How to Build a Gas Station

A student once asked a college professor why music curriculum was steeped in the classics when music application upon graduation was mostly contemporary or popular oriented. The context of the question was related to churches but can be extended to the music industry. The professor gave an indirect example that served as both his philosophy and a justification of the curriculum. He said something to the effect that an architect studies the finest in architecture rather than how to build a gas station. He went on to posture that if an architect can build a cathedral or a museum or a mansion, then he can certainly build a gas station.

Aside from several weaknesses that occur when analogies are analyzed to specific detail, the attitude is likewise disdainful. The idea of exclusion and qualitative generalizations based on random subjectivity makes me uncomfortable, and I cannot entirely join my colleagues in criticizing the gas station and lifting up the highly regarded architectural design of a cathedral. I am so thankful for the cathedral but will admit to using the gas station much more frequently. Does this in and of itself make the gas station a lesser structure and partly due to infrequent usage, the cathedral greater? As a design becomes more utilitarian does it likewise become less artistic and therefore less worthy?

This does not mean that I equate all buildings as equal nor do I spend effort in studying the design of a gas station over that of a cathedral. It does mean, however, that I can respect the cathedral with its arches, domes, windows, etchings, furnishings, crosses, rooms, and purpose while also respecting the gas station with its underground holdings, pumps, rooms, garage, over-hangings, and store. Both structures require planning, design, a vision, implementation, coordinated efforts, tenacity, artistry, and funding. One is not "better" than the other but each is used for different purposes. If studied for artistic elements to include line, creativity, imagination, beauty, and form, one would readily conclude the cathedral to be superior. Yet if one were to study the structures for usefulness and purpose (spiritual elements aside), one might suggest the gas station to be superior to the cathedral in terms of practicality, footprint, functionality, perhaps even form.

We tend to judge art based on our own interests and concepts (thank you Emmanuel Kant!) and tend to rely on so-called experts in the field to tell us what to appreciate and what to reject. But I submit that each work should be considered on its own merits rather than quantitatively ranking it by subjective criteria for qualitative purposes. In doing so we may find value in the simple, treasures within the commonplace, joys in the concise, and deep expression in the mundane. Applying this process does not mitigate the idea of excellence but it does give acknowledgement and affirmation to human creative efforts. It also does not minimize the role of artistic preference but, instead, allows for multiplicity and pluralization of cognition. Rather than saying "that is quality" or that is "not quality," we are able to evaluate art on its own merits.

Having circumnavigated the issue at hand, let us return to the basic question. Should academia only teach the finest examples at the exclusion of the lesser ones? Or should we attempt to demonstrate the differences, providing tools for application of all kinds of art whether that be visually, musically, or theatrically? I believe it is time to embrace the totality of the arts world and provide education and training that encourages and supports both the gas station and the cathedral. How do you build a gas station? With materials, planning, and hard work!

Symphony by Great Composer

Glorious and stunning are inadequate to describe the performance by the orchestra. Expressive beyond words and wildly cathartic, the performance hit on all cylinders and gave the audience a musical journey that was sublime and richly satisfying on all levels. The conductor and the players were perfectly in sync with each other and every dynamic change was felt collectively by the players and subsequently by the audience. The phrases connected to the whole and the orchestra seemed to grow as a unit with each measure ultimately creating an outstanding musical mosaic of joy and emotional bliss.

The 800 or so people present responded to the concert with a standing ovation and an extended applause. The talk on the way out was about the quality of the orchestra and how fortunate to have orchestra of such exceptional ability in the community. All was positive for almost everyone.

What could possibly be negative? After all, it was an incredible experience for the listeners, the players and the audience. The negative is in the $20,000 deficit that resulted from expenses being substantially greater than the revenues. Another way to express this is that the concert cost more in personnel costs than tickets sales generated. Not enough people came to the concert to offset the expenses. In most industries such a loss would cause restructuring, panic, layoffs, changes, talk of bankruptcy, or at the very least reductions in expenditures.

Many questions remain in this situation such as how could something so amazing cause such significant losses or how do fix this problem? Was it an anomaly? Did management simply spend too much? Or perhaps the problem was in marketing and publicity? Maybe had people been made aware of the remarkable musical and emotional experience they would have, they would have been more inclined to buy tickets and attend the concert. Perhaps an aggressive marketing blitz to include social media, newspapers, television, billboards, emails, flyers, mailouts, and posters would have encouraged support, demonstrating the excellence of the orchestra and "selling" people on the benefits of attending would have worked.

Or maybe it was one of those poorly selected nights where there were too many other events interfering with the orchestra concert, resulting in many disappointed people who were unable to attend due to a prior engagement. Yet somehow none of this rings true. The truth shines full in the light of the economics where the revenues are less than the expenses. For the orchestra to live on playing great music, it must find a way to increase revenues and/or decrease expenses. It is not a marketing problem, although that may be a small part of the solution. It is not a matter of choosing music by better composers nor improving the quality of the organization.

It is a matter of trying new approaches, new music, eclecticism, reaching a wider audience, using media, drums, guitars, entertainment, variety, all while reducing personnel costs and unnecessary expenditures It is a matter of excellence, integrity, and courage to explore. It is a matter of audiences encouraging and accepting new sounds and being patient to allow the occasional strikeout or unsuccessful concert. And yes it is also a matter of improved marketing, of better scheduling, of letting go of tradition, of making concerts fun, meaningful, convenient, friendly, profound, participatory, interactive, current, and mostly profitable, This then returns to the fundamental question, can or should great art be profitable? The answer is that it better be.

Minor or Major?

No, I am not referencing the sounds of chords although maybe there is some sort of psychological association somewhere in the comparison. I am referencing today's surgery on my thumb. Last summer when picking up a table, it slipped a little and landed on the soft part at the bottom of my left thumb. Feeling something different, I decided not to worry about it and go on. The next few days I was a little sore but nothing serious. Time, however, dealt a different blow as arthritis set in to the thumb due to the previous trauma. Eventually the cartilage quit doing its job to keep the bones in the joint from rubbing on the bones. Now many months later it is time for surgery.

The doctor mentioned it was a minor surgery but did say that to a patient it feels major. Not sure what I think about whether it is minor or major but I do know it is involved. After watching a youtube video explaining how the surgery works, I do feel more informed and somewhat fascinated with the process. First the trapezium bones are removed, followed by a hole being drilled in the thumb. Next an incision is made in the wrist to allow the removal of a tendon. The tendon is then moved to the hole in the thumb where it threads through and around the bone. The leftover tendon is then rolled into a tight pack where it is placed in the joint to prevent the bones from being on the bones.

It all sounds easy and will take about an hour followed by 6-8 weeks of recovery in a cast of some sort. The added problem of my thick blood which requires constant thinning with medication is of concern due to the need for proper coagulation. This means I take shots in the stomach for 5 days prior to surgery and 5 days afterward. The only real danger is the day of surgery where I have no blood thinners in me for several hours. But there is no other choice and I just have to hope for the best.

In a couple of months the thumb should feel fine and I will be back to normal (whatever that means!). Returning to the question, is this minor or major? I think it is exactly what the surgeon told me, minor to him and major to me!