of collective dissonance that occurs within the sound of the music, and we have an aural representation of the tension and repose that exists in culture today.
In spite of the individual and collective euphoria and the positive responses from audiences everywhere, there is an economic threat to the music ensemble. At the professional level, it is expensive. Plain and simple. If an orchestra could be paid as one unit, receiving a large sum based on a substantial percentage of ticket sales, and subsequently distributing the sum among the players, all would be well. This would likely result in performers determining what to perform and how to generate interest in their skills. Some concerts would pay very little and cause musicians to reevaluate the product. Other events would be financially rewarding, resulting in happy performers who directly influenced the final result. While the players would not know in advance how much they would make, they would also have great interest in the audience and its response to the concert. No longer would we see disinterested professional performers collecting a paycheck regardless of the ticket sales.
Musicians enjoy performing, people enjoy large ensembles, and the result ought to be a successful experience for both performers and audience members. But it may be time for professional musicians to accept that the market needs to determine the economic reality of the worth of the music ensemble. This will require a paradigm shift of thinking, of management, and of considering how one's talent and skill can be converted to economic success. Recognizing there are many definitions of success and great monetary gain is rarely achieved by artists, at the same time, it is difficult to reconcile the "starving" musician with the general enjoyment of ensemble performing. Regardless of the talent level, no musician is entitled to a career based on his/her own sense of worth. Careers are made when there is a demand for the skill. Such is true of the musician.
The music ensemble is a substantive experience with a long and rich heritage and it is here to stay in our culture. Whether that is true at the professional level, however, is questionable and only time and the market will prove its power and worth. Meanwhile, the amateur and school ensemble continues to thrive at a high level and provides tremendous feelings of joy for those in the ensemble as well as the audience. As a model expression of independence and collective congruence, few other concepts compete with the music ensemble.
Having dined with large groups in banquet settings, I am always intrigued by the general timing of the experience. Most finish the salad within the same few minutes, the main course, the dessert, and most require refills of drinks at the same rate. This is yet another example of the congruence that occurs when in social settings. The same is true when we drive down the road, put on our clothes, manage our lives, and the list of independent yet congruent activities is extensive. Granted that many actions remain purely individual, there is no question that we enjoy and respond to the idea of collective goals. In a sense, we are dependent on those opportunities to join with other people either in social engagement or in accomplishment of some worthy task.
Such is true in the musical ensemble. The euphoria that occurs from playing in an outstanding ensemble and performing for an appreciative and eager audience is difficult to put into words. It is simply an incredible experience and one that I wish all people could have at some point in their lives. Certainly a powerful experience, I can point to hundreds of great experiences as a performer, conductor, and composer, in bands, choirs, orchestras, and many combinations of smaller organizations. There is something magical and boldly unified that occurs when each individual uses skill and excellence to bring out the finest in music. Many amazing sounds work together to provide music to audiences and give them a similar sense of the euphoria that accompanies music ensembles in their product.
When choirs are singing, strings are playing, bands are marching, it is as though the challenges of the world take a back seat to the experience on the stage or field. The music ensemble serves as a shining example of how people can work together for a common purpose and instead of promoting non-conformity or individuality, ensembles are promoting unity, harmony, and congruence. Add in the power of collective dissonance that occurs within the sound of the music, and we have an aural representation of the tension and repose that exists in culture today.
In spite of the individual and collective euphoria and the positive responses from audiences everywhere, there is an economic threat to the music ensemble. At the professional level, it is expensive. Plain and simple. If an orchestra could be paid as one unit, receiving a large sum based on a substantial percentage of ticket sales, and subsequently distributing the sum among the players, all would be well. This would likely result in performers determining what to perform and how to generate interest in their skills. Some concerts would pay very little and cause musicians to reevaluate the product. Other events would be financially rewarding, resulting in happy performers who directly influenced the final result. While the players would not know in advance how much they would make, they would also have great interest in the audience and its response to the concert. No longer would we see disinterested professional performers collecting a paycheck regardless of the ticket sales.
Musicians enjoy performing, people enjoy large ensembles, and the result ought to be a successful experience for both performers and audience members. But it may be time for professional musicians to accept that the market needs to determine the economic reality of the worth of the music ensemble. This will require a paradigm shift of thinking, of management, and of considering how one's talent and skill can be converted to economic success. Recognizing there are many definitions of success and great monetary gain is rarely achieved by artists, at the same time, it is difficult to reconcile the "starving" musician with the general enjoyment of ensemble performing. Regardless of the talent level, no musician is entitled to a career based on his/her own sense of worth. Careers are made when there is a demand for the skill. Such is true of the musician.
The music ensemble is a substantive experience with a long and rich heritage and it is here to stay in our culture. Whether that is true at the professional level, however, is questionable and only time and the market will prove its power and worth. Meanwhile, the amateur and school ensemble continues to thrive at a high level and provides tremendous feelings of joy for those in the ensemble as well as the audience. As a model expression of independence and collective congruence, few other concepts compete with the music ensemble.
Friday, March 07, 2014
The Danger of Being Our Own Audience
After reading an article about the problems of academic writing, I began to ponder several of the comments the author made and how this is related to academic music training. Near the end of the article, he mentions that "professors are their own audience" (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2014/02/why-is-academic-writing-so-academic.html). He also postures that academia is becoming marginalized due to insularity and a shrinking academic target primarily serving itself. While he does not address technological advances as contributing to the issue, I would further contend that academia is being forced to change due to the inherent suspicions of the validity of the intellectual life. While it pains me to say, I fear our culture is losing faith in the wise, highly trained professor of the past.
If the information found on the Internet is superior in most respects to the information gained from sitting in a classroom listening to one person offering astute but also narrow and limited truth, why do we still need the system of academic training? The answer lies, of course, in the personal connection of one human being to another. But as culture marches forward, that desire for connection is morphing from reverence for the brilliance of one person to more of curiosity about people in general. Because vast information is found with the fingertips in a matter of seconds, the level of respect and awe for individuals is being subjugated by admiration and respect for machines.
This is not, as the Luddites would insist, a sign of the slow dehumanization of culture but is rather a shifting away from dependence on individual knowledge. Ironically, I posture that the Internet has actually made all of us more human and aware of each other's frailties and insecurities, as well as strengths. Rather than holding up a scholar as unparalleled in his field, we acknowledge that his or her brilliance is likely matched with her own set of frailties or weaknesses. Such is the case of everyone. Students may sit at the feet of the intellectual imparting information but deep down they realize that more information is available in the tablet sitting on their laps and that the person in front is probably struggling with complicated personal issues that inflict all people in some form or another.
Not that this is a problem at all. Some would see this change as the downfall of education, but I see it as an improvement of the process. Vast and instant information from the machine, human insights from an individual, awareness of weaknesses, and acknowledgement of success and skill. All these and more form the educational process and the opportunities abound unbridled for personal growth using a combination of technology and human interaction.
Returning to the problem in the arts, if we are unable to make this shift in education, the arts will continue to see a remarkable decline in its own value, arrogantly extolling its own worth by supporting itself and becoming its own audience--a diminishing proposition at best. Are we pretending that our art is valuable by simply attending our own programs and making the bold statement that what we do is the "right" kind or "best" kind of music? Is this similar to the problems of academic writing that has little relevance and reaches a very small audience? Is an entirely "classical" music curriculum being inadvertently defenestrated only to reside in academic communities that have lifted themselves onto their self-made pulpits and are trying to preach to the very few who will listen?
It is time for academic music training to embrace an eclectic curriculum that is bathed in both the classics and the popular world. Preparing future students to perform music that has a limited audience is likened to teaching a chef to prepare a dish that only a few other chefs will eat. While it is the right of a chef to prepare what he or she so chooses to prepare, it is also the right of those who indulge to accept or reject it. The study of culinary arts seeks not to insist on food only other chefs prefer but, instead, to provide skills and basic truths that can be applied and extended through innovation and creativity with the aim of pleasing the tastes of the people.
Have we in academia forgotten our audience? Granted that an audience is comprised of a vast and complex mosaic of preferences and desires and virtually any attempt to meet all those needs is likely going to fall into a bottomless pit of mediocrity and failure. But in our efforts to present the finest music in the best way, have we become delusion about our influence and our worth in the world? As we emphasize excellence and quality literature in our curriculum, the world seems to be marching to a different cadence. The more we demand the public to march to our tune, the less the public seems to respond. Our reaction to this problem is not to find people where they are or to seek out their preferences for sound, but, rather to become our own applause for what we offer. We clap loud and we clap long for ourselves while the world walks out the door to find something different.
Much of life as a scholar in academia is spent teaching, researching, and serving institutions and communities, knowing there is little notoriety or public acknowledgment of the practice. While no academic intends to divorce his or her discipline from economic reality nor from public opinion, to ignore such realities is to fall into banality and institutional selfishness. Even worse is to become our own fan club propagating generations into the same banal trappings. How do we correct such action? It will require a substantive evaluation of music curriculum and an acceptance of a changing world. Mostly it will require letting go, at least to some extent, of the art music we hold so dear and allowing the market to guide the direction of musical needs for the future. Can this be done with integrity, with rigor, with respect for the heritage of music? Time to roll up our sleeves and give it a try.
If the information found on the Internet is superior in most respects to the information gained from sitting in a classroom listening to one person offering astute but also narrow and limited truth, why do we still need the system of academic training? The answer lies, of course, in the personal connection of one human being to another. But as culture marches forward, that desire for connection is morphing from reverence for the brilliance of one person to more of curiosity about people in general. Because vast information is found with the fingertips in a matter of seconds, the level of respect and awe for individuals is being subjugated by admiration and respect for machines.
This is not, as the Luddites would insist, a sign of the slow dehumanization of culture but is rather a shifting away from dependence on individual knowledge. Ironically, I posture that the Internet has actually made all of us more human and aware of each other's frailties and insecurities, as well as strengths. Rather than holding up a scholar as unparalleled in his field, we acknowledge that his or her brilliance is likely matched with her own set of frailties or weaknesses. Such is the case of everyone. Students may sit at the feet of the intellectual imparting information but deep down they realize that more information is available in the tablet sitting on their laps and that the person in front is probably struggling with complicated personal issues that inflict all people in some form or another.
Not that this is a problem at all. Some would see this change as the downfall of education, but I see it as an improvement of the process. Vast and instant information from the machine, human insights from an individual, awareness of weaknesses, and acknowledgement of success and skill. All these and more form the educational process and the opportunities abound unbridled for personal growth using a combination of technology and human interaction.
Returning to the problem in the arts, if we are unable to make this shift in education, the arts will continue to see a remarkable decline in its own value, arrogantly extolling its own worth by supporting itself and becoming its own audience--a diminishing proposition at best. Are we pretending that our art is valuable by simply attending our own programs and making the bold statement that what we do is the "right" kind or "best" kind of music? Is this similar to the problems of academic writing that has little relevance and reaches a very small audience? Is an entirely "classical" music curriculum being inadvertently defenestrated only to reside in academic communities that have lifted themselves onto their self-made pulpits and are trying to preach to the very few who will listen?
It is time for academic music training to embrace an eclectic curriculum that is bathed in both the classics and the popular world. Preparing future students to perform music that has a limited audience is likened to teaching a chef to prepare a dish that only a few other chefs will eat. While it is the right of a chef to prepare what he or she so chooses to prepare, it is also the right of those who indulge to accept or reject it. The study of culinary arts seeks not to insist on food only other chefs prefer but, instead, to provide skills and basic truths that can be applied and extended through innovation and creativity with the aim of pleasing the tastes of the people.
Have we in academia forgotten our audience? Granted that an audience is comprised of a vast and complex mosaic of preferences and desires and virtually any attempt to meet all those needs is likely going to fall into a bottomless pit of mediocrity and failure. But in our efforts to present the finest music in the best way, have we become delusion about our influence and our worth in the world? As we emphasize excellence and quality literature in our curriculum, the world seems to be marching to a different cadence. The more we demand the public to march to our tune, the less the public seems to respond. Our reaction to this problem is not to find people where they are or to seek out their preferences for sound, but, rather to become our own applause for what we offer. We clap loud and we clap long for ourselves while the world walks out the door to find something different.
Much of life as a scholar in academia is spent teaching, researching, and serving institutions and communities, knowing there is little notoriety or public acknowledgment of the practice. While no academic intends to divorce his or her discipline from economic reality nor from public opinion, to ignore such realities is to fall into banality and institutional selfishness. Even worse is to become our own fan club propagating generations into the same banal trappings. How do we correct such action? It will require a substantive evaluation of music curriculum and an acceptance of a changing world. Mostly it will require letting go, at least to some extent, of the art music we hold so dear and allowing the market to guide the direction of musical needs for the future. Can this be done with integrity, with rigor, with respect for the heritage of music? Time to roll up our sleeves and give it a try.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)