We read in dismay about the lady in California who pepper sprayed other shoppers to keep them away from her desired item--an XBox game for her children. In the mayhem that ensued, she got the item and with her three children, she checked out and left Walmart without anyone realizing she was the culprit. Twenty people were injured in the event, ten of which resulted from crowd smashing.
The subsequent articles about this event cited the problems of "Black Friday" including the desperation for certain items, the obsession with shopping, the insistence on the immediate acquisition, and the total disregard for other people. All these things and more, much more, caused this event to happen. Maybe in the end we can simply state that the lady was not well-grounded in her mental faculties.
But somehow many of us were not surprised that this happened. After all, an XBox is the greatest single object on the planet, worthy of mayhem and destruction, a game to end all games, and absolutely necessary for survival, not to mention the children that are utterly dependent on the game for happiness and joy in their lives. Who could exist without an XBox? Food, clothing, and shelter are secondary to the need for an XBox. In fact, I wonder why our government has not considered the XBox has a part of the bailout process for businesses, for welfare, for unemployment.
Maybe this is the problem. We are all entitled to an XBox, but we do not all have one. If every person on the planet were given the XBox, there would not be a need to pepper spray anyone trying to get it at the store. So I urge our governmental officials to stop the shopping chaos in Walmart by giving everybody an XBox, thus removing the need for pepper spray to prevent someone else from getting the XBox. Our entitlement to the XBox must also make us entitled to harm others to acquire that which we are supposed to have in the first place. In fact, maybe our Rights should be rewritten to state, "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of XBoxes"!
Okay, enough of the sarcasm. But I do urge everyone to use good judgment and human compassion in the acquisition of stuff. When our desire for things rules greater than our common sense and our sensitivity for others, then we are practicing an inverted sense of right and wrong.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
Saturday, November 19, 2011
A Week of Downers
The death of four people I know made it a week of downers. Funerals are not my favorite event to attend and I especially do not like that I will not see those people again here on earth. One was 24, one was quite elderly and the other two nearing retirement age. All were parents, all had family, all had friends, all made an impact on the world. I spent the week with a heavy heart, sympathizing with their families, counseling students, counseling myself, and rethinking priorities of life. Suddenly the little myopic problems of being an administrator did not seem all that important. On top of the heavy emotions, I was criticized for something I did not understand. Sure made for a difficult week.
But there were many great things as well. I love directing the Brady choir which combines First Baptist Church, First United Methodist Church, and other interested parties. We are preparing for a Christmas event that promises to be a grand and glorious expression celebrating the birth of Christ. As I prepared for Wednesday night's rehearsal, I was tired, grouchy, and really had very little joy in my heart for the rehearsal. But seeing the bright, happy faces and experiencing the infectious joy of the people changed me for the better, and I responded in kind, reminding me that rehearsals are an important part of the musical journey to the performance and further reminding me that making music is about the people and the sharing of our gifts with each other. The grief isolation I was experiencing was put aside for a few minutes and I found myself in a musical embrace with other people.
Now at the end of week I am in Arizona at a music convention (convention is the appropriate word since this gathering of music executives is generally conventional!) where we learn how to be better music executives. We learn about curriculum, technology, trends, and general focus for music units across the country. We also reconnect with friends, making some new ones along the way, perhaps sharing ideas and problems with each other. We eat food that is a little too expensive, but tasty and we sit in meetings taking notes hoping to find something useful to bring back with us to our places of employment.
In a way though, this convention is allowing me to heal a little from the difficult week and to rejuvenate my administrative responsibilities. Spending some time writing music, studying documents, relaxing, thinking, and learning is helping me to see world as a bright, wonderful place once again. The vastness of the sky, the beauty of nature, the complex but warm people, and the comfort of knowing my family is home safe and sound, all work together to demonstrate the joy that resides within us, the joy that needs to be expressed, the joy that deserves an opportunity to shine forth.
And joyful I am for my life and for the lives of friends, family, students, colleagues, and the world in which we reside. I smile in earnest and put aside the downers of the week. The journey continues and it is a good one.
But there were many great things as well. I love directing the Brady choir which combines First Baptist Church, First United Methodist Church, and other interested parties. We are preparing for a Christmas event that promises to be a grand and glorious expression celebrating the birth of Christ. As I prepared for Wednesday night's rehearsal, I was tired, grouchy, and really had very little joy in my heart for the rehearsal. But seeing the bright, happy faces and experiencing the infectious joy of the people changed me for the better, and I responded in kind, reminding me that rehearsals are an important part of the musical journey to the performance and further reminding me that making music is about the people and the sharing of our gifts with each other. The grief isolation I was experiencing was put aside for a few minutes and I found myself in a musical embrace with other people.
Now at the end of week I am in Arizona at a music convention (convention is the appropriate word since this gathering of music executives is generally conventional!) where we learn how to be better music executives. We learn about curriculum, technology, trends, and general focus for music units across the country. We also reconnect with friends, making some new ones along the way, perhaps sharing ideas and problems with each other. We eat food that is a little too expensive, but tasty and we sit in meetings taking notes hoping to find something useful to bring back with us to our places of employment.
In a way though, this convention is allowing me to heal a little from the difficult week and to rejuvenate my administrative responsibilities. Spending some time writing music, studying documents, relaxing, thinking, and learning is helping me to see world as a bright, wonderful place once again. The vastness of the sky, the beauty of nature, the complex but warm people, and the comfort of knowing my family is home safe and sound, all work together to demonstrate the joy that resides within us, the joy that needs to be expressed, the joy that deserves an opportunity to shine forth.
And joyful I am for my life and for the lives of friends, family, students, colleagues, and the world in which we reside. I smile in earnest and put aside the downers of the week. The journey continues and it is a good one.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
The Myth of the Canon
In literature it is Milton, Shakespeare, Dickens, Hawthorne, Melville, Tolstoy, Hemingway among many others. In art it is DaVinci, Rembrandt, Monet, Duchamp, Picasso, etc. For music we find Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, and in extreme cases Stravinsky. We are discussing the canon, an established program of study based on those works deemed the highest of academic excellence. In the study of History as a subject we tend to look at the events through the lens of governments and rulers rather than the people. This is not due to a lack of compassion for people but rather an awareness that rulers can make dramatic decisions that affect individual lives. Yet in spite of an emphasis on governments we are also acutely aware of how achievements by successful people can shape the future of our lives. We are often so connected to the past that to ignore it is to be unfair to the present. As I type on this computer, I give thought to the microchip, the transistor, the telephone and telegraph, and electricity, all of which make today on this computer possible. In fact, we could trace the computer back to one of the greatest inventions in history, the printing press.
In thinking these thoughts of the past and the present, I am gainfully charged by the study of history, a look at the past, an acknowledgment of great people, an acceptance of their contributions to the world. It is humbling and energizing to consider the truths found in Shakespeare or Theodore Dreiser, to look upon the beauty of Rembrandt, and to hear the line and form in Mozart. We learn from the masters and we benefit from knowing the truths of past. The past cannot be separated from the present and without the contributions of both the governments and the individuals we would not be who we are today collectively or singularly.
Knowing this truth and acknowledging the greatness of art, of literature, of music that has withstood the test of time, I have to question the permanent residence that the establishment of the canon has brought to our culture. For some reason, perhaps due to history, judgment, scholarship, or simply tradition, we in academia have decided that the established canon of literature, art, and music should never alter, should remain in concrete forever. Rather than studying the canon, respecting it, learning from it, we have made it the end result.
"You, my young student, need to know John Milton so that you may gain from and perhaps imitate John Milton and go out and become a new John Milton." "This is Monet, you should love his work, perhaps paint as Monet painted, now go become another Monet." Or "This is Brahms, a master composer for sure, here is his music. Love it, perform it, copy it, and become as Brahms (if you can)." We teach the great literature and art because we love it and desire for others to love it and live it as well. We teach the finest example of our discipline as a way to demonstrate our own concept of excellence as determined by critics, by audiences, by a general acceptance, by the passing of time. And there is no question that Brahms is worth studying, including his life, his use of rhythmic accents, his harmonic invention, his ability to create variations, and his unequaled musical developments.
But if we are to progress in art and in culture, if we are forge ahead, to plant new crops, to innovate, to create and make the arts vital in our world, we must let go of the necessity to make the canon the goal for our students. The established literature, similar to learning history, is without question necessary for knowing the foundations of our disciplines; and having a solid core of knowledge and a framework for our society is paramount for developing the future. Rather than abolishing the work of the masters, we should and do embrace it, applying its truths and its beauty in all we do in literature, in art, and in music. The canon, however, for all its majesty and essential value, must become a springboard for diving into the artistic future, for to dive into the past is to find stagnant water filled with old algae and old efforts. Students today want and deserve tools that will help them succeed, tools for greater expression, tools of opportunity, of entrepreneurship, tools that will enable music, art, and literature a secure place among the disciplines of today and tomorrow.
The myth of the canon is that the canon is located at the end of a narrow tunnel without any change and without any goals other than a focused but uneventful journey toward an excellence long past. The myth is that there is only one route to the excellence and that the established canon is the reward at the end of the journey. It is time to give our students new tools that will allow them success and allow them to try new routes and discover new art along the way. There might be bumps and twists and turns on our journey of discovery but the gain is the possibility of progression, of creation, and of greater expression. Along the way, we nod at and learn from the past, from the masters, but as we learn from them, we may see a gleam in their eye that reminds us of the need to imagine something new. As I walk by these masters, I have to wonder if they saw their work as timeless artifacts destined for greatness forever. Did they create and write anticipating their work would one day be viewed as the final destiny for all future artists? Did they know they would be the canon?
Our literature, art, and music is a result of somebody's imagination. Time to imagine something new and create a new canon for students today. We respect the printing press, but there is no need to spend 4 years studying how to build it nor how to replicate it.
An advocate not for abolishment of the old but certainly an advocate for expansion of what we deem as necessary, I believe it is time to reinvent the canon, to include new forms, genres, ideas, and thereby propel imagination and creativity to new heights. The study of literature may need to include children's literature, comic books, folk tales, detective stories, science fiction, biographies. Art may need to expand to computer graphics, pop art, signage, comic strips, advertising, furniture, and modern architecture. Music may need to look at rock, pop, jazz, folk, and world music. The old classics are fine but this is a call to seek out and experiment in our quest for new classics. Otherwise we sit in academic quicksand, slowly being engulfed by the past with little gain for the future.
In thinking these thoughts of the past and the present, I am gainfully charged by the study of history, a look at the past, an acknowledgment of great people, an acceptance of their contributions to the world. It is humbling and energizing to consider the truths found in Shakespeare or Theodore Dreiser, to look upon the beauty of Rembrandt, and to hear the line and form in Mozart. We learn from the masters and we benefit from knowing the truths of past. The past cannot be separated from the present and without the contributions of both the governments and the individuals we would not be who we are today collectively or singularly.
Knowing this truth and acknowledging the greatness of art, of literature, of music that has withstood the test of time, I have to question the permanent residence that the establishment of the canon has brought to our culture. For some reason, perhaps due to history, judgment, scholarship, or simply tradition, we in academia have decided that the established canon of literature, art, and music should never alter, should remain in concrete forever. Rather than studying the canon, respecting it, learning from it, we have made it the end result.
"You, my young student, need to know John Milton so that you may gain from and perhaps imitate John Milton and go out and become a new John Milton." "This is Monet, you should love his work, perhaps paint as Monet painted, now go become another Monet." Or "This is Brahms, a master composer for sure, here is his music. Love it, perform it, copy it, and become as Brahms (if you can)." We teach the great literature and art because we love it and desire for others to love it and live it as well. We teach the finest example of our discipline as a way to demonstrate our own concept of excellence as determined by critics, by audiences, by a general acceptance, by the passing of time. And there is no question that Brahms is worth studying, including his life, his use of rhythmic accents, his harmonic invention, his ability to create variations, and his unequaled musical developments.
But if we are to progress in art and in culture, if we are forge ahead, to plant new crops, to innovate, to create and make the arts vital in our world, we must let go of the necessity to make the canon the goal for our students. The established literature, similar to learning history, is without question necessary for knowing the foundations of our disciplines; and having a solid core of knowledge and a framework for our society is paramount for developing the future. Rather than abolishing the work of the masters, we should and do embrace it, applying its truths and its beauty in all we do in literature, in art, and in music. The canon, however, for all its majesty and essential value, must become a springboard for diving into the artistic future, for to dive into the past is to find stagnant water filled with old algae and old efforts. Students today want and deserve tools that will help them succeed, tools for greater expression, tools of opportunity, of entrepreneurship, tools that will enable music, art, and literature a secure place among the disciplines of today and tomorrow.
The myth of the canon is that the canon is located at the end of a narrow tunnel without any change and without any goals other than a focused but uneventful journey toward an excellence long past. The myth is that there is only one route to the excellence and that the established canon is the reward at the end of the journey. It is time to give our students new tools that will allow them success and allow them to try new routes and discover new art along the way. There might be bumps and twists and turns on our journey of discovery but the gain is the possibility of progression, of creation, and of greater expression. Along the way, we nod at and learn from the past, from the masters, but as we learn from them, we may see a gleam in their eye that reminds us of the need to imagine something new. As I walk by these masters, I have to wonder if they saw their work as timeless artifacts destined for greatness forever. Did they create and write anticipating their work would one day be viewed as the final destiny for all future artists? Did they know they would be the canon?
Our literature, art, and music is a result of somebody's imagination. Time to imagine something new and create a new canon for students today. We respect the printing press, but there is no need to spend 4 years studying how to build it nor how to replicate it.
An advocate not for abolishment of the old but certainly an advocate for expansion of what we deem as necessary, I believe it is time to reinvent the canon, to include new forms, genres, ideas, and thereby propel imagination and creativity to new heights. The study of literature may need to include children's literature, comic books, folk tales, detective stories, science fiction, biographies. Art may need to expand to computer graphics, pop art, signage, comic strips, advertising, furniture, and modern architecture. Music may need to look at rock, pop, jazz, folk, and world music. The old classics are fine but this is a call to seek out and experiment in our quest for new classics. Otherwise we sit in academic quicksand, slowly being engulfed by the past with little gain for the future.
Sunday, October 02, 2011
Church Music
Several weeks ago my wife had an idea that we could check out a movie. Nice idea with a kind of quaintness and charm that typifies her relaxed approach to life. Although not necessarily a movie fan, partly due to my not being much of a visual person and partly due to my lack of emotional response to most movies, I was of course (like any good husband) willing to support her idea. We both knew that I would either fall asleep during the film or would read or work on the computer. Still she liked the idea and started brain-storming about what kind of movie and what snacks would accompany our experience.
Asking what movie I should get and where, we began to discuss the options: Hastings, Red Box, Pay-per-view, Walmart? I knew not to mention my preference for a heavy, serious theme or a "man" kind of movie about fighting and decided to search for a comedy or family film or maybe a combination of comedy and family in a sort of Romantic girl type of movie. Going together, we first stopped at Hastings and headed toward the movie section. Quickly overwhelmed with thousands upon thousands of choices, most of which seemed inane, I found myself in a state of confusion due to the seemingly infinite number of movies from which to select. Gravitating slowly but deliberately to the books where I was in my comfort zone (and yes I do recognize the inconsistency of being comfortable among thousands of books but not among thousands of movies), my wife settled on a nice animated version of Rapunzel.
The emotional anguish and confusion, even bewilderment, is actually greater than the pleasure of the opportunity and almost the movie itself. This is due to having too many options. While freedom of choice is of course preferred, wouldn't it be easier to have fewer selections from which to pick? Obviously the easy answer to this problem is to raise standards to a high point, thus reducing the options to the few deemed worthwhile. I like this plan, but it then requires an analytical approach to entertainment that most people cannot embrace. When entertainment demands the same level of academic analysis that learning in the classroom requires, then it almost ceases to be entertainment. If I have to work hard to relax, is it really relaxation?
The life of a church musician is both similar and different to finding a movie. Luckily church music is not about entertainment, it is about worship. This gives the process a higher purpose that is neither selfish nor individualistic. Instead church music is about God and the collective process of worshiping God.
The problem comes not from the purpose and the goals but from the immediacy of the musical needs. Too much music from which to choose. In the old days, music ministers would pick up the hymnal and select from the 50 or so hymns that most of the congregants seemed to prefer. While it could possibly create a built-in stagnation, and likely did, it sure was a simpler time for church music. Reduce the choices, simplify the decisions. Fast forward to now, and we are often paralyzed by the sheer amount of music available at our fingertips. Songs, hymns, and choruses number in the thousands with several more arriving with the writing of these words.
The typical music minister in a Baptist or non-denominational church with the obligation and yes opportunity to select 4 perhaps 5 pieces of music must choose from thousands of sacred selections to form a worship service that meets the needs of God and the people in the service. Pretty tall order for sure. Add in the questions of choir vs. praise team, organ, piano, drums, guitars, other instruments, plus hopefully provide some kind of theological consistency and Biblical accuracy, and suddenly we have an impossible task. Why do I do it then? Because I love the challenge!
Asking what movie I should get and where, we began to discuss the options: Hastings, Red Box, Pay-per-view, Walmart? I knew not to mention my preference for a heavy, serious theme or a "man" kind of movie about fighting and decided to search for a comedy or family film or maybe a combination of comedy and family in a sort of Romantic girl type of movie. Going together, we first stopped at Hastings and headed toward the movie section. Quickly overwhelmed with thousands upon thousands of choices, most of which seemed inane, I found myself in a state of confusion due to the seemingly infinite number of movies from which to select. Gravitating slowly but deliberately to the books where I was in my comfort zone (and yes I do recognize the inconsistency of being comfortable among thousands of books but not among thousands of movies), my wife settled on a nice animated version of Rapunzel.
The emotional anguish and confusion, even bewilderment, is actually greater than the pleasure of the opportunity and almost the movie itself. This is due to having too many options. While freedom of choice is of course preferred, wouldn't it be easier to have fewer selections from which to pick? Obviously the easy answer to this problem is to raise standards to a high point, thus reducing the options to the few deemed worthwhile. I like this plan, but it then requires an analytical approach to entertainment that most people cannot embrace. When entertainment demands the same level of academic analysis that learning in the classroom requires, then it almost ceases to be entertainment. If I have to work hard to relax, is it really relaxation?
The life of a church musician is both similar and different to finding a movie. Luckily church music is not about entertainment, it is about worship. This gives the process a higher purpose that is neither selfish nor individualistic. Instead church music is about God and the collective process of worshiping God.
The problem comes not from the purpose and the goals but from the immediacy of the musical needs. Too much music from which to choose. In the old days, music ministers would pick up the hymnal and select from the 50 or so hymns that most of the congregants seemed to prefer. While it could possibly create a built-in stagnation, and likely did, it sure was a simpler time for church music. Reduce the choices, simplify the decisions. Fast forward to now, and we are often paralyzed by the sheer amount of music available at our fingertips. Songs, hymns, and choruses number in the thousands with several more arriving with the writing of these words.
The typical music minister in a Baptist or non-denominational church with the obligation and yes opportunity to select 4 perhaps 5 pieces of music must choose from thousands of sacred selections to form a worship service that meets the needs of God and the people in the service. Pretty tall order for sure. Add in the questions of choir vs. praise team, organ, piano, drums, guitars, other instruments, plus hopefully provide some kind of theological consistency and Biblical accuracy, and suddenly we have an impossible task. Why do I do it then? Because I love the challenge!
Musical Thoughts this morning
Getting up early and fighting through the morning stretches that seem more necessary at age 51 than bygone years, and dealing with the tightened tendons in the feet, I eventually landed in my chair to find out about the news, read about the economy, and think about music. Music is not always my profession, having made the leap into writing and administration, but it will always be my passion. Music holds an abundance of complexity, emotional depth, and opportunity for exploration at all levels of the musical strata. Sadly and joyfully music also is never quite good enough. A composition can always be improved (although the Beethoven Violin Concerto comes pretty close to perfection!), and a performance can always be stronger. My goals as a musician are never quite met, both as an active performer/composer and as a listener, and I deal with this truth in an ironic blend of excitement and discouragement. In music, like athletics, or wealth, one can never be entirely satisfied. This is both compelling and dispelling.
Youtube certainly is a magnificent resource for music. Regardless of one's interest, be it art music or country or gospel or rock or punk or any number of musical genres, youtube has something for everyone. As a music teacher, I set up about 10 tabs on my browser and supplement my lecture with examples from youtube. The teaching is efficient and the learning becomes multi-dimensioned, with instant examples of whatever is being discussed at the fingertips. It makes for a zingy ride as we ping-pong between cognition and aural experiences enhanced by the visual. A well-planned lesson of Charles Ives can show pictures of him, his house, his piano, moving rapidly to musical examples displaying his theoretical language, arriving at a brief but thorough look at his song output. It makes for a solid Ivesian experience that is not easily forgotten and easily assessed.
But this morning was not about Ives or art music at all. I am enjoying listening to the marvelous singing of Carrie Underwood. Not being a big country/western fan, I do have some favorites here and there. It is unusual for a dean of music to admit to liking something other than art music but in truth I do. A fan of Chicago, Stevie Wonder, most jazz, Skillet, Lady Gaga, Elton John, and Broadway musicals, I also enjoy Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, Randy Travis, Alan Jackson, and am a die-hard Elvis fan. Now I may add Carrie Underwood to the list. She really has a great voice. Wonderful phrasing, emotional power, wide range, personal expression, and lots of great musical instincts.
I do get a little uncomfortable, almost edgy, about the strident vocals reaching for high notes, the delayed vibrato, and the country style scooping, but I cannot deny her amazing ability to turn a phrase, to find the high point, to sing accurately and powerfully. Quite an artist for sure.
On the other side, I have really been enjoying the music of Pierre Boulez. Very complicated, rich music with a collective kind of energy that keeps the listener guessing and eagerly awaiting the next event. Of course I recognize that his music has a limited audience and that much of it is atonal without enough repetition to feel comfortable. Also the extreme order of the musical events seems to result in a random quality that is absurdly ironic. But those things aside, I really enjoy hearing his music.
How can I enjoy Carrie Underwood and Pierre Boulez on the same day? Not sure I can answer this except to say that I love music and sound and I tend to respect all of it for what it is. Not that I like everything I hear, but I do like that I can hear it and that it exists. We may have preferences for certain sounds and certain kinds of order in the sounds, but our desire for one type of music does not preempt the validity of other kinds of music in culture. Rejecting Boulez does not detract from its worth, nor does liking Carrie Underwood make it the superior genre. While liking both may be unusual, it neither elevates the quality of their music nor diminishes it.
Rather than working hard to make others like what I like or to respond to music the way I do, I am comfortable living in musical isolation at least to an extent. That stated, I also have a responsibility as an academician and administrator to teach students the vast array of elements and historical influence of music on a broad scale. How they use that knowledge and how they develop their own preferences or application is up to them. I cannot legislate nor insist on students' preferences for genres or sounds, but I can uphold my academic integrity by teaching them the complex musical world and materials needed for music making.
So back to my eclectic musical life. I love it but suspect it confuses others. Makes sense others are confused since I am a bit confused myself! But as a famous man once said, why do I have be consistent and predictable? (Al Tucker).
Youtube certainly is a magnificent resource for music. Regardless of one's interest, be it art music or country or gospel or rock or punk or any number of musical genres, youtube has something for everyone. As a music teacher, I set up about 10 tabs on my browser and supplement my lecture with examples from youtube. The teaching is efficient and the learning becomes multi-dimensioned, with instant examples of whatever is being discussed at the fingertips. It makes for a zingy ride as we ping-pong between cognition and aural experiences enhanced by the visual. A well-planned lesson of Charles Ives can show pictures of him, his house, his piano, moving rapidly to musical examples displaying his theoretical language, arriving at a brief but thorough look at his song output. It makes for a solid Ivesian experience that is not easily forgotten and easily assessed.
But this morning was not about Ives or art music at all. I am enjoying listening to the marvelous singing of Carrie Underwood. Not being a big country/western fan, I do have some favorites here and there. It is unusual for a dean of music to admit to liking something other than art music but in truth I do. A fan of Chicago, Stevie Wonder, most jazz, Skillet, Lady Gaga, Elton John, and Broadway musicals, I also enjoy Willie Nelson, Merle Haggard, Randy Travis, Alan Jackson, and am a die-hard Elvis fan. Now I may add Carrie Underwood to the list. She really has a great voice. Wonderful phrasing, emotional power, wide range, personal expression, and lots of great musical instincts.
I do get a little uncomfortable, almost edgy, about the strident vocals reaching for high notes, the delayed vibrato, and the country style scooping, but I cannot deny her amazing ability to turn a phrase, to find the high point, to sing accurately and powerfully. Quite an artist for sure.
On the other side, I have really been enjoying the music of Pierre Boulez. Very complicated, rich music with a collective kind of energy that keeps the listener guessing and eagerly awaiting the next event. Of course I recognize that his music has a limited audience and that much of it is atonal without enough repetition to feel comfortable. Also the extreme order of the musical events seems to result in a random quality that is absurdly ironic. But those things aside, I really enjoy hearing his music.
How can I enjoy Carrie Underwood and Pierre Boulez on the same day? Not sure I can answer this except to say that I love music and sound and I tend to respect all of it for what it is. Not that I like everything I hear, but I do like that I can hear it and that it exists. We may have preferences for certain sounds and certain kinds of order in the sounds, but our desire for one type of music does not preempt the validity of other kinds of music in culture. Rejecting Boulez does not detract from its worth, nor does liking Carrie Underwood make it the superior genre. While liking both may be unusual, it neither elevates the quality of their music nor diminishes it.
Rather than working hard to make others like what I like or to respond to music the way I do, I am comfortable living in musical isolation at least to an extent. That stated, I also have a responsibility as an academician and administrator to teach students the vast array of elements and historical influence of music on a broad scale. How they use that knowledge and how they develop their own preferences or application is up to them. I cannot legislate nor insist on students' preferences for genres or sounds, but I can uphold my academic integrity by teaching them the complex musical world and materials needed for music making.
So back to my eclectic musical life. I love it but suspect it confuses others. Makes sense others are confused since I am a bit confused myself! But as a famous man once said, why do I have be consistent and predictable? (Al Tucker).
Sunday, September 25, 2011
Music for Musicians?
With a forthrightness not often found in conversation, an acquaintance asked me why musicians seem to prepare and perform music for other musicians. Confused by the question, he asked me why so much of the music we perform is in a foreign language or in a "language" that is out of the experience of most listeners. He was asking me if we have fallen into a trap of teaching and performing music that is only meaningful to other musicians.
If this is true, and it may be to an extent, is it really a problem? After all, great art generally has a small audience. If art does reach the masses and becomes popular, are we then suspicious of its greatness? The wider the influence the likelihood of its commonality? If so, then mediocrity is sustenance of culture, the food of society, the oxygen of our lives. The better the quality, the smaller the audience. Achievement in the arts is then less about acknowledgement and more about meeting the criterion of no popularity. Taking this to its logical conclusion, a work of art that has no appeal is the finest piece ever created. Perhaps this means that no art is the best art. Ah, the joys of nihilism.
But perhaps as Aristotle encouraged, we should find a middle ground for excellence. Or maybe, just maybe, popularity in and of itself does not automatically degrade the essence of excellence or quality. Maybe, in fact, the lack of popularity does not demonstrate any kind of quality. Surely there is a middle ground somewhere in this murky discussion of mass appeal versus limited appeal. In some ways, the danger of politicians is to cast such a wide net hoping for enough votes to win the election, that they sacrifice their integrity and ironically find themselves on a tightrope with a long fall beneath them. So a politician hopes to establish his position, his views, and his steadfastness and still reach enough voters in support to carry him to the next level.
Back to music. If trained musicians compose and perform music for a vast appeal, they will most likely need to pare down their creative spirit with regard to melody, rhythm, and especially harmony. Not that music for the masses is lacking in creativity, but to a trained musician, it often feels a little simplistic and quickly accessible. But if a trained, academic musician only composes and performs for other musicians, then there is little regard for how music can change lives, reach people, minister, make an emotional impact, or simply entertain. In some ways, this type of attitude about music resembles a sad Ponzi scheme that eventually falls apart for lack of any substantial support or real lasting value. There is simply not enough audience to sustain it. It may make a few people feel good and it may have great worth to some, and it may have a certain educational spirit, or academic strength, but it does not have broad appeal to support it over time.
Speaking of time, maybe time is the ultimate test of worth. In 100 years, what music being written and performed today will still be performed? Will it be those works that seem to appeal to a few musicians or will it be those who find a wider sphere, a larger audience? Will Mozart's 41st symphony always enjoy mass popularity (if it does!) or will there be a time when audiences are generally ho-hum toward another performance of the great work? How will the unforgiving and harsh test of time treat popular music of today?
But it does somehow seem elitist and snobby for trained musicians to concentrate all their attentions on performing music for a select few skilled appreciators. There is a balance needed in music curriculum and a consideration of all types of genres in music. To narrow the output to music that is acknowledged as the "great" works would be likened to watching only those movies deemed of the highest quality such as Casablanca or Citizen Kane or only reading Milton and Shakespeare. There is a lasting niche for the great works of art but to do only the great works and thereby limit the audience is to be comfortable living in a vacuum.
With these thoughts, I call to battle those trained, skilled, and academic musicians willing to put aside their inherent selfishness and work diligently and comprehensively toward an inclusive curriculum. A curriculum that does provide music merely for the musicians but also provides music for the people. In the end, it may not be time alone that determines quality, it may be the freedom and joy that comes from music for everyone. Quality art is art that is loved by many both yesterday and today. It is time to fish on the other side of the boat for more fish using large nets and not be satisfied with catching just a few. If our music only appeals to a few, we may be selfishly and irresponsibly rejecting our calling.
If this is true, and it may be to an extent, is it really a problem? After all, great art generally has a small audience. If art does reach the masses and becomes popular, are we then suspicious of its greatness? The wider the influence the likelihood of its commonality? If so, then mediocrity is sustenance of culture, the food of society, the oxygen of our lives. The better the quality, the smaller the audience. Achievement in the arts is then less about acknowledgement and more about meeting the criterion of no popularity. Taking this to its logical conclusion, a work of art that has no appeal is the finest piece ever created. Perhaps this means that no art is the best art. Ah, the joys of nihilism.
But perhaps as Aristotle encouraged, we should find a middle ground for excellence. Or maybe, just maybe, popularity in and of itself does not automatically degrade the essence of excellence or quality. Maybe, in fact, the lack of popularity does not demonstrate any kind of quality. Surely there is a middle ground somewhere in this murky discussion of mass appeal versus limited appeal. In some ways, the danger of politicians is to cast such a wide net hoping for enough votes to win the election, that they sacrifice their integrity and ironically find themselves on a tightrope with a long fall beneath them. So a politician hopes to establish his position, his views, and his steadfastness and still reach enough voters in support to carry him to the next level.
Back to music. If trained musicians compose and perform music for a vast appeal, they will most likely need to pare down their creative spirit with regard to melody, rhythm, and especially harmony. Not that music for the masses is lacking in creativity, but to a trained musician, it often feels a little simplistic and quickly accessible. But if a trained, academic musician only composes and performs for other musicians, then there is little regard for how music can change lives, reach people, minister, make an emotional impact, or simply entertain. In some ways, this type of attitude about music resembles a sad Ponzi scheme that eventually falls apart for lack of any substantial support or real lasting value. There is simply not enough audience to sustain it. It may make a few people feel good and it may have great worth to some, and it may have a certain educational spirit, or academic strength, but it does not have broad appeal to support it over time.
Speaking of time, maybe time is the ultimate test of worth. In 100 years, what music being written and performed today will still be performed? Will it be those works that seem to appeal to a few musicians or will it be those who find a wider sphere, a larger audience? Will Mozart's 41st symphony always enjoy mass popularity (if it does!) or will there be a time when audiences are generally ho-hum toward another performance of the great work? How will the unforgiving and harsh test of time treat popular music of today?
But it does somehow seem elitist and snobby for trained musicians to concentrate all their attentions on performing music for a select few skilled appreciators. There is a balance needed in music curriculum and a consideration of all types of genres in music. To narrow the output to music that is acknowledged as the "great" works would be likened to watching only those movies deemed of the highest quality such as Casablanca or Citizen Kane or only reading Milton and Shakespeare. There is a lasting niche for the great works of art but to do only the great works and thereby limit the audience is to be comfortable living in a vacuum.
With these thoughts, I call to battle those trained, skilled, and academic musicians willing to put aside their inherent selfishness and work diligently and comprehensively toward an inclusive curriculum. A curriculum that does provide music merely for the musicians but also provides music for the people. In the end, it may not be time alone that determines quality, it may be the freedom and joy that comes from music for everyone. Quality art is art that is loved by many both yesterday and today. It is time to fish on the other side of the boat for more fish using large nets and not be satisfied with catching just a few. If our music only appeals to a few, we may be selfishly and irresponsibly rejecting our calling.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Almost Friday
As I smiled at the lady and returned the item I had borrowed from her workplace, an office in the community, I asked her how she was doing. She looked at me with a kind of musty, disgusted grin and replied with a blended mix of optimism and pain, "I have almost made it to Friday." I smiled and said, "Yes, one more day."
Walking away and thinking on her response, I have to wonder about the sadness of our lives that depends on making it to Friday. Have we reached the point in society where the sole value, the ultimate happiness, the central goal is to make it to the end of the work week? Is this goal in order to have free time away from work? To accomplish some other thing? Or to do nothing at all? Or is it the idea of working that diminishes the joy of life? Is the formula for joy simply not to work? Or is misery likened primarily to a work situation?
She may have expressed the desire to "make it to Friday" as a way to share in her desire for a weekend, or she may have been making this type of conversation for many years and finding that everyone who heard the phrase agreed with her. It is always fun to say something and get everyone around you to nod in agreement. It could be enculturated in her to trudge in solemn despair to work every Monday morning and bounce in utter elation as Friday comes to a close. Of course, I have to wonder where the emotion lies on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Are we nearing happiness on Thursday? Are we still miserable on Wednesday? Maybe the peak of misery and pain occurs at 12 noon on Wednesday followed by a progressive, albeit quite slow, move toward happiness as the minutes wind themselves toward Friday at 5:00.
Making the assumption that a worker who is miserable is generally less productive than a happy worker, I would have to assume that our friend is unproductive. Of course it is possible that she has found a way to be a contributing, productive worker in spite of her pervading pain of having to work. But I suspect that her desire not to work is ironically her purpose for working. In other words, without the work, she has no joy in not working. The work is the impetus for the relishing of no work.
Curious as to her no work behavior, I think it would be beneficial to provide an environment for this lady that would cause her to enjoy her work. Unless she has a mental disorder or some physical anomaly that determines her attitude, I would guess that she would be more productive and certainly happier if she were doing something she enjoyed. It may not be possible, but it might be worth a try.
Because having a purpose is a motivation for success, I would take this scenario another step and say that I suspect she finds no purpose in her work and feels as though she does not make any kind of positive difference for anybody or anything, hence her misery in the workplace. Perhaps she had a purpose at one time, perhaps she entered the position believing she could make a difference only to have the challenges overcome the desire for success. Whatever the cause, I might recommend a change in venue or some kind of change in goals.
I further want to remind myself to avoid the trappings of working for the purpose of not working. Working is a joy and an opportunity. We are blessed to work and motivated by purpose, by a desire to make a difference in lives or in an institution or community. Let it not be said that he worked so as not to work. I wish instead to work in joy, to play in joy, and to live as a productive, contributing and joyful person making a difference in the world in some small way.
Walking away and thinking on her response, I have to wonder about the sadness of our lives that depends on making it to Friday. Have we reached the point in society where the sole value, the ultimate happiness, the central goal is to make it to the end of the work week? Is this goal in order to have free time away from work? To accomplish some other thing? Or to do nothing at all? Or is it the idea of working that diminishes the joy of life? Is the formula for joy simply not to work? Or is misery likened primarily to a work situation?
She may have expressed the desire to "make it to Friday" as a way to share in her desire for a weekend, or she may have been making this type of conversation for many years and finding that everyone who heard the phrase agreed with her. It is always fun to say something and get everyone around you to nod in agreement. It could be enculturated in her to trudge in solemn despair to work every Monday morning and bounce in utter elation as Friday comes to a close. Of course, I have to wonder where the emotion lies on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Are we nearing happiness on Thursday? Are we still miserable on Wednesday? Maybe the peak of misery and pain occurs at 12 noon on Wednesday followed by a progressive, albeit quite slow, move toward happiness as the minutes wind themselves toward Friday at 5:00.
Making the assumption that a worker who is miserable is generally less productive than a happy worker, I would have to assume that our friend is unproductive. Of course it is possible that she has found a way to be a contributing, productive worker in spite of her pervading pain of having to work. But I suspect that her desire not to work is ironically her purpose for working. In other words, without the work, she has no joy in not working. The work is the impetus for the relishing of no work.
Curious as to her no work behavior, I think it would be beneficial to provide an environment for this lady that would cause her to enjoy her work. Unless she has a mental disorder or some physical anomaly that determines her attitude, I would guess that she would be more productive and certainly happier if she were doing something she enjoyed. It may not be possible, but it might be worth a try.
Because having a purpose is a motivation for success, I would take this scenario another step and say that I suspect she finds no purpose in her work and feels as though she does not make any kind of positive difference for anybody or anything, hence her misery in the workplace. Perhaps she had a purpose at one time, perhaps she entered the position believing she could make a difference only to have the challenges overcome the desire for success. Whatever the cause, I might recommend a change in venue or some kind of change in goals.
I further want to remind myself to avoid the trappings of working for the purpose of not working. Working is a joy and an opportunity. We are blessed to work and motivated by purpose, by a desire to make a difference in lives or in an institution or community. Let it not be said that he worked so as not to work. I wish instead to work in joy, to play in joy, and to live as a productive, contributing and joyful person making a difference in the world in some small way.
Saturday, September 10, 2011
It's Not 8:00
Driving into town this morning, I mentally listed the various errands for the morning including going by the office, stopping at the ATM, going to the grocery store, getting the mail, and having my car washed. Placing these errands in order by their location and convenience and after stopping at the office, I found myself at the car wash place. The bays were open, workers were walking about, there was an air of energy and expectation, the business appeared ready to operate, ready to wash and vacuum cars, adding scents and tire dressings and various appealing cleansers to vehicles.
I happily pulled into an open bay, near to the vacuum hoses, and expected several workers to materialize as I hopped out of my truck ready to hand it over for the cleaning experience. But nobody came. I waited about 2 minutes and got the attention of a worker who came over with a scowl on his face. Using my immense charm, I smiled my best smile and said "Good morning, how are you?" With an indirect glance my way and somehow increasing his scowl, he said, "What time do you have?" I glanced at my phone to check the time and said it was 7:58. He said "Two more minutes" and muttered something nearly unintelligible about not giving any time to this place. I nodded and said nothing.
Two minutes later he smiled and said, "How may we help you?" I smiled back (actually tried to hold in a sarcastic laugh) and told him what kind of car wash I wanted. He proceeded to begin the process and I headed to the cashier to pay and then wait for my vehicle.
Supply and demand is an economic truth that in a true market economy is a driving force toward success. This story told has many applications and suppositions. Please allow me a moment of prophecy regarding the young man who refused to work two minutes before official opening time. I predict he will not keep his job much longer, or if he does, he will alter his general practice of performing at a minimum. Because the most productive workers are the ones who work beyond their pay scale and give more to the business than they take, a worker who gives less is likely to find himself unemployed. If a business employs workers who take more than they give, that business will likely find itself struggling. In light of this idea, I predict that if this car wash continues to employ workers who give the minimum, then there becomes an opportunity for another car wash business to be successful. For it stands to reason that in the world of supply and demand and in a world of trading money in exchange for a good or service, the one with the money holds the upper hand.
This is not always true, but is generally true that the service or good should be of greater value than the money exchanged. For today I accepted his impudence, I mean after all the business was officially closed. But I now search for an alternate way to have my car washed, perhaps even my own hand! Will the business suffer at all in the loss of my monthly $14.95? Doubtful. But if nothing else, I am reminded that my goal is to give more than I receive. For me, it just might require working a few minutes before the official opening time.
I happily pulled into an open bay, near to the vacuum hoses, and expected several workers to materialize as I hopped out of my truck ready to hand it over for the cleaning experience. But nobody came. I waited about 2 minutes and got the attention of a worker who came over with a scowl on his face. Using my immense charm, I smiled my best smile and said "Good morning, how are you?" With an indirect glance my way and somehow increasing his scowl, he said, "What time do you have?" I glanced at my phone to check the time and said it was 7:58. He said "Two more minutes" and muttered something nearly unintelligible about not giving any time to this place. I nodded and said nothing.
Two minutes later he smiled and said, "How may we help you?" I smiled back (actually tried to hold in a sarcastic laugh) and told him what kind of car wash I wanted. He proceeded to begin the process and I headed to the cashier to pay and then wait for my vehicle.
Supply and demand is an economic truth that in a true market economy is a driving force toward success. This story told has many applications and suppositions. Please allow me a moment of prophecy regarding the young man who refused to work two minutes before official opening time. I predict he will not keep his job much longer, or if he does, he will alter his general practice of performing at a minimum. Because the most productive workers are the ones who work beyond their pay scale and give more to the business than they take, a worker who gives less is likely to find himself unemployed. If a business employs workers who take more than they give, that business will likely find itself struggling. In light of this idea, I predict that if this car wash continues to employ workers who give the minimum, then there becomes an opportunity for another car wash business to be successful. For it stands to reason that in the world of supply and demand and in a world of trading money in exchange for a good or service, the one with the money holds the upper hand.
This is not always true, but is generally true that the service or good should be of greater value than the money exchanged. For today I accepted his impudence, I mean after all the business was officially closed. But I now search for an alternate way to have my car washed, perhaps even my own hand! Will the business suffer at all in the loss of my monthly $14.95? Doubtful. But if nothing else, I am reminded that my goal is to give more than I receive. For me, it just might require working a few minutes before the official opening time.
Monday, September 05, 2011
Talking about health problems--redirection.
Whine, whine, whine. That's what I feel like doing sometimes when I talk about my health problems. Not that they are serious, life-threatening, or debilitating problems. No, they are just nagging pains here and there that are fairly common to everyone. Granted it seems as though more of them showed up after I turned 50. But I have noticed the tendency for me and others to discuss our health problems more as we get older. This may be because there are more of them, or it could be that life has changed--kids are grown, settled in jobs, comfortable in our homes, and that these elements of security ironically exaggerate the other issues.
When we add aging to stability along with the proliferation of medical advice found on television and the internet we have a "perfect storm" of elements that cause those of us over the age of 50 to focus on our own health problems. And of course they are MY problems and I have a right to whine about them and share those problems with others if I so choose. Since we are mostly a self-centered bunch and since the word "I" is one of the most common words in our vocabulary, it stands to reason we would expend great energy discussing our own problems. I want everyone to know about me after all!
Try an experiment sometime. Ask everyone in a group to express something about himself or herself that hurts or is a problem. Aside from the momentary intrusion, which most of us quickly get over, we are eager to share our problems with others, at least unless the problems create social issues. I am reminded of the Far Side comic where a dog admits to having worms. The caption says, "Dog social blunders!" It is wise to avoid subjects that are severly private but it is also wise to avoid minor or innocuous problems such as the scrape on your knee or the sore elbow. And yet, it is sort of fun to whine about the general pains--feet, shoulder, back or whatever. Perhaps I could expend some time discussing my balding problem or knobby knees or a lack of earlobes or any number of anomalies on my person. Before becoming too righteous however, I should point out that sometimes people have a strong suggestion for improvement. Life's experiences are great teachers and those experiences should be shared and not hidden under a bush.
But it is time to eradicate my inherent selfishness--no talking about my health problems. No sharing of my sore feet or my sore shoulder or my occasional lack of sleep or even my expanding waistline due to a lack of running because of the feet problems. This week is not about me. Instead it is a time to focus on others and their problems. Maybe more outward concern will redirect the personal problems and hide them from myself! Doubtful but worth a try. Unfortunately it is hard to hide the limping due to the soreness of the heel caused from running. But it is worth a try. If someone says to me, "How are you?" should I lie? Or maybe a quick nod and a return of "Great, and how are you?" would be appropriate.
Onward to fewer health discussions about me and more discussions about others. In truth, my problems are pretty minor compared to some I know. Perhaps if I weren't so darn selfish I might actually be able to help someone else. Redirection can only be a positive step toward altruism and sincere concern for others. But before actuating my philosophy of the week, I must express irritation with my feet and my shoulder. Darn those pains!
When we add aging to stability along with the proliferation of medical advice found on television and the internet we have a "perfect storm" of elements that cause those of us over the age of 50 to focus on our own health problems. And of course they are MY problems and I have a right to whine about them and share those problems with others if I so choose. Since we are mostly a self-centered bunch and since the word "I" is one of the most common words in our vocabulary, it stands to reason we would expend great energy discussing our own problems. I want everyone to know about me after all!
Try an experiment sometime. Ask everyone in a group to express something about himself or herself that hurts or is a problem. Aside from the momentary intrusion, which most of us quickly get over, we are eager to share our problems with others, at least unless the problems create social issues. I am reminded of the Far Side comic where a dog admits to having worms. The caption says, "Dog social blunders!" It is wise to avoid subjects that are severly private but it is also wise to avoid minor or innocuous problems such as the scrape on your knee or the sore elbow. And yet, it is sort of fun to whine about the general pains--feet, shoulder, back or whatever. Perhaps I could expend some time discussing my balding problem or knobby knees or a lack of earlobes or any number of anomalies on my person. Before becoming too righteous however, I should point out that sometimes people have a strong suggestion for improvement. Life's experiences are great teachers and those experiences should be shared and not hidden under a bush.
But it is time to eradicate my inherent selfishness--no talking about my health problems. No sharing of my sore feet or my sore shoulder or my occasional lack of sleep or even my expanding waistline due to a lack of running because of the feet problems. This week is not about me. Instead it is a time to focus on others and their problems. Maybe more outward concern will redirect the personal problems and hide them from myself! Doubtful but worth a try. Unfortunately it is hard to hide the limping due to the soreness of the heel caused from running. But it is worth a try. If someone says to me, "How are you?" should I lie? Or maybe a quick nod and a return of "Great, and how are you?" would be appropriate.
Onward to fewer health discussions about me and more discussions about others. In truth, my problems are pretty minor compared to some I know. Perhaps if I weren't so darn selfish I might actually be able to help someone else. Redirection can only be a positive step toward altruism and sincere concern for others. But before actuating my philosophy of the week, I must express irritation with my feet and my shoulder. Darn those pains!
Sunday, August 21, 2011
Folk Music
The trend toward folk music in society and in our churches is a fascinating development pointing toward a desire for simplicity and clarity in musical expression. Not that this is a new thing, music trends historically respond to complexity with a return to simpler forms, construction, and ease of expression. When we study the Baroque (1600-1750), we discover a type of music that seemed to thrive on its sophistication and complexity, a full blown approach to polyphony and intellectual craft. Fugues, episodes, stretto, tonal and real entrances, toccatas, figured bass, and techniques guaranteed to keep you thinking, fill up the sound and music of the Baroque. In reaction, at least to an extent, the Classical period jumped in.
Time for melody and harmony. Time for simplicity and clarity. Mozart and Haydn gave us a simpler form of music that did not necessarily defenestrate the older ways but it did allow for less intellectual rigor and sophisticated craftsmanship. Not to say the music of the Classical period is only for simpletons, some kind of naive child-like expression. In fact, a closer look simply finds an alternate way to express sound and joy.
Moving forward to music of today. I have often bemoaned the loss of American folk music in our society. Our rich heritage of music from the past, music of the folks, music indigenous to our native land has slowly fallen by the wayside and replaced with electronic gadgetry and big forms. We saw a revitalization of a type of folk music in the early 1960s with the hippie, beatnik generation creating music that expresses emotions and concern, music with a simplicity and honesty of heart-felt expression. Put a guitar in the hands of a talented, honest singer and you have folk music. The rise of Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell, Judy Collins, and later John Denver gave us a wealth of new folk music in the tradition of the past with current problems and social concerns being articulated. Pete Seeger continued to perform folk music from our history, discovering new gems from the past.
The Vietnam War may have given us cause for a new generation of folk music, but it was also partly a reaction to the complexity of music making in both popular and art cultures that gave it wings. As popular music once again grew in sound and complexity in the 70s onward to today, and although we never saw a complete lack of folk music, it was its very nature of a hammering pulse and added instruments that has caused a new kind of expression today.
The idea of complexity leading to simplicity may be true to an extent but we must be cautious in assuming that all folk music is simple. In fact, melodic and harmonic complexity is abundant although not always obvious. The charm of much of folk music is not necessarily its basic construction but rather its honest and deep emotional expression. Because folk music has not preconceived ideas of what music must be or what it should sound like, and because folk music is often a heart-felt expression emanating from the soul, the music itself is often new, fresh, and original.
Therein we find the joys of folk music--originality, honesty, and freedom. Regardless of the subject matter and regardless of the reaction, the music has an important and vital spot in our heritage and in our current presence. May folk songs reign at the forefront of our culture, taking their rightful place as music by the people and for the people.
Time for melody and harmony. Time for simplicity and clarity. Mozart and Haydn gave us a simpler form of music that did not necessarily defenestrate the older ways but it did allow for less intellectual rigor and sophisticated craftsmanship. Not to say the music of the Classical period is only for simpletons, some kind of naive child-like expression. In fact, a closer look simply finds an alternate way to express sound and joy.
Moving forward to music of today. I have often bemoaned the loss of American folk music in our society. Our rich heritage of music from the past, music of the folks, music indigenous to our native land has slowly fallen by the wayside and replaced with electronic gadgetry and big forms. We saw a revitalization of a type of folk music in the early 1960s with the hippie, beatnik generation creating music that expresses emotions and concern, music with a simplicity and honesty of heart-felt expression. Put a guitar in the hands of a talented, honest singer and you have folk music. The rise of Bob Dylan, Paul Simon, Joni Mitchell, Judy Collins, and later John Denver gave us a wealth of new folk music in the tradition of the past with current problems and social concerns being articulated. Pete Seeger continued to perform folk music from our history, discovering new gems from the past.
The Vietnam War may have given us cause for a new generation of folk music, but it was also partly a reaction to the complexity of music making in both popular and art cultures that gave it wings. As popular music once again grew in sound and complexity in the 70s onward to today, and although we never saw a complete lack of folk music, it was its very nature of a hammering pulse and added instruments that has caused a new kind of expression today.
The idea of complexity leading to simplicity may be true to an extent but we must be cautious in assuming that all folk music is simple. In fact, melodic and harmonic complexity is abundant although not always obvious. The charm of much of folk music is not necessarily its basic construction but rather its honest and deep emotional expression. Because folk music has not preconceived ideas of what music must be or what it should sound like, and because folk music is often a heart-felt expression emanating from the soul, the music itself is often new, fresh, and original.
Therein we find the joys of folk music--originality, honesty, and freedom. Regardless of the subject matter and regardless of the reaction, the music has an important and vital spot in our heritage and in our current presence. May folk songs reign at the forefront of our culture, taking their rightful place as music by the people and for the people.
Saturday, August 13, 2011
Translating in Numbers
Reasoning with Joel based on common sense procedures is a difficult endeavor due to his inability to accept cause and effect. He cannot understand how to improve efficiency or comfort or ease of practice. When one method has worked, whether our perception of success would be different or not, Joel tends to stay with that method regardless of the circumstances. As responsible guardians we continue to walk the tight-rope of giving him latitude and allowing him to make his own mistakes, hoping he will learn from the situation and improve the next time. We often remind him of ways to improve, of things to consider, of various methods to make his life easier, quicker, more convenient, but unfortunately, his natural inclination is to keep it the same way regardless of its efficacy.
We do have ways, however, of helping Joel deal with his general lack of common sense and awareness. We translate the experience into some kind of order, often using numbers to demonstrate the need. Rather than saying "go pack your bag for the upcoming trip," we will instead say, "go count the number of items you required for the upcoming trip." We then later remind him to pack the exact number needed. Obviously there are potential problems with this system in that he may leave something out or not count a needed item, and yet insist that he has the correct number. But the upside of this system is that he is able to order things in his mind and simplify the overriding goal into one aggregate.
Being autistic is often overwhelming with the sheer plethora of information coming at you constantly. An autistic cannot process everything around him quickly nor easily, and it becomes a tornado of sounds, sights, and images that have little to no cohesiveness in their delivery. The opportunity to reduce the unnecessary, paring down the essential information into a number or numbers is blissful to an autistic. This is true for nearly all situations, circumstances, and goals. We help him order his goals, aiming for one final number to be considered the main goal or purpose. When we express the objectives, the plans, the expectations in terms of a number, Joel's eyes light up and he quickly comprehends what is about to happen. He may not always understand how the ordered numbers work together to accomplish the necessary goal, but he is willing to and excited about taking those exact steps.
Sometimes this requires a great deal of specificity but at other times, it can be expressed in generalities. The more specific the expression, the better quality will be the results. Conversely, the more general is the list, the more breadth of accomplishment is performed. If cleaning his room is the requirement, we will see more accomplishment by listing the order of how to make that happen. "Joel, do five things: 1) make your bed, 2) pick up your clothes and put them in the hamper, 3) place your shoes in your closet, 4) stack your games on the night stand, 5) pick up any papers or trash on the floor and place in the trash can." We then follow up with: "Joel, please do those 5 things: bed, clothes, shoes, games, trash." We then anticipate success.
Or we could try the old unsuccessful method: (LOUD VOICE) "Joel, go clean up your room now and do it right." In a frustration moment, we might start listing all the things that should happen to get the room cleaned, but without a strict order of events, to an autistic it will feel like standing in an anthill wondering what is happening or a storm of oobleck falling upon his head and making everything sticky. The clarity of numbers provides clarity of thought for Joel.
We have learned to get his attention by taking away distractions, presenting the overall goal and purpose, then ordering and numbering the events. We wish we could always apply a time-table to the instructions but time remains a mysterious abstraction to Joel and likely always will. With this in mind, we allow greater time for accomplishment than would normally be needed and continually remind ourselves for patience, wisdom, and clarity.
We do have ways, however, of helping Joel deal with his general lack of common sense and awareness. We translate the experience into some kind of order, often using numbers to demonstrate the need. Rather than saying "go pack your bag for the upcoming trip," we will instead say, "go count the number of items you required for the upcoming trip." We then later remind him to pack the exact number needed. Obviously there are potential problems with this system in that he may leave something out or not count a needed item, and yet insist that he has the correct number. But the upside of this system is that he is able to order things in his mind and simplify the overriding goal into one aggregate.
Being autistic is often overwhelming with the sheer plethora of information coming at you constantly. An autistic cannot process everything around him quickly nor easily, and it becomes a tornado of sounds, sights, and images that have little to no cohesiveness in their delivery. The opportunity to reduce the unnecessary, paring down the essential information into a number or numbers is blissful to an autistic. This is true for nearly all situations, circumstances, and goals. We help him order his goals, aiming for one final number to be considered the main goal or purpose. When we express the objectives, the plans, the expectations in terms of a number, Joel's eyes light up and he quickly comprehends what is about to happen. He may not always understand how the ordered numbers work together to accomplish the necessary goal, but he is willing to and excited about taking those exact steps.
Sometimes this requires a great deal of specificity but at other times, it can be expressed in generalities. The more specific the expression, the better quality will be the results. Conversely, the more general is the list, the more breadth of accomplishment is performed. If cleaning his room is the requirement, we will see more accomplishment by listing the order of how to make that happen. "Joel, do five things: 1) make your bed, 2) pick up your clothes and put them in the hamper, 3) place your shoes in your closet, 4) stack your games on the night stand, 5) pick up any papers or trash on the floor and place in the trash can." We then follow up with: "Joel, please do those 5 things: bed, clothes, shoes, games, trash." We then anticipate success.
Or we could try the old unsuccessful method: (LOUD VOICE) "Joel, go clean up your room now and do it right." In a frustration moment, we might start listing all the things that should happen to get the room cleaned, but without a strict order of events, to an autistic it will feel like standing in an anthill wondering what is happening or a storm of oobleck falling upon his head and making everything sticky. The clarity of numbers provides clarity of thought for Joel.
We have learned to get his attention by taking away distractions, presenting the overall goal and purpose, then ordering and numbering the events. We wish we could always apply a time-table to the instructions but time remains a mysterious abstraction to Joel and likely always will. With this in mind, we allow greater time for accomplishment than would normally be needed and continually remind ourselves for patience, wisdom, and clarity.
Friday, August 12, 2011
Helpful Reviews
Just received a vote on Amazon that a review I wrote was helpful. As an experienced reviewer, I have learned not to be overly reactive to the voting system and yet learn from it as I continue to write. If a review is "helpful," does that mean the reader appreciates the writing style, or the book itself, or the information found therein? Does that mean the reader already read the book in question or was considering it? Conversely if a vote is negative, that is that the review was not helpful, what does that mean exactly? Did the reader not like the writing of the review or the content or it just did not meet the reader's expectations.
I suspect most people who read Amazon reviews are curious as to whether they should purchase the item or not. The review should provide a general summary of the item without giving away endings or spoiling anything for the reader or purchaser. But a good review is also a type of assessment tool of the book by one person who may or may not be qualified to pass judgment. I am certainly not qualified to give my expert opinion, especially given that I am not an expert, and yet I am qualified by virtue of my humanness, my experience, and the simple fact that I have used the product. Somebody hopefully values my opinion whether worthless or not and is willing to read my own slanted and narrow views of the item.
If in fact someone does find my review helpful, this becomes a strong vote of affirmation that I am meeting the needs of the reader in my reviews. It does not lift me to any kind of expertise level nor sustain every element of my ability as a reviewer, but it does provide supportive feedback for my effort. I cannot take the vote to the bank but I can make a small deposit of credit in my ego bank and use that to continue to review books and products. On the other side, a negative vote is like a withdrawal and while I choose not to allow one negative to withdraw too much from my esteem bank, it does have a slight affect.
But in truth, if there is a negative vote, perhaps there is something I can improve about my review or reviews. There must have been a tone or a flaw or a slight problem that caused the reader to shrug and decide the review was not helpful. I do not think one negative vote is worth a wholesale change in style, but I do think it should make me pause and study on how to improve. One positive vote should not make me feel like running for President, and one negative vote should not make me want to change professions or put myself in a cage, but at the same time feedback--good or bad--enables us to improve ourselves and grow regardless of what we are doing.
I enjoy writing reviews and I like to believe I am helping other people to read or not to read certain books or to buy or not to buy certain products, but it would be easier not to worry about what people think. Yet I feel compelled to continue to write, hoping to make some kind of difference for those seeking my opinion. It may be a slanted opinion or not based on any kind of expertise and it may not be valued by everyone but in some small way, it gives me an opportunity to express myself. Onward to more reviews!
I suspect most people who read Amazon reviews are curious as to whether they should purchase the item or not. The review should provide a general summary of the item without giving away endings or spoiling anything for the reader or purchaser. But a good review is also a type of assessment tool of the book by one person who may or may not be qualified to pass judgment. I am certainly not qualified to give my expert opinion, especially given that I am not an expert, and yet I am qualified by virtue of my humanness, my experience, and the simple fact that I have used the product. Somebody hopefully values my opinion whether worthless or not and is willing to read my own slanted and narrow views of the item.
If in fact someone does find my review helpful, this becomes a strong vote of affirmation that I am meeting the needs of the reader in my reviews. It does not lift me to any kind of expertise level nor sustain every element of my ability as a reviewer, but it does provide supportive feedback for my effort. I cannot take the vote to the bank but I can make a small deposit of credit in my ego bank and use that to continue to review books and products. On the other side, a negative vote is like a withdrawal and while I choose not to allow one negative to withdraw too much from my esteem bank, it does have a slight affect.
But in truth, if there is a negative vote, perhaps there is something I can improve about my review or reviews. There must have been a tone or a flaw or a slight problem that caused the reader to shrug and decide the review was not helpful. I do not think one negative vote is worth a wholesale change in style, but I do think it should make me pause and study on how to improve. One positive vote should not make me feel like running for President, and one negative vote should not make me want to change professions or put myself in a cage, but at the same time feedback--good or bad--enables us to improve ourselves and grow regardless of what we are doing.
I enjoy writing reviews and I like to believe I am helping other people to read or not to read certain books or to buy or not to buy certain products, but it would be easier not to worry about what people think. Yet I feel compelled to continue to write, hoping to make some kind of difference for those seeking my opinion. It may be a slanted opinion or not based on any kind of expertise and it may not be valued by everyone but in some small way, it gives me an opportunity to express myself. Onward to more reviews!
Wednesday, August 10, 2011
Transformation
After a nice dinner with a friend comprised of delicious bread and salad, we headed to the movie theater to see Transformers: The Dark Side of the Moon. I never was a "transformers" kid or anything--maybe those little machine car things came out later or something. I have also not seen any of the movies. So this was my first experience with the world of transformers and what all that means. I think I can sum it up though pretty well: good transformers living on earth were abandoned by human leaders and bad transformers tried to take over the world. Lots of fights and explosions resulted in the good transformers and good humans defeating the bad transformers, demonstrating that man and machine can co-exist! Yea!
Speaking of defeat--my feet hurt. Or to say it another way--Duh feet (defeat) hurt! Okay, silly pun I know and seems rather incongruous with transformers. These massive machines with mechanical things all over them alter their shape to become other kinds of things--cars, trucks, tanks, gun things, and monster snake-like animals. They have eyes though and are vulnerable in their eyes. Also when they die or lose limbs, they kind of bleed odd red substance that may be blood or red oil maybe. Not sure. But it comes back to this--they transform. I may need to transform my exercise routine.
I have bruised my heel on one foot and the balls of my foot on the other. I enjoy running with the wind blowing on my face, the sun coming up over the horizon, the animals waking up and making sounds, the smells both good and bad, that permeate the natural world, the beautiful subleties of nature surrounding me with the glisten of dew, the slight breeze gently moving the blades of grass, the warming of the temperature, and the vastness of the sky as it shines with anticipation of a new day. But without healthy feet, I cannot run. Hurts too much.
Short of changing myself into a cool sports car with fast wheels and a glossy paint job, I must transform my exercise routine and make it something else. Running is dependent on strong, pain-free feet. So today I go to the gym (bah!) and exercise under a roof (bah!) and do some cycling and rowing junk. Where is the joy, where is the natural world, where is the running? The transformation is not of myself but simply how I do things.
Seems to me that change does not have to be wholesale to accomplish the goals. Change, transformation, altering certain things can make a significant difference in the outcomes. Change can be in diet, in life patterns, in thought-processing, in certain goals, and in apporaches to relationships, learning, behavior, and practice. It makes no sense to do the same thing in the same way over and over. Transforming yourself or even an institution does not have to mean changing your DNA (although some of that could occur I suppose, especially if you are a transformer), but it can mean changing the way you do something or seeking after alternate ways to deliver the same outcomes.
For me the transformation is to keep exercising but to do so in ways that save my feet! I sure don't like change though. It is always easiest to do the same thing in the same way. Sadly, it usually means the same results.
Speaking of defeat--my feet hurt. Or to say it another way--Duh feet (defeat) hurt! Okay, silly pun I know and seems rather incongruous with transformers. These massive machines with mechanical things all over them alter their shape to become other kinds of things--cars, trucks, tanks, gun things, and monster snake-like animals. They have eyes though and are vulnerable in their eyes. Also when they die or lose limbs, they kind of bleed odd red substance that may be blood or red oil maybe. Not sure. But it comes back to this--they transform. I may need to transform my exercise routine.
I have bruised my heel on one foot and the balls of my foot on the other. I enjoy running with the wind blowing on my face, the sun coming up over the horizon, the animals waking up and making sounds, the smells both good and bad, that permeate the natural world, the beautiful subleties of nature surrounding me with the glisten of dew, the slight breeze gently moving the blades of grass, the warming of the temperature, and the vastness of the sky as it shines with anticipation of a new day. But without healthy feet, I cannot run. Hurts too much.
Short of changing myself into a cool sports car with fast wheels and a glossy paint job, I must transform my exercise routine and make it something else. Running is dependent on strong, pain-free feet. So today I go to the gym (bah!) and exercise under a roof (bah!) and do some cycling and rowing junk. Where is the joy, where is the natural world, where is the running? The transformation is not of myself but simply how I do things.
Seems to me that change does not have to be wholesale to accomplish the goals. Change, transformation, altering certain things can make a significant difference in the outcomes. Change can be in diet, in life patterns, in thought-processing, in certain goals, and in apporaches to relationships, learning, behavior, and practice. It makes no sense to do the same thing in the same way over and over. Transforming yourself or even an institution does not have to mean changing your DNA (although some of that could occur I suppose, especially if you are a transformer), but it can mean changing the way you do something or seeking after alternate ways to deliver the same outcomes.
For me the transformation is to keep exercising but to do so in ways that save my feet! I sure don't like change though. It is always easiest to do the same thing in the same way. Sadly, it usually means the same results.
Saturday, August 06, 2011
Dry Ramblings
The dry weather seems to be affecting all of us lately. This area of Texas is as dry as I have ever experienced. The grass at our place is brown and the trees are struggling. We are on water restrictions now and the attitude is one of fear for the future. Without water, we cannot sustain the crops, the animals, or even our lives. It is an essential ingredient for living. Somehow I think too that the lack of water has zapped our energy. I find myself less productive in general due to the hot dry weather. Going outside feels like a wasteland and the beast of heat seems to be burden of depression working to infiltrate every pore, oppressing all in its path. It is just no fun at all.
Went to see Captain America the other day and was disappointed. Felt like a 4th grade comic book to me overall. I suppose it was well-done, energetic, lots of action, heroic, and intense, but also the emotional content was immature and shallow. Just another action film with too many computer graphics, flying things, kicking, shooting, getting the bad guys, etc. Kind of tired of the genre I guess.
I sure like the music of the Gettys. Keith and Krysten Getty continue to write and sing great songs of the faith. Their music is contemporary but retains the qualities of the great hymns. Melodic, textually driven, catchy, and creative, I like singing and leading their music. Speaking of music, I am bored with my playlist on my iPhone. Same old, same old. I am ready to listen to new things and seek out new sounds. Nothing is more boring to me than hearing and singing the same music over and over. Familiarity can breed respect and love but it can also breed contempt. Time to find something new.
This reminds me though of the great story, Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The King grows weary of the same kind of weather--rain, sunshine, snow, hail and urges his wisemen to invent something new. So they invent Oobleck, green globby things that eventually ruin the land and the people. Only when he apologizes does the Oobleck disappear. I hope my desire for new music does not end up like Oobleck. I suppose temperance for the new is always wise!
My running in the mornings is fairly consistent now but not quite what I seek. My goal is to run 5 miles a day, but I really struggle to make 4 every other day. Just not ready for the level of fitness 5 miles requires. But my heart rate is now below 60 and I generally feel energetic. Yet the darn feet hurt everyday also. It does take some kind of personal drive to run in the mornings. The easiest thing is to sit in my easy chair thinking of easy things. Running forces me to find something deeper inside me to come out. But it really is not all that fun. Is it really good for me?
No more overly processed, plastic tasting food. I almost cannot stand the idea of eating at a fast food restaurant these days. I think a diet of bread, water, leafy greens, fruits, fish, and other kind of organic foods is better. But finding good fish in this area is a toughie. We are pretty far from the ocean!
Kind of sad right now over Robert Parker. I think I have read every book he has written, or close to it. What a fine writer. On one level, his books are mystery/thrillers with plenty of action and violence. But on another level, his books are psychological and perceptive with a kind of social moralism not often found in action stories. Good stuff for sure.
Went to see Captain America the other day and was disappointed. Felt like a 4th grade comic book to me overall. I suppose it was well-done, energetic, lots of action, heroic, and intense, but also the emotional content was immature and shallow. Just another action film with too many computer graphics, flying things, kicking, shooting, getting the bad guys, etc. Kind of tired of the genre I guess.
I sure like the music of the Gettys. Keith and Krysten Getty continue to write and sing great songs of the faith. Their music is contemporary but retains the qualities of the great hymns. Melodic, textually driven, catchy, and creative, I like singing and leading their music. Speaking of music, I am bored with my playlist on my iPhone. Same old, same old. I am ready to listen to new things and seek out new sounds. Nothing is more boring to me than hearing and singing the same music over and over. Familiarity can breed respect and love but it can also breed contempt. Time to find something new.
This reminds me though of the great story, Bartholomew and the Oobleck. The King grows weary of the same kind of weather--rain, sunshine, snow, hail and urges his wisemen to invent something new. So they invent Oobleck, green globby things that eventually ruin the land and the people. Only when he apologizes does the Oobleck disappear. I hope my desire for new music does not end up like Oobleck. I suppose temperance for the new is always wise!
My running in the mornings is fairly consistent now but not quite what I seek. My goal is to run 5 miles a day, but I really struggle to make 4 every other day. Just not ready for the level of fitness 5 miles requires. But my heart rate is now below 60 and I generally feel energetic. Yet the darn feet hurt everyday also. It does take some kind of personal drive to run in the mornings. The easiest thing is to sit in my easy chair thinking of easy things. Running forces me to find something deeper inside me to come out. But it really is not all that fun. Is it really good for me?
No more overly processed, plastic tasting food. I almost cannot stand the idea of eating at a fast food restaurant these days. I think a diet of bread, water, leafy greens, fruits, fish, and other kind of organic foods is better. But finding good fish in this area is a toughie. We are pretty far from the ocean!
Kind of sad right now over Robert Parker. I think I have read every book he has written, or close to it. What a fine writer. On one level, his books are mystery/thrillers with plenty of action and violence. But on another level, his books are psychological and perceptive with a kind of social moralism not often found in action stories. Good stuff for sure.
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Branded for Life
In 1846 during the Mexican War, when President Polk sent an army into Mexico to end the tyranny and stop the takeover of Santa Anna, General Winfield Scott along with officers Robert E. Lee, Thomas Jackson, Franklin Pierce, and Ullyses Grant, led troops to a difficult but resounding victory, ending the reign of Santa Anna. Like all wars, there were times of bloodshed, fear, confusion, sorrow, challenges, and moments of great elation. For all its glory (if there is glory in war), unfortunately during one of the final battles, nearly 80 soldiers deserted the army.
We are not sure why there are deserters in war. Perhaps fear of death, or maybe even abhorence of killing, maybe indifference as to the outcome, maybe a girlfriend back home, maybe a broad questioning of why there are wars, fighting, death. Apparently many of the deserters were not of American descent and had migrated from foreign countries only to find themselves in the army, fighting a war over which they had no interest in being killed or killing for some strange mysterious property rights dispute they did not understand. Whatever the reason, 80 soldiers deserted. 50 of them were hanged due to their lack of contrite behavior, their satisfaction with their decision, their own indifference. But 30 of them displayed great humility and gave lip service to their own culpability and shame for deserting. General Scott decided to spare their lives but leave them branded forever. These 30 men were branded with the letter D on their cheek to display to the world for the rest of their lives that they were deserters.
What did those 30 do for a living after leaving the army? Did they live prosperous lives, terrible lives, isolated from humanity, productive lives, lives of despair and agony? We have no record of those 30 and it would only be conjecture to imagine their lives as branded deserters. Maybe they would have preferred death over permanent label or maybe it didn't matter all that much to them? Maybe the physical mark has no bearing on the character inside and nothing changed about the branded people. Since there is little to gain from this type of hypothetical theorizing, let's spend a moment of self-reflection.
What would your brand be if you had one? Is a tattoo a type of brand, a sign displayed for everyone to see? In some ways, are we all branded by our appearance? Tall, short, bald, blonde, glasses, beard, eye color, and the list continues. We carry with us a mark of some kind everywhere we go. It may not be a big "D" on the cheek, but it is something, and that something somehow, perhaps wrongly, represents something of ourselves to others.
For the Christian, we cannot nor should we brand a big "C" on our cheek for all to see, yet in my mind we should try to carry our faith with us everywhere we go. Not in an overt, offensive manner but rather in a comfortable display of who we are. That brand may be a smile, a sparkle, a joy, or a look of confidence, or contentment, or compassion, perhaps even courage. There are many ways to demonstrate the love of God in our lives. As the hymn says, maybe it is time to "Let Others See Jesus in You."
We are not sure why there are deserters in war. Perhaps fear of death, or maybe even abhorence of killing, maybe indifference as to the outcome, maybe a girlfriend back home, maybe a broad questioning of why there are wars, fighting, death. Apparently many of the deserters were not of American descent and had migrated from foreign countries only to find themselves in the army, fighting a war over which they had no interest in being killed or killing for some strange mysterious property rights dispute they did not understand. Whatever the reason, 80 soldiers deserted. 50 of them were hanged due to their lack of contrite behavior, their satisfaction with their decision, their own indifference. But 30 of them displayed great humility and gave lip service to their own culpability and shame for deserting. General Scott decided to spare their lives but leave them branded forever. These 30 men were branded with the letter D on their cheek to display to the world for the rest of their lives that they were deserters.
What did those 30 do for a living after leaving the army? Did they live prosperous lives, terrible lives, isolated from humanity, productive lives, lives of despair and agony? We have no record of those 30 and it would only be conjecture to imagine their lives as branded deserters. Maybe they would have preferred death over permanent label or maybe it didn't matter all that much to them? Maybe the physical mark has no bearing on the character inside and nothing changed about the branded people. Since there is little to gain from this type of hypothetical theorizing, let's spend a moment of self-reflection.
What would your brand be if you had one? Is a tattoo a type of brand, a sign displayed for everyone to see? In some ways, are we all branded by our appearance? Tall, short, bald, blonde, glasses, beard, eye color, and the list continues. We carry with us a mark of some kind everywhere we go. It may not be a big "D" on the cheek, but it is something, and that something somehow, perhaps wrongly, represents something of ourselves to others.
For the Christian, we cannot nor should we brand a big "C" on our cheek for all to see, yet in my mind we should try to carry our faith with us everywhere we go. Not in an overt, offensive manner but rather in a comfortable display of who we are. That brand may be a smile, a sparkle, a joy, or a look of confidence, or contentment, or compassion, perhaps even courage. There are many ways to demonstrate the love of God in our lives. As the hymn says, maybe it is time to "Let Others See Jesus in You."
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Keys, winds, and strings
Many years ago a good friend of mine who is a very fine euphonium player and currently director of bands at a University in North Carolina mentioned that brass and woodwinds sound better playing in keys with flats. I asked him why he believed that and he reminded me that most instruments are built in flat keys.
For all its complexity and nearly unlimited combination of sounds, music--at least in our American world, given that other nationalities have a broader scale--is comprised of 12 tones before beginning to repeat itself. Because of the natural harmonic series, something that still gives me pause as I reflect on its remarkable properties, after 12 chromatic tones, the pitches sound the same except higher or lower. This is way we have a low A that sounds quite similar to a high A. The lower pitches use a slower vibration rate than the high pitches. When the vibrations double, the pitch sounds an octave higher. Although our system of 12 chromatic pitches has flaws and does not tell the full musical story, it is a fairly established system and gives us the variety of sound we generally require.
Music does not have to be in one particular key or another but most people seem to prefer what we call tonality in music, that is sound with a diatonic foundation to it. Composers and performers often branch out beyond a certain key and alter music chromatically to give it more variety and interest, but in the tonal world of music, they will gravitate to one key by the end of the song or piece. If all music were in the same key all the time, our ears would become desensitized to the same basic sound and we would likely lose interest in music. Being that boredom is the steroid of creativity, we enjoy hearing a variety of keys in music.
Back to woodwinds and brass sounding better in flat keys. I believe it is true. Instruments have the ability to play all the chromatic notes and great players can play comfortably in any key, but because woodwinds and brass are built at the factory in flat keys, the open sounds of these instruments provide more resonance than do sharp keys. Yet the converse is true for string instruments. They are built with open sounds that support sharp keys. This is why bands often play in flat keys and strings often play in sharp keys. The danger comes in the problem of all bands sounding similar due to their predictable usage of keys and all string music sounding similar for the same reason.
Now the issue comes when we mix the two. Excellent composers striving for musical variety yet still getting the best out of the musicians often insist on demanding performance that encompasses all keys and all notes available. This makes great music both challenging and musically satisfying. In the case of My Fair Lady, when we are in flat keys, the predominantly woodwind and brass sound is solid, full, comfortable to the ear. When we jump into sharp keys, the instrumentalists who are all professionals, do not sound quite as resonant, once again confirming the theory that winds and brass sound better in flat keys.
But as all great art must have tension, so too is music reliant on tension and repose. Thus this great musical, My Fair Lady, is strong due to its vast expression of sound of various keys. I applaud the composer and the arranger who put the music together. Now it is our responsibility to perform the music to the best of our ability regardless of the keys or the technical challenges demanded.
But bands need to beware of the problem of putting on the same clothes day in and day out over years. Eventually the clothes wear out and appear dull. So too is the use of the same few keys in band music. Thank goodness for aural variety as presented by great music. Strings have helped avoid the trappings of musical boredom.
For all its complexity and nearly unlimited combination of sounds, music--at least in our American world, given that other nationalities have a broader scale--is comprised of 12 tones before beginning to repeat itself. Because of the natural harmonic series, something that still gives me pause as I reflect on its remarkable properties, after 12 chromatic tones, the pitches sound the same except higher or lower. This is way we have a low A that sounds quite similar to a high A. The lower pitches use a slower vibration rate than the high pitches. When the vibrations double, the pitch sounds an octave higher. Although our system of 12 chromatic pitches has flaws and does not tell the full musical story, it is a fairly established system and gives us the variety of sound we generally require.
Music does not have to be in one particular key or another but most people seem to prefer what we call tonality in music, that is sound with a diatonic foundation to it. Composers and performers often branch out beyond a certain key and alter music chromatically to give it more variety and interest, but in the tonal world of music, they will gravitate to one key by the end of the song or piece. If all music were in the same key all the time, our ears would become desensitized to the same basic sound and we would likely lose interest in music. Being that boredom is the steroid of creativity, we enjoy hearing a variety of keys in music.
Back to woodwinds and brass sounding better in flat keys. I believe it is true. Instruments have the ability to play all the chromatic notes and great players can play comfortably in any key, but because woodwinds and brass are built at the factory in flat keys, the open sounds of these instruments provide more resonance than do sharp keys. Yet the converse is true for string instruments. They are built with open sounds that support sharp keys. This is why bands often play in flat keys and strings often play in sharp keys. The danger comes in the problem of all bands sounding similar due to their predictable usage of keys and all string music sounding similar for the same reason.
Now the issue comes when we mix the two. Excellent composers striving for musical variety yet still getting the best out of the musicians often insist on demanding performance that encompasses all keys and all notes available. This makes great music both challenging and musically satisfying. In the case of My Fair Lady, when we are in flat keys, the predominantly woodwind and brass sound is solid, full, comfortable to the ear. When we jump into sharp keys, the instrumentalists who are all professionals, do not sound quite as resonant, once again confirming the theory that winds and brass sound better in flat keys.
But as all great art must have tension, so too is music reliant on tension and repose. Thus this great musical, My Fair Lady, is strong due to its vast expression of sound of various keys. I applaud the composer and the arranger who put the music together. Now it is our responsibility to perform the music to the best of our ability regardless of the keys or the technical challenges demanded.
But bands need to beware of the problem of putting on the same clothes day in and day out over years. Eventually the clothes wear out and appear dull. So too is the use of the same few keys in band music. Thank goodness for aural variety as presented by great music. Strings have helped avoid the trappings of musical boredom.
Friday, July 15, 2011
My Fair Lady
Once again this summer I am directing a musical. It is difficult, long, demanding, stressful, and I absolutely love it! I now have several musicals under my repertoire belt and feel confident I could direct almost any show now. The years have allowed me to direct Fiddler on the Roof, Annie, Sound of Music, Oklahoma, Music Man, parts of Camelot, and Cinderella not to mention several operas. It has all been fun, educational, enriching, hard work, and at times deeply meaningful. It is a heavy responsibility to determine the right kind of orchestra and the personnel for the orchestra. Some shows need more strings--a tall order in our area--whereas other shows need more winds and rhythm. Some shows require woodwinds to double on saxophones but others need a more "classical" woodwind approach. Brass players usually need to be well-rounded players who can play a little jazz, show style, and classical style.
Forming the orchestra depends on the show as well as the available personnel but somehow each year it all comes together. Normally I suspect a town the size of Brownwood would be challenged to do a full-length musical, but in Brownwood the talent is deep. We hear great players, great singers, and impressive acting. The sets are lavish, efficient, and completely appropriate to the show. Lighting and sound, always challenging, are nevertheless done well. This year the My Fair Lady production is amazing. A well-crafted, classy show with lavish costumes, fastidious and accurate sets, and acting demands that would challenge professionals. On top of that, the music is wonderful and difficult, requiring full range and styles. The orchestra is asked to play under the singers but maintain the stylistic demands of the score.
Aside from some lengthy dialog and emotional ambiguity of the story line, My Fair Lady zings along at a fast pace with a myriad of great songs and serious moments balanced by hilarity. Tender love songs are juxtaposed with energetic happy songs only to be interrupted by yet another song of anger or concern. All comes together to form one of the great musicals of the 20th century. I am blessed to be the conductor of the orchestra and blessed to be part of this terrific show.
Forming the orchestra depends on the show as well as the available personnel but somehow each year it all comes together. Normally I suspect a town the size of Brownwood would be challenged to do a full-length musical, but in Brownwood the talent is deep. We hear great players, great singers, and impressive acting. The sets are lavish, efficient, and completely appropriate to the show. Lighting and sound, always challenging, are nevertheless done well. This year the My Fair Lady production is amazing. A well-crafted, classy show with lavish costumes, fastidious and accurate sets, and acting demands that would challenge professionals. On top of that, the music is wonderful and difficult, requiring full range and styles. The orchestra is asked to play under the singers but maintain the stylistic demands of the score.
Aside from some lengthy dialog and emotional ambiguity of the story line, My Fair Lady zings along at a fast pace with a myriad of great songs and serious moments balanced by hilarity. Tender love songs are juxtaposed with energetic happy songs only to be interrupted by yet another song of anger or concern. All comes together to form one of the great musicals of the 20th century. I am blessed to be the conductor of the orchestra and blessed to be part of this terrific show.
Sunday, July 10, 2011
A little righteous irritation
Getting up early Saturday morning, going for a fairly short run, and deciding to take care of a few things, I jumped in the truck and headed for town. But my jaunt ended up irritating me with several of my pet peeves about the modern world. Stopping at McDonalds, and I must apologize to my brother who is a big McDonald's fan due to the quick but consistently cheap and flavorful food, I ordered a yogurt parfait and a sausage biscuit and a small orange juice. It was a small order and I paid cash for the food, receiving a little change in the change tray, and was handed the blasted receipt. I didn't want the receipt. I hate receipts. Just a stupid piece of paper that ends up crumpled in the trash. Granted it had my order number on it which the cashier had stated, but I memorized that number quickly and had not need for the receipt. I suppose that were I on a business trip, I might need it for tax purposes or record keeping, but a quick glance around revealed that everyone in the restaurant threw the stupid waste of time receipt in the trash.
I know the cashiers are taught to give receipts to everyone and often we see a sign that says something to the effect of "If we fail to issue you a receipt, your meal will be free," but to me this is a huge waste of paper and time and energy. I really would like the choice to ask that I not be given a receipt. In fact, the next time I order something I am going to state, "No receipt" just to see what happens.
But I got over that moment of irritation and sat down to eat my food. The orange juice was very good which surprised me considering how lame was the sausage biscuit. It tasted and felt like some sort of rubberized piece of vinyl sandwiched by thin plastic flakes disguised as bread. The yogurt had some good fruit in it but lacked the zing of good yogurt and seemed mostly like instant milk developed from powder. I must admit to being a little bit of a food snob these days and prefer organic tasting food not overly preserved. Still, I am the one who chose to stop there and eat the inexpensive, though rather generic food. My choice for sure, and I will probably do so again, and I will probably keep complaining about it!
My last errand of the morning took me to the drug store for some necessary items. I didn't get much but as I was checking out, the inevitable question arose, "Do you have your plus card?" I quickly and a little emphatically said no. The friendly cashier said, "Would you like one, it is free?" I again said no. I finished paying and left. But I am sick and tired of the stupid card thing. Some stores give you a "discount" for the products by presenting your card. Other stores allow for the "earning of points" which supposedly will give you free stuff later. Other places simply issue a set of coupons for other items in the store. But the truth is that the card is a tracking device. It monitors and records your purchases in order to provide the kind of products customers are seeking as well as to find a way to get you back in the store using appropriate coupons to your needs. Now all that sounds innocuous until you realize they are actually spying on you. It erodes your freedom and categorizes you in a funny sort of way. You become a thing, a consumer, a spender of money and they are going to use this great card to help you spend more money.
Okay, enough ranting. My irritations are not unusual and I have contributed to them by frequenting those establishments. But I also have a right to complain about it and a right to find other places to spend my money.
I know the cashiers are taught to give receipts to everyone and often we see a sign that says something to the effect of "If we fail to issue you a receipt, your meal will be free," but to me this is a huge waste of paper and time and energy. I really would like the choice to ask that I not be given a receipt. In fact, the next time I order something I am going to state, "No receipt" just to see what happens.
But I got over that moment of irritation and sat down to eat my food. The orange juice was very good which surprised me considering how lame was the sausage biscuit. It tasted and felt like some sort of rubberized piece of vinyl sandwiched by thin plastic flakes disguised as bread. The yogurt had some good fruit in it but lacked the zing of good yogurt and seemed mostly like instant milk developed from powder. I must admit to being a little bit of a food snob these days and prefer organic tasting food not overly preserved. Still, I am the one who chose to stop there and eat the inexpensive, though rather generic food. My choice for sure, and I will probably do so again, and I will probably keep complaining about it!
My last errand of the morning took me to the drug store for some necessary items. I didn't get much but as I was checking out, the inevitable question arose, "Do you have your plus card?" I quickly and a little emphatically said no. The friendly cashier said, "Would you like one, it is free?" I again said no. I finished paying and left. But I am sick and tired of the stupid card thing. Some stores give you a "discount" for the products by presenting your card. Other stores allow for the "earning of points" which supposedly will give you free stuff later. Other places simply issue a set of coupons for other items in the store. But the truth is that the card is a tracking device. It monitors and records your purchases in order to provide the kind of products customers are seeking as well as to find a way to get you back in the store using appropriate coupons to your needs. Now all that sounds innocuous until you realize they are actually spying on you. It erodes your freedom and categorizes you in a funny sort of way. You become a thing, a consumer, a spender of money and they are going to use this great card to help you spend more money.
Okay, enough ranting. My irritations are not unusual and I have contributed to them by frequenting those establishments. But I also have a right to complain about it and a right to find other places to spend my money.
Wednesday, July 06, 2011
Years of students
Partly due to facebook and partly due to getting older, many of my former students have been getting in touch with me and saying hello. Some are in music, some are not. Many are now parents and meeting the obligations of families, paying bills, working, and being productive citizens. Some have remained single. All this to say they simply became people! Yes, of course they were people before, but in my role as a teacher, my responsiblity was to teach them the subject matter at hand, whether that be horn, band, conducting, composition, etc. But maybe, just maybe in the process of teaching the subject, we also learned about each other and learned how to be better musicians, to be better people, to be productive, successful, disciplined, organized, and compassionate.
And there is no doubt that I learned more and continue to learn more from my students than I have taught them. From my students I learned to find joy in others' success, to be sensitive, to understand, to see the world broadly, to respect all kinds of people, and to embrace our commonality as well as our differences. When I think back on Steven, Laurence, Kevin, John, and many others from the Louisiana days, I am hoping they are doing well. Great people and very focused on success. I also remember a talented young man named Chris and another talented young lady named Kristine. Both students of mine back in the 80s.
Then onward to Stanton, Texas where I became a band director and taught all the instruments. Along the way, I kept teaching horn and had several successful students such as Sally, Laurie, Misty, and Stephanie. Laura and Sande were great too not to mention the countless band students I taught such as Matt, Kenneth, Dustin, and Stacy. Amy came over from another school for lessons and occasionally there were drop-ins looking for a teacher. Those were some outstanding years of working with wonderful students. Kacie, Belinda, Matt, Jan, Jason, and Brandie were just a few of the wonderful students from those years.
Then my years at Howard Payne as horn teacher and band director where Kenneth grew to be one of the stars and is now a successful conductor. And of course Sally, Sam, Lydia, Alex, Kailey, Taylor, James, Crissy, Misty, Emily, Mary, and for a brief time Jeff, all great talents. In some ways Cara ended up being the top player since she now plays in the New York Philharmonic. Now a couple of bright high school students come to take lessons and I certainly expect great things from Cody and Karley!
Can't ignore all the band directors, elementary music teachers, choir directors, orchestra directors, pianists, and music ministers who were in my classes and who are now teaching and influencing countless lives. Preston is amazing and deserves accolades for his incredible teaching skills. But I am just as proud of Pedro, Rob, Shannon, Liz, Becky, John and Scot and Jason, Riley, Joe, and Michelle. Lacey was an awesome teacher and I suppose I can a thread of credit for Olivia's success.
But truthfully while my students mean everything to me, my success as a teacher is due to my own teachers, parents, and all those who helped me along the way. The list of teachers who made a difference in my life is lengthy including Kirke McKenzie, John Faraone, Mike Hatfield, Lawson Hager, Loyd Hawthorne, Lowell Greer, Orlando Calderon, Celeste Myall, Bill Woods, Dan McAlexander, Tom Lott, and of course my parents. Really this list could go on and on naming the many influences in my life. And I would suspect each person mentioned could mention several dozen teachers who influenced them. No teacher operates in a vacuum or on an island and the world remains interconnected through generations, history, and the future.
I give thanks to my teachers and I give thanks to my students. We have shaped each other and grown in the process. Sure there were challenges along the way but it was all worth the effort as we work together making a difference in lives.
And there is no doubt that I learned more and continue to learn more from my students than I have taught them. From my students I learned to find joy in others' success, to be sensitive, to understand, to see the world broadly, to respect all kinds of people, and to embrace our commonality as well as our differences. When I think back on Steven, Laurence, Kevin, John, and many others from the Louisiana days, I am hoping they are doing well. Great people and very focused on success. I also remember a talented young man named Chris and another talented young lady named Kristine. Both students of mine back in the 80s.
Then onward to Stanton, Texas where I became a band director and taught all the instruments. Along the way, I kept teaching horn and had several successful students such as Sally, Laurie, Misty, and Stephanie. Laura and Sande were great too not to mention the countless band students I taught such as Matt, Kenneth, Dustin, and Stacy. Amy came over from another school for lessons and occasionally there were drop-ins looking for a teacher. Those were some outstanding years of working with wonderful students. Kacie, Belinda, Matt, Jan, Jason, and Brandie were just a few of the wonderful students from those years.
Then my years at Howard Payne as horn teacher and band director where Kenneth grew to be one of the stars and is now a successful conductor. And of course Sally, Sam, Lydia, Alex, Kailey, Taylor, James, Crissy, Misty, Emily, Mary, and for a brief time Jeff, all great talents. In some ways Cara ended up being the top player since she now plays in the New York Philharmonic. Now a couple of bright high school students come to take lessons and I certainly expect great things from Cody and Karley!
Can't ignore all the band directors, elementary music teachers, choir directors, orchestra directors, pianists, and music ministers who were in my classes and who are now teaching and influencing countless lives. Preston is amazing and deserves accolades for his incredible teaching skills. But I am just as proud of Pedro, Rob, Shannon, Liz, Becky, John and Scot and Jason, Riley, Joe, and Michelle. Lacey was an awesome teacher and I suppose I can a thread of credit for Olivia's success.
But truthfully while my students mean everything to me, my success as a teacher is due to my own teachers, parents, and all those who helped me along the way. The list of teachers who made a difference in my life is lengthy including Kirke McKenzie, John Faraone, Mike Hatfield, Lawson Hager, Loyd Hawthorne, Lowell Greer, Orlando Calderon, Celeste Myall, Bill Woods, Dan McAlexander, Tom Lott, and of course my parents. Really this list could go on and on naming the many influences in my life. And I would suspect each person mentioned could mention several dozen teachers who influenced them. No teacher operates in a vacuum or on an island and the world remains interconnected through generations, history, and the future.
I give thanks to my teachers and I give thanks to my students. We have shaped each other and grown in the process. Sure there were challenges along the way but it was all worth the effort as we work together making a difference in lives.
Tuesday, July 05, 2011
Church, good grief
It was with interest I read about the ousting of famed pastor Robert Schuller from the board. Having created a religious empire of sorts in California with a theology of trusting in the Lord, finding the good in all people, and demonstrating self-worth through positive thinking and lots of smiles, Schuller and his son are no longer a part of their original church. Schuller's daughters made some dramatic changes to the church, resulting in a drop in attendance, a decline in giving, and creditors calling for payback. Dependent on giving by members, if the people are not happy, the giving disappears. This is always true.
What went wrong? Was it a unique problem to that church? Or is it simply another manifestation of the two major issues facing the church today? I can sum up most problems with two words--style and inclusion (my analytical son will likely point out that I used three words!). According to the news article, Daddy Schuller practiced a form of worship in the old traditional model of hymns with an organ but daughters Schuller wanted something more contemporary and current. Daddy Schuller accepted all people in the church regardless of their sinful practices. Daughters Schuller wanted to exclude homosexuals based on Biblical principles. Style and Inclusion.
And the church divided on these issues, resulting in irreconcilable differences. Who was right? Which camp was the correct one? Maybe both are right and both are wrong. Or maybe there is no right or wrong, maybe just opinions and preferences. Maybe it essential to establish our personal standards, dig in our heels, and never sway from our perceived self-excellence. Or maybe we should have no standards of excellence and accept everything and anything in church? On the spectrum of total tolerance versus rigid behavioral expectations, what is the Christian approach? Or as Francis Schaeffer asks, "How should we then live?"
I adopt a personal standard that is based on my upbringing, my worldview, my own spiritual journey, and application of the Word. Yet I also seek truth and wisdom from many other sources, drawing from an eclectic mix of nationalities, religions, and practices. I contend that in some form or another, all of us do this very thing. We are products of our DNA and our environment, and our life experiences shape us and alter us over time. That said, while I do not subscribe to nor embrace homosexuality, I conversely do not disdane those who do. Other than believing it is not the preferred sexual approach and being aware of the Scriptural principal against homosexuality, at the same time I will never disallow nor condemn a practicing homosexual's right to live and worship in the way he or she sees fit. I am against it in philosophy and practice for myself, but also respect the rights of people to be who they wish to be as long as my own rights are not violated. Furthermore I posture that the church is the place for everyone and to exclude those not like ourselves is to create a small-minded, narrow theatrical facade with no more purpose than to be a kind of prison of like people. I am not interested in that church.
Regarding worship styles, I believe I am consistent in my views. Preferring an organ led hymn-based service, I have learned to enjoy and yes worship to other kinds of music. I am glad that people enjoy other kinds of music and remain convinced that it is our right to like what we like and to worship the way we want to worship. As a musician, I do tend to be rather opinionated about music and have great respect for those hymns with quality text and interesting music. And I do believe that the finest hymns are superior to the finest contemporary choruses, at least in terms of musical complexity and theological depth. But the poor hymns, and I recognize this is a subjective statement, are of little value, causing a higher regard for most modern choruses. In the end, regardless of one's opinion or preference, it belies a loving, tolerant practice to end a church over preference and over the inability to find common ground in worship styles.
It pains me to hear of a major church split or the closing of a church over these two issues, both of which are minor in the broad perspective of worshiping God. Church may indeed be frustrating and we will never agree on everything, but we can learn to tolerate our differences and turn the grief into good. It is worth holding onto the institution of the church. Each Sunday you may stand beside a homosexual or a radical contemporary or someone not like yourself, but I urge you to stay standing and remain firm to yourself while accepting others.
What went wrong? Was it a unique problem to that church? Or is it simply another manifestation of the two major issues facing the church today? I can sum up most problems with two words--style and inclusion (my analytical son will likely point out that I used three words!). According to the news article, Daddy Schuller practiced a form of worship in the old traditional model of hymns with an organ but daughters Schuller wanted something more contemporary and current. Daddy Schuller accepted all people in the church regardless of their sinful practices. Daughters Schuller wanted to exclude homosexuals based on Biblical principles. Style and Inclusion.
And the church divided on these issues, resulting in irreconcilable differences. Who was right? Which camp was the correct one? Maybe both are right and both are wrong. Or maybe there is no right or wrong, maybe just opinions and preferences. Maybe it essential to establish our personal standards, dig in our heels, and never sway from our perceived self-excellence. Or maybe we should have no standards of excellence and accept everything and anything in church? On the spectrum of total tolerance versus rigid behavioral expectations, what is the Christian approach? Or as Francis Schaeffer asks, "How should we then live?"
I adopt a personal standard that is based on my upbringing, my worldview, my own spiritual journey, and application of the Word. Yet I also seek truth and wisdom from many other sources, drawing from an eclectic mix of nationalities, religions, and practices. I contend that in some form or another, all of us do this very thing. We are products of our DNA and our environment, and our life experiences shape us and alter us over time. That said, while I do not subscribe to nor embrace homosexuality, I conversely do not disdane those who do. Other than believing it is not the preferred sexual approach and being aware of the Scriptural principal against homosexuality, at the same time I will never disallow nor condemn a practicing homosexual's right to live and worship in the way he or she sees fit. I am against it in philosophy and practice for myself, but also respect the rights of people to be who they wish to be as long as my own rights are not violated. Furthermore I posture that the church is the place for everyone and to exclude those not like ourselves is to create a small-minded, narrow theatrical facade with no more purpose than to be a kind of prison of like people. I am not interested in that church.
Regarding worship styles, I believe I am consistent in my views. Preferring an organ led hymn-based service, I have learned to enjoy and yes worship to other kinds of music. I am glad that people enjoy other kinds of music and remain convinced that it is our right to like what we like and to worship the way we want to worship. As a musician, I do tend to be rather opinionated about music and have great respect for those hymns with quality text and interesting music. And I do believe that the finest hymns are superior to the finest contemporary choruses, at least in terms of musical complexity and theological depth. But the poor hymns, and I recognize this is a subjective statement, are of little value, causing a higher regard for most modern choruses. In the end, regardless of one's opinion or preference, it belies a loving, tolerant practice to end a church over preference and over the inability to find common ground in worship styles.
It pains me to hear of a major church split or the closing of a church over these two issues, both of which are minor in the broad perspective of worshiping God. Church may indeed be frustrating and we will never agree on everything, but we can learn to tolerate our differences and turn the grief into good. It is worth holding onto the institution of the church. Each Sunday you may stand beside a homosexual or a radical contemporary or someone not like yourself, but I urge you to stay standing and remain firm to yourself while accepting others.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)